The Good Wife Forums

Sunday 9:00 PM on CBSIn Season

Will looks to be breaking the canons again -- disbarred this time?

  • Avatar of bmoshier

    bmoshier

    [1]Dec 2, 2012
    • member since: 03/01/06
    • level: 46
    • rank: Lothar of the Hill People
    • posts: 1,421

    Hey!


    Two items. One is about Will and the two criminal cases (related to Will).


    I live in Illinois, Chicago actually, and have a "little" knowledge of the law. In the episode "Battle of the Proxies" (Season 4, Episode 10) towards the end, Will offers to help in the appeal process of man convicted in a down state county (Minooka). He says: "Our case is over. Our guy got convicted. Our duty's discharged." First, his "guy" can appeal and his duty could include the appeal and even if his firm isn't doing the appeal they have a duty to NOT give out anything (e.g. evidence, notes, etc), which can negatively affect his appeal. Should he actually share with anyone "stuff" his firm found out, which might negatively affect his (former) client's appeal, well, that is ground for action by the bar - and since he's already been suspended, I'd say this would be ground for disbarment, should he actually do it.


    As for the appeals, they both have - IMHO - decent chance at appeal, as they can point to the case of the other person as to why they're not guilty. You'll note neither prosecution team tried to tie them together, but instead said each person acted alone. You'll notice it was the "People/State of Illinois," which convicted them both and even the state/people say they can't both be guilty. A joint appeal would be best, on this issue, with other points taken individually.


    I'll also note Will said to Alica they were to vigorously defend their client, which is correct - thus his now back tracking seems out of place. What he might have done, though, was have Alica just not show up once they realized their client might be / was guilty.



    Finally, to those who say this is just a show and the above stuff about Will is only for entertainment, I'll point out that Perry Mason had great excitement and the writers followed the law. "It is simply a lazy writer who doesn't take the time to be both factual and entertaining."

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kanniballl

    kanniballl

    [2]Dec 6, 2012
    • member since: 07/02/03
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,312

    IANAL but...


    There were facts they could provide that would not directly impact their client.


    For example: the soil sample at the bottom of the shoe. They found out in the 11th hour that it could have come from the guy's job, instead of the implied crime scene like Alicia provided the prosecutor.


    So the whole mountain/blanket thing is probably off the table...


    But there are probably other things they could point out that wouldn't necessarily point back to their client. Meanwhile one of my favorite actresses can come forward for the Chicago prosecution with more evidence they have.


    Though by getting the guy off, that would technically hurt their client on appeal but I don't think any judge or panel would hold them to that. Since we only got a little bit of air time about the trial which I imagine went on for more than 30 minutes there might be other stuff.



    It's possible even coming forward with the soil sample could get them in trouble.

    Edited on 12/06/2012 11:30am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.