Chuck's Duplicate Tape (EP 0304) - Better Call Saul (2015) Discussion

[–] DreamersxDisease (817) 8 years ago

I was wondering what was meant by Kim's comment too....that by proving he had made a duplicate it shows Chuck's intent to ensnare Jimmy? Basically, what you said. That's all I can really think of, then again, I am no law expert so I can only infer so much, haha.

I was toiling it over in my brain afterwards what their plan was getting that info out of him. I think this seems the most likely, but I'm interested to see what others thought.

reply

[–] ernieball5150 (49) 8 years ago

I think they *want* the tape played, because together with Mike's evidence about Chuck being a loon and a hazard to himself, it will help them convince the disciplinary board that Chuck is mentally incompetent and Jimmy on the tape was only telling him what he wanted to hear (which will also place the rest of Jimmy's conduct with Chuck in a more compassionate light).

Kim was merely playing Br'er Rabbit to confirm that another copy exists and to make Chuck believe they're afraid to have it played.

Also, because Jimmy's agreed written "confession" omits specific mention of a "cassette tape", there may be an angle of using Chuck's submission of the tape as evidence as a contra-indication of any "destruction of evidence" by Jimmy. Even though Howard and the PI were present, they didn't witness any evidence as to what Jimmy may have *thought* was on the tape he destroyed, and again, Jimmy's written "confession" specified only "an item of personal property".

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 8 years ago

How will Mike's evidence be admissible... didn't they use false pretenses to acquire it? Or will Jimmy claim that he took them before he was banned from Chuck's house?

reply

[–] ernieball5150 (49) 8 years ago

Good question. I don't have a satisfying answer, but I still think they'll go that direction and some rationale for their admissibility will be concocted by the creative team of the show.

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 8 years ago

I still don't get how they spin him switching the address numbers when his law partner/gf is handling the Mesa Verde account.

reply

[–] MarlonBrawndo (122) 8 years ago

Perhaps they'll have a Mexican standoff, pitting entrapment against the charges against Jimmy. I'm wondering if part of a deal nixing all charges might be a demand that Kim recuse herself from Mesa Verde to avoid exposure of Jimmy's shenanigans.

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 8 years ago

I figure that something extremely unexpected must happen to blindside the ultra meticulous Kim. So far, I can't really sort out what that might be... which is a good thing.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 8 years ago

I thought maybe they planned to steal the original tape but Kim would never agree to that, so there must be some other more complex plot using legal maneuvers to defeat Chuck.

reply

[–] Jennie_Portrait (804) 8 years ago

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think entrapment would apply here. Chuck had something in his home that Jimmy wanted. Breaking in to take it, doesn't imply entrapment. Jimmy was otherwise a free agent. It was his choice to break in. I think Erie's comment down below is spot on. The fact that Chuck made the tape, combined with his lunatic tendencies makes him look way worse than Jimmy.

reply

[–] MarlonBrawndo (122) 8 years ago

It's my understanding that the device of entrapment is the act of providing an opportunity or incentive for someone to break the law, luring them into criminal behavior. The victim is always a free agent, in that there is no coercion, per se. As Chuck pointed out, they are officers of the court. Whether or not that would make them agents of law enforcement, I'm not certain. If law enforcement entices someone into criminal acts, entrapment is a valid defense.

reply

[–] Jennie_Portrait (804) 8 years ago

Yes, but the examples of entrapment with which I am most familiar (okay, watching all incarnations of Law and Order) is that it involves being "invited" somewhere to engage in an illegal transaction (e.g. drug purchases or prostitution). But in Chuck's case, Jimmy wasn't invited. In fact, Jimmy broke in. That wouldn't be entrapment. I may want the jewelry in Tiffany's, but if I were to break in, we could not accuse Tiffany's of trying to entrap me.

reply

[–] MarlonBrawndo (122) 8 years ago

I'm inclined to think that you are likely right. I've been hoping someone might come up with a better scenario than the entrapment angle to work in Jimmy's favor, but it seems we're all in the dark.

reply

[–] Jennie_Portrait (804) 8 years ago

Marlon,
Just a shout-out to you that you were indeed correct about them citing the legal principal of entrapment. Whether or not they determined it was applicable, you were right to note it.

I had a hard time feeling any sympathy for Chuck. Not just for the way he was with Jimmy, but also to his poor ex-wife. His meltdown on the witness stand reminded me of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny.

Jennie

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 8 years ago

So it seems like there was no plan at all dealing with the tape. Nobody stole it, nobody switched it, they just played it in court and there were no shenanigans.
I don't actually know what the 'bingo' was about, concerning the tape.
That seemed like misdirection.
Their real plot was all about the phone battery slipped in Chuck's pocket.

reply

[–] ernieball5150 (49) 8 years ago

The playing of the tape and Chuck's testimony about why he sounds deranged on it were necessary to get the panel to permit Jimmy to cross-examine about Chuck's illness. The battery shenanigans would have been stricken by the panel otherwise. Kim and Jimmy knew that the playing of the tape would help them, that's why "Bingo".

The tape, Chuck's testimony about the tape, and Chuck's rant from the battery bit helped Jimmy sell the narrative of "I was only trying to save my crazy brother, but he has a huge axe to grind."

If the tape hadn't been played at all, the simple facts of the case --without the mitigating context of "Jimmy as rescuer"-- might have been enough to get Jimmy disbarred. But Chuck couldn't bear to "take that chance". Oops.

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 8 years ago

Thanks for the clear explanation... that makes sense.

reply

[–] DreamersxDisease (817) 8 years ago

Ditto, thanks for that! After seeing the latest ep. it makes much more sense as an in to get Chuck to go off the rails and to shift the narrative from Jimmy's crime to Chuck's mental state....which his team was adamant about keeping out of the trial altogether. They knew that that would weaken their case, I'm sure, and so Jimmy and Kim had to figure out a way to weasel that in and exploit that sore point.

And job well done, it looks like!

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 8 years ago

As it happened, the thing to actually trigger Chuck going off the rails wasn't the battery or the presence of his ex wife, or anything that Jimmy and Kim engineered.
the thing that actually triggered him to lose his shit was the prosecutor saying "Even if he was schizophrenic, it would make no difference...' and THEN Chuck blew up and cut him off with his whole I'M NOT CRAZY BUT MOMMY LIKED JIMMY BEST rant.
That was something that Jimmy could have never engineered or predicted, he had no way of knowing what the other side's lawyer would have said in any given circumstance. They just kind of lucked out that the other lawyer used a trigger word to push Chuck's buttons, because up until that moment, Chuck was holding himself together pretty good.

reply