This is a question for anyone who knows anything about the law.
In the real world, is there a term for what The Practice calls Plan B? Furthermore, is it within the rules to use such a tactic or could such a tactic be suppressed by a judge? I ask this question with particular relevance to the Australian legal system.
I think Plan B would be within the rules - I don't see a reason why a defence lawyer can't ask a witness whether they committed the crime, as long as there is some evidence to back up their claim (otherwise the rules of evidence would not allow the questioning to continue, I think).
In reality, I think the problem with Plan B is that unless it is credible it won't help the defendant's case. The defence must have some basis for suggesting that someone else committed the crime, otherwise, even if they were allowed to ask the question, it will just sound like their clutching at straws.
In a more general sense, I think the problem with a lot of legal shows (including this one) is that there is an assumption that the lawyers (and the audience) know what actually happened. So we know beforehand if the person is guilty, or atleast have a strong sense as to their guilt or innocence. For example, I saw an episode recently where Eleanor and Helen are in court making submissions to the judge when Eleanor turns to Helen and says "come on Helen, we all know he's innocent" (it was to do with a father and son, one of whom shot the mother).
In reality, more often than not, the lawyers will only know the facts put before them (by police reports etc and by interviewing the client and witnesses). So they don't really know if their client is guilty or not.
If there is some basis for thinking that someone else (including someone who is a witness in the case) could have committed the crime, then there is also the actual possibility that they did do it. So Plan B is not as "wrong" as it is made out to be on this show - where the lawyers know their client is guilty and point the finger at someone they know is innocent. In reality, law is about facts and evidence, not so much about big speeches and personalities. But I guess that would make for a rather boring tv show...
ps - I studied law in Australia, but have only practised for a short time (then I changed careers) So I'm not sure whether what I said is correct
[deleted]
In the USA, we call it "in the alternative" or alternative theory. Such as, Defendant didn't kill Victim because it was the One Legged Lady. However, if it was Defendant it was in self-defense.
Or Defendant didn't rape Victim because Defendant is unable to have sex, but if he is able to have sex, Defendant had consent.
Let the truth be known though the Heavens may fall...share