S02.E20: Justified

[MyAimIsTrue]

A friend from Bull’s past enlists his services to help convince a jury that a domestic abuse survivor who shot her husband in his sleep is not guilty of murder because she feared for her life and the life of her unborn child.

[JackONeill]

Man, another impossible case that only gets resolved when something last minute—in this case a witness—materializes. This is getting old!

And don’t you wonder how Bull gets paid for this stuff (time, manpower, etc)?

And was there something about Bull’s ex-wife (Benny’s sister) that came up but never divulged to the audience?

[rhys]

What was that early comment about the lawyer looking so much like ______. I missed who she looked like.

The make up on that victim was done well. 

[brgjoe]

This episode was a tough one to watch.  Just a question or two about it though. 

I didn't know the defense can tell the prosecution what charges they should file.  I thought it was the prosecuting attorney that decides which charges to bring against a defendant.  So if she felt she could win with a lesser included charge like manslaughter, I don't know why she didn't want to put it up there as an option.   I guess I didn't understand how Bull and his team could determine what charges to bring and what to include or not include.

So, what happened with Bull's sister is somehow a big secret?  I guess I don't get that.  You'd think it would have come up before with all the years they have been together.  And oh yeah, that domestic violence shelter was dedicated to a Jennifer BULL.  How common a surname is that?  They are smart people who work for him -- someone could have put 2 and 2 together pretty quickly about that. 

And I thought the one witness who came forward was a bit sketchy.  I mean, she *heard* some stuff happening but never actually *saw* anything happen.  Surprised she didn't get cross examined a bit more thoroughly.  Anyway, I knew she would be found not guilty.  Doubtful this show would send an abused, pregnant woman to jail.

[Bobbin]

Another case where the DA doesn't have to produce a shred of evidence to support the accusations made during trial, specifically that the wife was unfaithful (I was sure that it would come out somehow that the baby wasn't his) or that she had ever laid a hand on him (the autopsy would have shown that the husband didn't have a scratch or bruise on him), while she had obviously been beaten repeatedly and recently. That has to be the sketchiest trial ever on this show. Of course, a decent defense would have made a rabbit-out-of-the-hat surprise witness unnecessary. They skimmed over the jury selection process, never refuted the charges and didn't offer a summation. Looking back, I don't know how they filled the hour other than ruminate that they didn't have a chance of winning.

The missed calls from Bull's ex were apparently intended as a teaser for the next ep.

[Sarah 103]

2 hours ago, brgjoe said:

So, what happened with Bull's sister is somehow a big secret?  I guess I don't get that.  You'd think it would have come up before with all the years they have been together.  And oh yeah, that domestic violence shelter was dedicated to a Jennifer BULL.  How common a surname is that?  They are smart people who work for him -- someone could have put 2 and 2 together pretty quickly about that. 

I thought that the domestic violence shelter was something new and that it had not yet opened. Maybe the sign just went up a day or two before we saw Bull looking at it. Also, it seems like some of the team knew and some of the team did not know what happened. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Sarah 103

[JackONeill]

3 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

I thought that the domestic violence shelter was something new and that it had not yet opened. Maybe the sign just went up a day or two before we saw Bull looking at it. Also, it seems like some of the team knew and some of the team did not know what happened. 

See, I got confused when Bull and his team where in the office and everyone was “wondering” what was going on? Seems like everyone but Cable knew . . . something. 

I expected some revelation about Bull’s ex (Benny’s sister). Remember the show started with Bull hurrying into the office talking about alimony? But then, once in trial, we hear about Bull’s sister. And the ex-wife . . . ?

And if he’s worried about alimony, how can he afford to take on these cases? He is paying his team, you would think, a lot of money. Are his clients paying an hourly rate? Probably, but that’s probably a high number. The woman last night, though grateful, didn’t seem to have access to lots of money. She was, what, a blogger? I suppose there was life insurance, but what would have happened had she lost? Bull would have been stuck with a big unpaid bill.

I don’t expect details. But you could have Bull super-wealthy, or have him take cases with wealthy clients, or have Bull openly admit things are looking gloomy. And what’s more confusing is that sometimes he’s like that, but more often he’s not. I wish they’d pick one or the other. I’m worried about his staff.

[JessDVD]

I was expecting that it was going to come out that the wife was the abuser but that probably would have been too big a twist.

I don't really understand these DAs that have no, as far as I can tell, actual motive for sticking it to the defendant. It was the same way a week or two ago. They did the whole thing with the DA being all, sometimes you can't tell who's the abuser and who's the abused and it never really went anywhere. She had no motive that I could tell for making up obviously false and easily refuted charges against the abused lady. A trial based on a situation like that should (and I surely hope in real life actually does) go something like, Prosecution: Look, we get why she did it but she still killed a guy in cold blood; Defense: She was an abused woman who was fearful for the life of her child and felt she had no other way out, and let the jury duke out which one has more merit. These jerky DAs that don't just try the accused because that's how our legal system works, but invent additional allegations for no other reason than but to be an extra level of jerk, don't make sense to me. Especially when it's a DA who's worked to put accusers away. If the writers were intending for her to prosecute based on the lady also being an abuser, they could have maybe shown anything other than the restraining order inquiry, which anyone at a half second would have identified as an abuser covering his tracks.

The abusive asshole's sister played it well, or the actress did, that she never saw anything to make her doubt the character of her brother, and then when Benny began pointing out things that had happened, realized, wait they may actually have something here. I've never personally known (that I know of, anyway) anyone who is/was physically abusive, but I've always heard that they are such charmers elsewhere that nobody ever suspects it.

The surprise (I use the word loosely) last minute witness basically added nothing other than another level of "he said she said" to the trial, but that's all it was based on anyway so I guess we'll go with it.

That intro was hard to watch.

[LuvMyShows]

From the perspective of the jury, here's what I have a hard time with.  Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is definitely legit...but...as I understand it, it's for cases where the woman feared for her life at the time of the murder or was so battered/beaten down that she can't take any other action.  In this case, it was neither.  She had left before, and in her recounting it the first time (not when she was on the stand), she mentioned no coercion whatsoever to take him back.  She only mentioned that he acted all sorry and said he loved her, blah, blah, blah, so she decided to go back.  She did not describe it like those cases where the abuser basically threatens the runaway victim and everyone there and forcibly takes her back.  So it seemed very inconsistent when she was on the stand and said that no matter if she had left, he would have found her and brought her back.  This time she decided to leave him, she had already bought the ticket, packed, and ordered a car, so she clearly had the gumption/wherewithal to put everything in place to leave...not one of the victims that feels like they have no other option.  Also, a quick internet search showed me that BWS is when a woman is psychologically traumatized to the point that they are incapable of forming rational thoughts.  She clearly was capable of forming rational thoughts.  And when Benny asked her why she stayed with him, she said "I love him"...she didn't say anything irrational like, "He needed me", or "I'm so worthless no one else would ever have me", which also makes it harder to justify finding her not guilty because again it doesn't fit with the underpinnings of BWS.   BWS is such a horrible problem, that I would have thought they would either present a slam-dunk case to make a point (since clearly some of the point of this episode was social justice...nothing wrong with that if they want to), or they would have delved further into the ambiguities to help (the audience) better understand the nuances.

[Dowel Jones]

I was expecting the ADA to object to the cop's admission that people will file  restraining orders as a prelude to action on their own part.  Really, he has no idea on what goes on in the trial arena unless he is called to testify.  But no, it was admitted. 

Did the prosecution call any witnesses beyond the cop and the sister?  I wasn't paying enough attention.  That's a pretty thin case, unless a lot occurred off camera.

Why wouldn't the defense include an innocent by reason of temporary insanity defense? 

So Chunk got chunked.  You have a client, Bull.

[Netfoot]

I don't understand the 9-day delay while the jury were out.  So closely decided a verdict would surely indicate how close Bull & Co. came to failing at the job?  I doubt that's what the writers were trying to suggest...

[secnarf]

21 hours ago, rhys said:

What was that early comment about the lawyer looking so much like ______. I missed who she looked like.

The make up on that victim was done well. 

It wasn't the lawyer, it was the victim. I assume she looked a lot like Bull's sister.

4 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

From the perspective of the jury, here's what I have a hard time with.  Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is definitely legit...but...as I understand it, it's for cases where the woman feared for her life at the time of the murder or was so battered/beaten down that she can't take any other action.  In this case, it was neither.  She had left before, and in her recounting it the first time (not when she was on the stand), she mentioned no coercion whatsoever to take him back.  She only mentioned that he acted all sorry and said he loved her, blah, blah, blah, so she decided to go back.  She did not describe it like those cases where the abuser basically threatens the runaway victim and everyone there and forcibly takes her back.  So it seemed very inconsistent when she was on the stand and said that no matter if she had left, he would have found her and brought her back.  This time she decided to leave him, she had already bought the ticket, packed, and ordered a car, so she clearly had the gumption/wherewithal to put everything in place to leave...not one of the victims that feels like they have no other option.  Also, a quick internet search showed me that BWS is when a woman is psychologically traumatized to the point that they are incapable of forming rational thoughts.  She clearly was capable of forming rational thoughts.  And when Benny asked her why she stayed with him, she said "I love him"...she didn't say anything irrational like, "He needed me", or "I'm so worthless no one else would ever have me", which also makes it harder to justify finding her not guilty because again it doesn't fit with the underpinnings of BWS.   BWS is such a horrible problem, that I would have thought they would either present a slam-dunk case to make a point (since clearly some of the point of this episode was social justice...nothing wrong with that if they want to), or they would have delved further into the ambiguities to help (the audience) better understand the nuances.

I would argue that in this case, the woman was "so battered/beaten down that she can't take any other action". Her attempt to leave had just been thwarted again. I could easily understand why she might feel trapped and the only way to stop the abuse is to kill him - and also why the only situation in which she could "safely" kill him was while he was asleep. I'd also argue that her loving him is irrational, not an example of her ability to form rational thoughts. If anything, killing him was the rational action. To me, this case was textbook battered woman syndrome. Any case more clear cut/textbook than the one shown in this episode would be more in keeping with the classical self-defense argument than battered woman syndrome. If you want something more controversial, look into Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo.

[JessDVD]

As far as "did she have any other option" - well, everyone technically always does but I think there's a compelling case there for her not feeling that she has any other way out - the last time she tried to run, he broke her collarbone. He caught her this time, beat her up, and it appeared raped her. She's 8 weeks pregnant and being a small woman, isn't going to be able to hide a pregnancy from him for very long. The mom instinct to protect her cub is strong. 9And that basically is what the jury has to decide - is that a compelling enough case to excuse her shooting the guy in cold blood.

[Sarah 103]

On 4/18/2018 at 7:30 AM, JackONeill said:

don’t expect details. But you could have Bull super-wealthy, or have him take cases with wealthy clients, or have Bull openly admit things are looking gloomy. And what’s more confusing is that sometimes he’s like that, but more often he’s not. I wish they’d pick one or the other. I’m worried about his staff.

They used to do a better job of this last season. At the start of the episode they would show Bull celebrating or mentioning how well a case for a wealthy client worked out.The episode would then focus on the case involving a client who needed his skills but could not pay as much. 

[JessDVD]

Also, regardless of whether her case is compelling enough to be acquitted, I do prefer these episodes where we all know she did the crime, so the trial is about was it justified, what is the appropriate charge for the situation. As opposed to the ones where Danny and Cable are the only investigator/hacker skilled enough to determine what actually happened in any instance.

And now, two years into this show, I actually sometimes know what happens next when the judge says "overruled" or "sustained", words that should not be hard but for some reason I can never remember which is which in context.

Edited April 19, 2018 by JessDVD

[Netfoot]

3 hours ago, JessDVD said:

As far as "did she have any other option" - well, everyone technically always does.....

Part of the problem here is the Cinematic Establishment's belief that all guns must kill.  Come morning time, she makes him a cup of coffee, and says "Always remember:  You have another one on the other side!"  And when he says "What?!??" she kneecaps him.

[Dowel Jones]

1 hour ago, JessDVD said:

when the judge says "overruled" or "sustained", words that should not be hard but for some reason I can never remember which is which in context.

Overruled is when Benny fails to actually form a question for the witness, but thunders on in his own testimony for the jury.  Sustained is when Benny fails to actually form a question for the witness, but thunders on in his own testimony for the jury, and then apologizes to the judge.

[sinkwriter]

Quote

I think there's a compelling case there for her not feeling that she has any other way out

Agreed. Also, right before he so viciously assaulted her, didn't he pretty much tell her that it didn't matter where she tried to run, he would always find her? At that point, I would imagine she felt she had no other alternative. Even if she tried to leave again, she feared he would find her, hurt her, hurt the baby... I'd say that's a good case for not feeling like she has any other way out. And when one has been battered and emotionally destroyed so much, I imagine the "logical" or "rational" direction we think she should have taken doesn't necessarily occur to her anymore. It's such a horrific situation.

[Trey]

I thought there would be at least one mention of The Burning Bed.

On 4/19/2018 at 1:10 PM, Netfoot said:

Part of the problem here is the Cinematic Establishment's belief that all guns must kill.  Come morning time, she makes him a cup of coffee, and says "Always remember:  You have another one on the other side!"  And when he says "What?!??" she kneecaps him.

I wish she had at least woken him up to let him know she was shooting him.  But probably best that she didn't - in her weakened condition he just might have got the gun away from her before she could shoot him.

[mythoughtis]

On 4/18/2018 at 6:30 AM, JackONeill said:

I expected some revelation about Bull’s ex (Benny’s sister). Remember the show started with Bull hurrying into the office talking about alimony? But then, once in trial, we hear about Bull’s sister. And the ex-wife . . . ?

That was revealed at the end when Bull saw the new building going up. It was a new women’s shelter/counseling facility for battered women named after Bulls’ sister. Presumably, The ex-wife had  something to do with naming or building it. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by mythoughtis

[secnarf]

14 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

That was revealed at the end when Bull saw the new building going up. It was a new women’s shelter/counseling facility for battered women named after Bulls’ sister. Presumably, The ex-wife had  something to do with naming or building it. 

Where does this presumption come from?

[mythoughtis]

7 minutes ago, secnarf said:

Where does this presumption come from?

My head, i suppose. Just seemed logical to me that it would be the reason she was calling. 

[Ceindreadh]

Ok, so they’re worrying that they’ve no proof the wife was being abused. 

Except of course she’s sitting there recovering from fully documented broken ribs and a punctured lung and is still confined to a wheelchair?  If that’s not sufficient proof of abuse, what is? 

[Moxie Cat]

On April 23, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Trey said:

I wish she had at least woken him up to let him know she was shooting him.  But probably best that she didn't - in her weakened condition he just might have got the gun away from her before she could shoot him.

I know I'm way behind on these episodes, but I thought that was a legit defense - that after multiple tries to get away, the only time she thought shooting him would work was if he were asleep and it was point blank range. I would have bought that reason as a juror. (It is a little creepy that she stayed in bed afterwards, though.)