What a lousy lawyer !

[deleted]

One its not shown his trial happened immediately after and he could have asked for a speedy trial believing he could easily prove he was innocent. He escaped on a transport, he would obviously still be appealing for years considering the due process involved in a death penalty sentence. Its the early 90's, DNA evidence wasn't as wide spread, the prosecution presented motive (money), signs that there was no forced entry or robbery (limiting the intruder theory), and the 911 call was questionable but still convincing. He probably would of had a lead lawyer like he had and associates who worked under that guy working on the case. Also because a private eye was never shown it doesn't mean he didn't have one. This movie was about a man trying to prove his innocence while on the run from the law, it would not have been a good thriller if they spent all their time in the intricacies of the investigation and trial (if you want to watch judicial movies watch To Kill a Mockingbird or Anatomy of a Murder)

"Judging from how Gerard acted in that scene and the next scene of him saying he's dirty, I think Gerard didn't believe his story."

I felt that Gerard grew more suspicious when he started questioning Sykes about the Cancun trip.

"Kimball go with you?"

"You don't see him in the pictures, do you?"

And after he says that Gerard, just stares right back at him, a look of questioning on his face at that response.


"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

In films like The Fugitive and The Next Three Days, the producers don't want the audience forensically scrutinizing the trials, which are just mechanisms for placing their defendants in places they'd rather not be and so their workings are simply glossed over.

Even though spouses are responsible in roughly 90% of domestic homicides, IMO, Kimble with a good defence team would certainly beat the charges laid on him in this movie, for many of the reasons already listed above, much less being sentenced to death (with no appeal??).

Even the timeline mitigates against a conviction. 1 They've been seen canoodling at the party. 2 He obligingly saves a life on the operating table when called in. 3 Only to go home (clearly not being affected by drugs or alcohol) and then savagely murder his wife with no real motive, other than she came from a rich family. Yeah sure!🐭

I just watched it again and thought that maybe they didn't want to murder the wife, but him, and the one-armed man was not a professional killer and ran into the wife first. He killed her because no witnesses, and then when he wanted to kill Kimble as well Kimble fought back and overpowered him so he had to flee. Then the whole framing Kimble for the murder was an improvisation. He would have other worries than to ask what became of the liver probes and the new drug.