S05.E16: 25th Hour

[Chicago Redshirt]

Let me put it another way, in the context of the OJ trial.

 

I believe OJ was guilty. There was a lot of evidence that pointed to OJ's guilt, and common sense suggests that it's easy to picture OJ going from domestic abuse to murderer.

 

However, if I had been on the OJ criminal jury, I would have voted to acquit. There were too many issues with evidence collection and with Fuhrman (and most of the other key cops) committing perjuring to say that OJ's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO. There were numerous tactical mistakes that the prosecution made that I think would allow a reasonable person to say that the prosecution put on a poor case and did not meet its burden.

 

Here, basically the burden is satisfied by a showing that Mike didn't go to law school. The foreman says everyone knew that he didn't. I just can't picture how he would come to the conclusion that Mike didn't go to law school while simultaneously maintaining that the burden wasn't met. It is especially tough to reconcile with the notion that the initial verdict was 11-1 to convict. 

 

Part of that may just be bad storytelling. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Chicago Redshirt

[NJ RadioGuy]

So life imitates art:
 

"A woman used forged documents to pretend to be a lawyer for a decade and was in line to be named partner of a firm when her fraud was discovered late last year, according to charges filed by the state attorney general's office.

 

"Kimberly Kitchen, 45, of James Creek, Pennsylvania, was charged on Thursday with forgery and unauthorized practice of law.

 

"The forgery charge is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in prison; the unauthorized practice charge is a third-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to a year in jail." Both charges were state misdemeanors; not federal felonies. Maybe when she gets outta the Big House she can do a cameo on the show? She'd probably have better chemistry with Mike Ross than Rachel.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3015122/Authorities-Woman-posed-lawyer-partner.html

Edited March 26, 2016 by NJ RadioGuy

[Anela]

I was falling asleep, as the last couple of episodes played on Amazon, and can't remember exact episodes, but how many people did they tell their secret?? There's a reason it's called a secret. 

Also: although Mike may actually be a good man, if I were  in the shoes of Rachel's parents and friends, I would be seriously worried about her, and angry with him, just as they are. She knew what she was getting into, and of course this all happens as he's finally done the right thing, and quit the firm. 

I need to watch the last two episodes properly, but this show is exhausting as a binge-watch. So many maneuvers and too much back-stabbing. 

[Atlanta]

On 3/11/2016 at 11:03 AM, needschocolate said:

The way I see it - the jury members had a feeling that Mike wasn't really a lawyer - they heard a lot of stuff that pointed in that direction, but they didn't get any concrete evidence, Meabwhile, there were a few things on Mike's side, like one witness putting him there, and some explanations (commuting to Harvard from New York, only attending class for the tests) that were very improbable, but technically possible.  

 

Mike didn't have to prove he was a lawyer, Gibbs had to prove that he wasn't and she didn't provide enough proof.  The real question is why she couldn't prove it (and the answer to that is that if makes a better story if Mike takes the plea when he would have been able to walk, than if he took the plea and thereby shaved 5 years off his jail time).  

I'm mega late to the game but as a journalism undergrad, I had an acquaintance who showed up on the first day and got the syllabus and would do tests and turn in papers. He would ace the class when someone like me would attend everyday. I did get a B, at least. His course was notorious. Funny aside is that that prof later went to law school at my uni and eased up. He got a taste of his meds.

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 7:31 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Harvey needs to learn and appreciate the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." The foreman told him that everyone knew that Mike didn't go to law school, but the prosecutor didn't prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. Which of course, I don't understand. Because if everyone knew he didn't go to law school seems like she did prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. But maybe if she had spent less time on random schemes, Gibbs would have won straight up.

 

On ‎11‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 6:32 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Here, basically the burden is satisfied by a showing that Mike didn't go to law school. The foreman says everyone knew that he didn't. I just can't picture how he would come to the conclusion that Mike didn't go to law school while simultaneously maintaining that the burden wasn't met. It is especially tough to reconcile with the notion that the initial verdict was 11-1 to convict. 

At least in the series, the American legal system seems very odd.

To me, it's self-evident that the decision should have been guilty simply because Mike had broken the law by presented himself a lawyer without having a legal right to do so. As for the punishment, it should have been severe if he had done real harm to his clients, but in any case he should have some punishment in order to warn others to do the same. 

But of course Mike's story is really a fairytale like Prince of Foxes by Samuel Shellaberger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Foxes

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 7:31 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Speaking of mom of wrongly convicted guy, i wanted to throw up in my mouth a little when she was talking about how Mike was innocent in his heart. Um...not so much.

I think she meant that, like her son, Mike has no guts to survive in prison.

In the trial she testified that Mike was the only lawyer who cared for his son. But the lawyer's job is to "care" but to present his/her client well. Showing that one cares can help to create a good relationships with a client but feeling too much care can prevent objectivity.

In this case, Mike too much risks and the client, instead of being freed in a couple of years, was threatened to get a life sentence. But of course, being a fairy tale, it ended well. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 7:31 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Rachel's real issue with character and fitness wouldn't be marrying a fraud. It would be that she knew about his fraud and helped him carry it out.

Yes, now she only insists that the others should see what a great guy he is and that he should have faith in himself, instead of admitting that he should take responsibility for his actions. In addition, she should make a conscious choice: she can love him so much that she wants to wait for his release but she must realize that by doing so she may loose her own credibility as a lawayer. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎4‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 1:53 AM, Cranston said:

Rachel's whining and wailing about the 2 years really irritated me.  Three generations of my family and many other families....manage being apart months, sometimes years because of wars.  In my first two years of marriage my husband was gone 20 months.  At least she can visit him., for God's sake.

 

On ‎8‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 7:48 PM, needschocolate said:

Rachel's whining always irritates me - she is the classic, stereotypical, over-reacting, immature female.  I, unfortunately, actually know a few women like this and being around them is very draining.  "Mike stole two years of my life!" - yeah, well, now she can actually concentrate on law school without having to work herself into a tizzy that that hours she is spending studying are hurting their relationship or feeling bad that Mike isn't emotionally supporting her law school duties.

What got me even more was that she had to "take a day" because Mike took the plea when he told he he wouldn't.  The jury was in, he needed to make a decision right then he didn't have time to find her and hold her hand while she whispered about how she has faith in him.   He didn't even have time to call and discuss it.  Would it have been any better if he would have called her and said "I have decided to take the plea anyway. Gotta go. Talk to you later."? Now, if there was a chance that she would break up with him over this, I could see her telling him to leave her alone to sort this out, but she seemed confident that she was staying with him, she was just hurt that he changed his mind (and ruined her life! whine). She has two years alone to work out her feelings, don't waste 1/3 of the time you have left.  

 

On ‎9‎.‎3‎.‎2016 at 6:06 PM, Eyes High said:

I'm inclined to cut Rachel some slack. Having restrictions on your ability to see your SO sucks, and knowing that other people have it worse doesn't make your situation any more palatable, any more than children are any more inclined to finish their unappetizing food when they're informed that there are children starving in Africa. It's undoubtedly true that other people have it worse--someone always has it worse--but usually, that doesn't make someone's subjective pain any easier to bear. If I sprain my ankle, knowing that other people have broken their legs doesn't make it any less painful.

I have a long-distance relationship (no prison involved, heh), and I have an even cushier arrangement than Rachel's--it's only one year of long-distance, we Skype every night for as long as we want, we see each other in person every five weeks for so--and it still sucks. I'm very grateful for the technological and the travel opportunities that allow us to see each other virtually whenever we want and in person, neither of which are available to many people in long-distance relationships, but...it still sucks. God knows I've "wailed and whined" about the horrible unfairness of it many a time. I once swore I would never be involved in a long-distance relationship, because I had heard how awful they were, but God has a mean sense of humour, what can I say?

I agree with Eyes high that few people who are in trouble or sorrow are comforted by thinking that other people have suffered worse.

Still, there are some things that I don't like. Rachel wallows beforehand, not after she has even experienced what it's like to live two years, not only apart from her boy-friend but as a girl-friend of a convicted criminal. She also wallows for herself, even if it's Mike who will go to prison and she should support him. (I don't mean that she didn't need support herself. but she should get it from Donna and her mother.)

Plus, how can she think she will become a good lawyer when she broke down and only wallowed in her feelings and was unable to help Harney to build Mike's defence. Also Harvey had feelings, but he could concentrate in the case. 

Lastly, she never said that Mike did wrong.