Summary

The story starts off with a girl, who was a witness to the murder of her father, being interviewed by two
lawyers who are members of the prosecuting counsel. Said witness was one of the three witnesses of
the crime.
The second witness, a male, named Charles Rossie, went to the office of the defense counsel of the
suspect. There he told them about how he made a mistake in pointing out the suspect; he just picked a
guy from a bunch of photographs. He realized this when he saw the picture of the suspect in the
newspaper. He was then asked if he told the prosecuting attorneys about this and he said no.

The story then shifts to an elderly man, named McEntire, arguing with a bunch of lawyers, McEntire was
the main suspect of the crime. He argued that he wanted to take the witness stand but his lawyers
disagreed for fear of discovery of his past case where he was accused of killing his business partner
which might affect his current case.
His lawyers then told him about Charles Rossie’s confession; misidentifying him as the suspect. The man
was then asked if he had anything to do with it, and that as officers of the court, they can’t be involved
in any conspiracy to threaten a witness. But this was denied by the suspect.

The next scene shows a man, named Philly, being interviewed by a lawyer. He was caught stealing an
expensive watch in a jewelry store. The lawyer, named Lindsay was a friend of Philly, was in disbelief
because she knows that Philly was not a thief.
Lindsay of Philly then finds out that the watch which was stolen disappeared while it was in the custody
of the police and asked the prosecutor, named Jean, also a friend of the lawyer of Philly, that the case be
dropped because they had no evidence. However there was a written statement of Philly admitting to
the crime but argues that Philly was experiencing anxiety and did not know what he was talking about.
She then asks Jean for a favor which Jean agrees; lowering the degree of the crime so that Philly be set
free. After that Philly was told that he was not going to prison.

Afterwards the scene shifts into a court room with the prosecuting attorney , Atty. Gamble, examining
the witness, Charles Rossie. The latter was narrating his story during the incident and was asked that if
he saw the man he saw that night in the court room and he said no. He was asked more questions but
he answered that he had made a mistake in identifying McEntire; why did he tell the defense counsel
but not the prosecuting counsel, he answered that he saw their names in the newspapers and thought
that they needed to know. He was then asked if he was paid or threatened to change his testimony but
still denied it and said he just wants to do the right thing.

The court then decided to reconvene the trial in the morning.

After the trial the prosecuting counsels were arguing about what happened. The male lawyer then asks
to see Charles Rossie. During the meeting with Rossie they tried to threaten him with perjury and its
punishment. In disbelief while trying to leave he denies having committed perjury and tries to leave but
was stopped by the male prosecutor and was further threatened that if he doesn’t change his testimony
in the next trial, pointing out McEntire as the murderer, he would have Charles sent to prison for the
rest of his life.

Charles says he’ll think about it and leaves the room.

When the trial reconvened it was the daughter of the victim who now took to the witness stand. She
narrated how McEntire and her father were business partners that everything was good in the beginning
but turned sour recently. She admitted that she caught McEntire and her father arguing violently inside
their house two days before he was killed, she admitted that there was a lot of screaming but couldn’t
hear everything but she heard her father accusing McEntire of stealing money and doctoring the books
and that he was going to sue McEntire but the latter replied that he would not live to see it through and
that he would kill him.

She was then cross-examined by the defense counsel. She was asked if her father reported McEntire to
the police because of the alleged stealing; she answered that her father gave everyone the benefit of
doubt and her father did not have any evidence. She was also asked that if she believed that the threat
on her father’s life was serious but why didn’t she report it to the police, and that why she only reported
this threat weeks after her father died; she answered that the police told her that her father was a
victim of burglary that is why she didn’t report it right away.

The story again shifts to Philly. This time he was caught hold-upping a store with a gun he asks that is he
going to Federal prison, but Lindsay said that he wasn’t and that he needed to commit a Federal crime
like robbing a bank to go to Federal prison. Looking confused Lindsay asks Philly what was really going
on and she can only help him if he tells her the truth. Philly then leaves the room without explaining
anything to Lindsay.

That night one of the witnesses, Charles Rossie, was found dead with a gunshot on the neck. The male
prosecutor accuses McEntire for the killing and now wants to handle the case.

The next day McEntire was interviewed by his defense counsels, asked him if he had anything to do with
it but denied it. His lawyers then advised him to plead but he disagrees, saying he didn’t kill anybody and
he’s not pleading to anything.

In the next scene we now find the prosecuting and defense counsel talking with the presiding Judge. The
prosecuting counsel asks for a mistrial on the grounds of manifest necessity for a new trial but the
defense counsel argues that they can’t re-trial his client just because the case is falling apart. But the
Judge says that if a witness is threatened or killed by the defendant he can declare a mistrial based on
manifest necessity and that there would be no violation on double jeopardy.
The prosecutors further argue that the accused had many connections and could have asked someone
from the outside to kill Charles Rossie, but the defense counsel argues that Charles just testified in their
client’s favor and killing him wouldn’t make any sense.
The prosecutors then disclosed that they had talked to Charles after the latter testified, they believed
that he intended to testify against the defendant but Atty. Gamble, his co-prosecutor, argued that
Charles did not explicitly say that.

The Judge argues that the prosecutors have not shown any evidence tying the defendant in the killing of
Charles Rossie, one of the witness. Even if the Judge would grant a mistrial it wouldn’t stand up on
appeal and then asks if they had any other witnesses.

After the meeting with the Judge the prosecutors, Atty. Gamble and Walsch are found in the elevator
arguing about what Walsch has said in the meeting and that Walsch is going to take over the case and
wants to have a meeting with the investigating officer alone.

It then again shifts to the other story which was about Philly. This time Philly is in trouble again, this time
for trying to rob a Federal bank. He then confesses that he was trying to go to prison because he was
sick and that the only way that he would be cured was to have an operation in prison. There he didn’t
have to wait because the doctors would work on him right away.

He was then asked to explain what happened while committing the crime. He narrated how he just hand
over a note to the teller asking for a small amount of money, unknowingly the teller put inside some
kind of pack where it explodes and make the stolen money unusable. But it exploded and the security
guard thought he had a gun and started shooting at him but accidentally hitting the lady standing
behind him. Philly also tries to explain that he had no gun, but he could still be charged for murder
because it was done during the commission of a crime.

Philly’s story ends with Atty. Jean, his friend, being disqualified for representing him in court because
she is a material witness to the crime. She was accused of instructing him to commit the crime in order
to get incarcirated but the former vehemently denies it but she was ultimately disqualified from the
case.

The story goes back to the McEntire case. This time the one who was in the witness stand was the
investigating officer and was being examined by Atty. Walsch. The latter asks if it was a burglary but the
witness denies it, saying there were valuables which were in plain sight but were untouched;
additionally the way the victim was killed was unlike a burglary case.

The prosecutor then asks the witness if what other evidence can be tied with the defendant for the
killing. He answers that McEntire was previously prosecuted for killing his former business partner. This
prompted the defense counsel to object which was sustained by the presiding Judge. The latter instructs
the jury to disregard the last statement of the witness; it was inadmissible, inappropriate, and irrelevant
to the current case and must not refer to it when deliberating for a verdict. Judge then asks the counsels
to go his chambers.
The Judge then asks why he should not declare a mistrial but Atty. Walsch argues that he did not expect
that the witness would bring up McEntire’s previous record. But the defense counsel argues that his
client deserves an immediate mistrial with prejudice and adds that their client will never get a fair trial
because of the statement.

The defense counsel also accuses Walsch of doing it intentionally and conspired with the witness but the
latter denies it; that the prosecution would have another chance for a re-trial. The defense counsel
wants to put Atty. Gamble, one of the prosecutors, on the stand which the judge agrees.

The next scene, it is now Atty. Gamble on the stand being examined by the defense counsel. She was
asked if; they ever discussed about getting a mistrial so that they could have a new trial but
subsequently denies it; did Atty. Walsch in any basis intend to cause a mistrial and this time Atty.
Gamble admits it and was asked to explain it.

She admits that they had another witness which was in Florida and was unavailable because she was
tending to her sick mother and that she would not make it on time to testify; she also admits that she
was excluded when Atty. Walsch was prepping the witness and that they may have conspired; that
Charles Rossie did not give any indication that he will implicate the defendant, McEntire.

She was then cross-examined by Atty. Walsch. She was asked if she had any evidence of her allegations
but she didn’t.

The story ends with the presiding Judge dismissing the case with prejudice on the grounds of; intention
of the prosecutors to have a mistrial in an effort to obtain a new trial; prosecutorial misconduct of Atty.
Walsch stating that the latter has become increasingly less candid and honest. In his effort to do justice,
he perverted it.