The Practice (Season 6, Episode 17) Manifest Necessity

The Plot:

Bobby and Jimmy (The Defendant) go against Helen and Kenneth Walsh (The
Prosecution) in a case where the defendant McIntry has a background in organized
crime (murdering his business partner) and won in his last case, 12 years prior,
against Walsh. The case-prosecution initially was spearheaded by Helen until the
case becomes out of her hand and Walsh insisted his authority to take the lead on
the case. The crux of this episode is Walshs misconduct. When (1) Prosecutions
witness (Mr. Rosie), took a stand reverting his initial testimony that the person he
initially pointed out is innocent, boldly insisted in the stand that he is trying to do
what is right and correct what he has done. But prosecutor Walsh after the hearing,
in a private room, intimidated and threatened Mr. Rosie to reconsider his first
testimony and by not doing so, he (Walsh) will send him to jail for perjury and
obstruction of justice. The witness was not able to reverse his testimony for he was
murdered later that night. (2) Mr. Walsh took over Ms. Helen as the main counsel for
the prosecution and put Detective Simons on the witness stand. Detective Simons,
while on the witness stand erroneously uttered the fact that McIntry was formerly
prosecuted for the murder of his former business partner.

Both counsels, the prosecution and the defendants, called into the judge
chambers for a settlement and explanation from the prosecution, but yet heated
arguments between parties for the alleged conspiring with the witness and
intentionally to cause a mistrial or manifest necessity, in order to settle the issue,
the defendant counsel requested the judge to have his co-counsel, Helen to take a
stand for a hearing about his co-counsel alleged misconduct, in which the Judge
granted. The judgcleared the court room and conducted a hearing regarding the
issue of whether the DA, Mr. Walsh corroborated with detective Simons to
intentionally cause a manifest necessity (mistrial). Ms. Helen, while on the witness
stand, confessed that she had substantial reasons to believe that indeed, Mr. Walsh
purposely wanted a mistrial. The judge after hearing Ms. Helens statements and on
account of the lack of evidence directly implicating the defendant for the murder of
his business partner pronounced the case as a mistrial with prejudice and dismissed
the same. Ms. Helen later, asked for forgiveness to the victims daughter and told
her that it was her ethical duty as a lawyer. Mr. Walsh voiced out his dissent side
and said he would appeal the courts decision.