MovieChat Forums > The Practice (1997) Discussion > Why so many unrealistic acquittals?

Why so many unrealistic acquittals?

posted 15 years ago by siuletz
9 replies | jump to latest

In the US, the conviction rate for cases that go to a jury trial is around 90%, and even the very best criminal defense firms lose the vast majority of their cases. That's just the way the system works.

So basically, The Practice follows the travails of the most successful criminal defense law firm by far in the history of the modern United States...

I don't know... suspension of disbelief is one thing, but this goes way beyond that. The problem is, many of the characters who are acquitted on the show would have absolutely zero chance of being acquitted in real life anyway.

Juries are not very principled in most cases. They will convict on dubious grounds all the time. Appeals to "the judicial process" almost always fail. Insanity defenses virtually never work once a case proceeds to a jury trial.

It's just not realistic.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DocBrown88 15 years ago

And miraculously all of their clients were innocent.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cshep79406 15 years ago

Listen, if O.J. could be acquitted, ANYONE could be acquitted.

[–] thomasp-540-788832 15 years ago

If you feel like suspending your disbelief, just imagine that the lawyers undoubtedly have dozens of other cases which are straightforward guilty pleas or uninteresting lost jury trials. Obviously they can't show everything (just as a 45-minute closing gets reduced in the show to a 2-minute summation).

On the other hand, winning even ONE case on temporary insanity would be beyond belief (the only time I'm aware of that that "defense" actually worked was the very first time it was argued, in the Philip Barton Key affair)... so while the "they're just showing highlights" theory does some work, there's clearly still a lot of Hollywood-ization of the courtroom process going on here. Though, in fairness, far less than other shows.

[–] hcm72105 14 years ago

I don't know were you got your statistics of ninety percent but it wrong. The conviction rate for jury is about seventy percent. I decided to look up the statistics for Boston you were completely wrong
"the Massachusetts Office of the Jury Commissioner, reported that in 2009, the criminal conviction rate in Suffolk County and Middlesex County for criminal cases that went to trial was only 62%. By comparison, the criminal conviction rate in Norfolk County was 59%,
and Worcester County was 34%" Here a link
http://www.bostoncriminallawyersblog.com/2010/03/massachusetts-criminal-convict.html
So In Bosten aleast jury do acquitt defendant when there a reasonable doubt.

[–] juviejay 14 years ago

Nice work, hcm72105. I was wondering about those stats myself. And I agree with the person who posted just before you, that they don't show all the clients that the firm gets, just the exciting ones. Also agree with the Hollywoodization rational.

It's a TV show. It needs drama to gain and keep an audience. A show about lawyers settling real estate claims (which Kelley did for a few years) wouldn't be that interesting. I also think they got a little bit addicted to twists at the end, like having someone convicted for something someone else did. Or, conversely, having a guilty person get off.

Comprehension is not a prerequisite of cooperation.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 13 years ago

Thanks for the numbers. 90% seemed fishy to me too but the only reference I had was David Simon who said that juries in Baltimore acquit about half the suspects who go to trial.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."