1. At the beginning of the episode, all the lawyers seemed to be arguing over whose jurisdiction it was, instead of deciding what would be better for everyone's interests. The lawyer whose client died actually kicked him (while lying there dead) because he was mad that he had worked so hard on trying to prove him innocent (all for nothing...in his mind it was all for nothing). That seemed unprofessional and morally incorrect. He obviously cared more about the money than the actual justice/ problem that someone had just been murdered.
2. Secondly, in the court room it seemed as though O'Connell's lawyer was more interested in persuading the jury into believing something that was not necessarily true, but was in the best interest of his client. He was not very interested in finding the truth, and because of this there were a large amount of objections in the court room. He seemed to be telling more of a story, and was not very professional at all.
3. The evidence that ended up proving O'Connell guilty actually had nothing to do with the original case; this was surprising to me. The witness showed how O'Connell was inherently a bad person, yes, but it did not have anything to do with the actual case so I was surprised that the judge allowed it to be used. The judge seemed a little biased, on the side of the innocent of course, but if it had been the other way around I'm not so sure the conviction would have come around so quickly.
No comments:
Post a Comment