MovieChat Forums > Goliath (2016) Discussion > There's no way they would have won in re...

There's no way they would have won in reality (spoilers).

posted 8 years ago by spacejellypirate
24 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, I can't understand how they could have won in court. They had zero incriminating evidence against the company, which linked it to any crimes (the illegal weapons) or the blowing up of the boat.
Plus the lawyer (mcbright?) looked very bad by pressuring the police officer with the prostitute.

Their whole case looked like they were trying to use the boy to make money of a big company who hasn't done anything wrong.

There's no way the company would have been prosecuted to pay so much in real life. I thought this was written by a lawyer himself?

To me it felt like the writer tried really hard to make them win at the end, only because the viewer of the series knows the company did something wrong.

And what about this cliche "oh I record your private confession" and suddenly all the bad guys get their pay..

[–] stitch-61328 8 years ago

SPOILER ALERT I agree. It was a strong modern L.A. noir throughout, but fizzled with an attempt to deliver a preachy, feel-good ending. All along, the theme seemed to be how stubbornly self-destructive, as well as destructive to those around them, Billy McBride and Donald Cooperman would be to win the case. The first nine episodes seemed to be little about finding justice for the family, and all about the legal gamesmanship both men were employing to serve their egos. A more logical ending would have kept the Cooperman character resolution (incapacitated by stroke), but Billy would have lost the case, his friends and perhaps his daughter; Callie would have replaced Cooperman as head of the firm; and fired McBride's ex-wife. Dark, to be sure, but more fitting with the tone of the series.

[–] lantzn 8 years ago

But then they couldn't call it Goliath.

[–] Korios 8 years ago

There is nothing against the above theory with the title Goliath, you rather mean they couldn't call it David.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] cgomel 8 years ago

The first 9 episodes? How much ha e you been smoking?

[–] KutWrite (1334) 5 years ago

Stitch: I like your ending better!

It leaves room for future conflicts and perhaps even Donnie's recovery. Maybe he even marries Lucy, she mellows him out and he comes to help Billy with a future case.

Perhaps that's too much, but it's my mood.

[–] MrSnuffleupagus 8 years ago

i agree.
i enjoyed all the performances, Thorton was a BEAST.
even knowing what the military tech company did, i did not feel the prosecution made a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[–] cgomel 8 years ago

What are you talking about? There is no prosecution. There is no Beyond a reasonable doubt standard because its not a criminal case. Even if you didnt know that? It was in Billy Bobs closing. Maybe read a little about the difference between a criminal and civil case. Then comment.

[–] Judger 8 years ago

As stated in his close, the rule is 51% probability and not beyond a reasonable doubt

I was born in the house my father built

[–] raven1066 8 years ago

I agree that it was HIGHLY unlikely that they would have won the case in "real life" but it fit the series. It is 'Goliath' after all.

"Time is the fire in which we burn."

[–] rmrlaw10 8 years ago

I agree 100%. I am a trial lawyer and enjoy shows like this when they are realistic. This was so over the top I stopped after Episode 5. It reminded me of . . . Alley McBeal. And then I realized it was created by the same guy who created that show. Ugh. Give me a more realistic legal drama please.

[–] herr_chagall 8 years ago

au contraire. another trial lawyer here, and it was perfectly realistic apart from the conspiracy activities by the company / cooperman.

kellie knows his legal stuff.
--
esse quam videri.

[–] TurnerJazz 8 years ago

I agree to a point. But I would say the show was clearly not concerned with presenting the legal aspect realistically. They did have evidence that was pretty compelling but they did a very poor job of presenting it. The biggest thing was the prototype of the bomb. That is strong evidence that the company was working on illegal weapons. Yes, their expert said it was possible that Larson made it at home but by far the most likely explanation was that the company was working on it. Keeping in mind this was a civil case, not a criminal one, all he had to do was convince the jury that the most likely explanation was that he died because of illegal activities the company was involved in.

So that could have been presented convincingly but it wasn't. So that was either to make us assume they would lose or because they just weren't very interested in that aspect of the show.

_____________________
Need a new signature?
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(;,;)(\/)

[–] jdiz115 8 years ago

Yeah if they could've at least shown the video with the guy holding the weapon it would've been a LOT more believable but I guess that would be too easy.

[–] KazKazui 8 years ago

I also agree, I liked the show... until the end, it seemed very forced.
Maybe you've watched Boston Legal which was also created be David E. Kelly. Some of the trials seemed hopeless, but then in the end the laywer (most of the time it was James Spader) gave such a brilliant plea that the viewer (and also the jury) was just blown away and that's how he won the trial. So I expected something similar here, but the plea at the end was kinda weak, in real life I think there was really no chance to win this.

[–] audioliquor 8 years ago

Especially the closing arguments. Callie blew McBride out of the water. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all when McBride was speaking, just kept thinking how this script sucked for Thronton. And then to have them won is just so stupid.

[–] nereidon 8 years ago

Although at first i had a similar sentiment i adjusted it a bit after some reflection. The ending felt flat and oddly convenient that is true but the tension building over 8 episodes aside where you need to have something really dramatic to give closure the logic behind the ending wasnt so absurd.

Callie made a good argument and did all she could to paint that picture of some smeary advocat to make an extra few bucks and she did that very crafty also by pre-empting all his possible arguments reframing them as absurd ideas.

But in the end it came to what Billy has said: did the guy kill himself or was the company involved? and then it is up to you to decide whether it makes sense that he would do that on a companies boat and blow it up like that with match and not with all that strange stuff that they deny to have. Is that believable? then the original plaintiff died in a car accident - is that just a coincidence? just like the guy that used to work for the company and turned up dead in Billy's car - a coincidence? the same guy that the lawyer on their side also denied to know and when confronted with the lie had a stroke? the idea that the jury would unhear and unsee all of that just because the law asks for it is absurd itself.

finally they didnt find it likely that he had killed himself considering the circumstances. consequently the jury answered to the questions whether the company was responsible for his death with yes and then to the question whether they tried to conceal their wrongdoing with yes as well

there was a reason why they tried to kill the lawsuit and why Leonard was ready to make an offer. They knew with a jury anything could happen and with all their cards on the table there was a good chance they would lose.

but still: it had the well known Ally McBeal pseudo courtroom drama touch. i wont deny that.

[–] krj47 8 years ago

Okay. All of you have the homework of watching an old movie called "The Verdict". Paul Newman is the Billy Bob Thornton character. The Catholic Church is the big munitions company.

The opposing team takes away all of the prosecution's advantages. But, even though he has a strong witness in court with a great reveal, the judge tells the jury to ignore it. It didn't happen. Sound familiar?

But, jurors are human. And they did hear the testimony. And they realize what is going on.

So, they decide the verdict based on their feelings as to what is right.

And, just like "Goliath", they find for the plaintiff with a heavy fine.

[–] owen1975 8 years ago

And that's part of the reason civil court exists. OJ was never convicted criminally of murders but owes a Bronco-load of money from civil case.