Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Film / TheVerdict

Go To



* EstablishingCharacterMoment: The first several scenes all establish Galvin's various traits: he's a drunk who spends his time playing pinball at a bar and trolls funerals for clients, but the fact that he transfixes the regulars with a theatrical joke shows that he's got HiddenDepths.

to:

* EstablishingCharacterMoment: EstablishingCharacterMoment:
**
The first several scenes all establish Galvin's various traits: he's a drunk who spends his time playing pinball at a bar and trolls funerals for clients, but the fact that he transfixes the regulars with a theatrical joke shows that he's got HiddenDepths.HiddenDepths.
** Ed Concannon's first scene is him preparing Dr. Towler for cross-examination. Not only is he absolutely grilling the man, nearly reducing the doc to tears, but he's doing it with a pleasant smile on his face.



* HiddenDepths: Galvin seems shameless and dull when we first see him, but he quickly shows more of himself as soon as he takes the case. He notices when he receives the settlement check from Bishop Brophy that the amount is rather awkward and divides a little ''too'' evenly into three equal shares, meaning he's being bought off. Then we get the first genuine show of emotion from Galvin when he sees the plaintiff for the first time. Galvin may be in a funk, but he's got a heart and he's no dummy.



** The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen.
** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Costello-Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it falls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
** Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it. Of course, Galvin would still have the option of appealing and getting a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office. And the longer this grinds through the courts, the more chance of the news media picking up the story, creating bad publicity for the Church.

to:

** The defense should could have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational reasonable jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen. \n Additionally, Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it. Of course, Galvin would still have the option of appealing and getting a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office. And the longer this grinds through the courts, the more chance of the news media picking up the story, creating bad publicity for the Church. There's also the fact that judgments of this nature will only be sustained on appeal if it is determined that there is ''no possible way'' that a reasonable jury could have interpreted the evidence and the applicable law in such a way as to come to the conclusion that they did, which is a tough standard to meet.
** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Costello-Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it falls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
**
statement. This one can probably be explained as Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in Hoyle a) blatantly favoring the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it. Of course, Galvin would still have the option of appealing defense and getting b) not being a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office. And the longer this grinds through the courts, the more chance of the news media picking up the story, creating bad publicity for the Church.very good lawyer.



* WouldHitAGirl: Galvin, when he finds out Laura is TheMole.

to:

* WouldHitAGirl: Galvin, when he finds out Laura is TheMole. He punches her so hard she gets knocked to the floor. As far as we see, it's the last interaction they ever have.


* HesBack: Galvin was a brilliant attorney prior to the evens of the film. He begins the story at rock bottom, but he returns to his former shape.

to:

* HesBack: Galvin was a brilliant attorney prior to the evens events of the film. He begins the story at rock bottom, but he returns to his former shape.


* DavidVersusGoliath: One attorney representing a small family versus a large high payed legal team payed for by the Catholic Church.

to:

* DavidVersusGoliath: One attorney representing a small family versus a large high payed powered legal team payed paid for by the Catholic Church.


Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and trolls for clients at funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden), gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement that will let her family put her in a much better nursing home.

to:

Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and trolls for clients at funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden), gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement that will let her family put her in a much better nursing home.


* TheUnreveal: The bulk of the plotline is kicked off by Galvin's decision to go to trial to get a larger settlement than the Archdiocese originally offered. While it's implied that the jury awards Galvin a larger sum than he's requesting (which is implied to be several times greater than the original offer), the film skips the scene where the jury announces the actual figure.



* TheUnreveal: The bulk of the plotline is kicked off by Galvin's decision to go to trial to get a larger settlement than the Archdiocese originally offered. While it's implied that the jury awards Galvin a larger sum than he's requesting (which is implied to be several times greater than the original offer), the film skips the scene where the jury announces the actual figure.


* DisregardThatStatement: Costello's entire testimony is thrown out on a legal technicality, and both Concannon and the judge strenuously urge the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on that witness's testimony.

to:

* DisregardThatStatement: Costello's Nurse Costello-Price's entire testimony is thrown out on a legal technicality, and both Concannon and the judge strenuously urge the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on that witness's testimony.



** Since Galvin had failed to communicate the Archdiocese's settlement offer to the family, he could have been sanctioned by the court for failing to communicate the settlement offer to the family, and could have additionally been held liable for malpractice. Courts have consistently held that lawyers have a duty to communicate all settlement offers to their clients before accepting or declining such offers. Galvin was not disciplined in this case, although he was confronted by his clients for not telling them about the offer of $210,000 that the Archdiocese had made.

to:

** Since Galvin had failed to communicate the Archdiocese's settlement offer to the family, he could have been sanctioned by the court for failing to communicate the settlement offer to the family, and could have additionally been held liable for malpractice. Courts have consistently held that lawyers have a duty to communicate all settlement offers to their clients before accepting or declining such offers. Galvin was not disciplined in this case, although he was confronted by his clients for not telling them about the offer of $210,000 that the Archdiocese had made.



** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it falls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
** Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it. Of course, Galvin would still have the option of appealing and getting a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office.

to:

** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Price's Costello-Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it falls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
** Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it. Of course, Galvin would still have the option of appealing and getting a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office. And the longer this grinds through the courts, the more chance of the news media picking up the story, creating bad publicity for the Church.

Added DiffLines:

** Since Galvin had failed to communicate the Archdiocese's settlement offer to the family, he could have been sanctioned by the court for failing to communicate the settlement offer to the family, and could have additionally been held liable for malpractice. Courts have consistently held that lawyers have a duty to communicate all settlement offers to their clients before accepting or declining such offers. Galvin was not disciplined in this case, although he was confronted by his clients for not telling them about the offer of $210,000 that the Archdiocese had made.


** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.

to:

** Judge Hoyle incorrectly rules that Nurse Kaitlin Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls falls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.


* DisregardThatStatement: Costello's entire testimony is thrown out on a legal technicality, and both Concannon and the judge strenuously urge the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on said witness's testimony.

to:

* DisregardThatStatement: Costello's entire testimony is thrown out on a legal technicality, and both Concannon and the judge strenuously urge the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on said that witness's testimony.


* TheAlcoholic: Galvin. In one early scene his hands shake so badly that he can't pick up his drink, so he leans down to sip from the cup like a dog. The last scene hints that he's quit drinking--he is seen with a cup of coffee.

to:

* TheAlcoholic: TheAlcoholic:
**
Galvin. In one early scene his hands shake so badly that he can't pick up his drink, so he leans down to sip from the cup like a dog. The last scene hints that he's quit drinking--he is seen with a cup of coffee.coffee.
** Laura is implied to be one as well. She always matches Galvin drink for drink while they're together.


Added DiffLines:

* BatmanGambit: Laura apparently realizes that all she needs to do is show up at Galvin's watering hole and he'll hit on her, allowing them to spark up a relationship.
* BecomingTheMask: Laura is hired to seduce and spy on Galvin, but comes to actually care for him.


Added DiffLines:

* DrinkOrder: Galvin always orders Bushmills.
* EstablishingCharacterMoment: The first several scenes all establish Galvin's various traits: he's a drunk who spends his time playing pinball at a bar and trolls funerals for clients, but the fact that he transfixes the regulars with a theatrical joke shows that he's got HiddenDepths.
* {{Foreshadowing}}: Morrissey requests that Laura pick up cigarettes on her way out several scenes before he goes looking in her purse for more cigarettes, discovering her secret.


Added DiffLines:

* LeftHanging: The film ends with a drunken Laura calling Galvin's office, and Galvin sitting at his desk with his eyes closed, listening to the phone ring.


Added DiffLines:

* TheUnreveal: The bulk of the plotline is kicked off by Galvin's decision to go to trial to get a larger settlement than the Archdiocese originally offered. While it's implied that the jury awards Galvin a larger sum than he's requesting (which is implied to be several times greater than the original offer), the film skips the scene where the jury announces the actual figure.


* AffablyEvil: Concannon takes a kindly and paternal approach with his staff, mentoring and joking with them like they're his students. In spite of being called "the Prince of Fucking Darkness" for his skills as a lawyer, he seems like a VillainyFreeVillain for much of the film, until it's revealed that he breached legal ethics by putting a mole in Galvin's office and he delivers a speech in which he says his only job is to win at any cost.



* AmbulanceChaser: What Galvin is at the start. He rejects the settlement party to get out of this.
* AmoralAttorney: Both Galvin and Concannon have a bit of this, with Galvin not above lying and breaking into mailboxes, and with Concannon resorting to having Laura spy on Galvin, though on the other hand he's quite disgusted when he finds out Dr. Towler really is guilty.
** Judge Hoyle seemingly makes an active effort to destroy Galvin's case, and is heavily biased in favor of Concannon. Galvin calls him out on it only to be threatened with arrest and contempt of court.

to:

* AmbulanceChaser: What One of the first scenes is Galvin researching the obituaries and sneaking into a funeral to hand his card to the bereaved, who promptly chew him out.
* AmoralAttorney:
** Concannon announces proudly that his only job
is at to win his cases. It's implied that he bought off Galvin's star witness and also recruited Laura to spy on Galvin right from the start. He rejects Morrissey notes that Galvin could easily get a mistrial for the settlement party to get out of this.
* AmoralAttorney: Both
latter stunt.
**
Galvin and Concannon have a bit of this, with Morrissey try to hunt down the intake nurse by lying about their identity over the phone. Galvin not above lying and ultimately resorts to breaking into mailboxes, and with Concannon resorting Dr. Murphy's mailbox to having Laura spy on Galvin, locate the nurse, though on the other hand he's quite disgusted when he finds out Dr. Towler really is guilty.
only as an act of desperation.
** Judge Hoyle seemingly makes an active effort to destroy Galvin's case, and is heavily biased in favor of Concannon. the Archdiocese right from the start. He pressured Galvin to take the settlement and hijacks the questioning of his star witness "to save time." Galvin calls him out on it only to be threatened with arrest and contempt of court.



* DisregardThatStatement: One witness's entire ''testimony'' is thrown out, and the judge strenuously urges the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on said witness's testimony.

to:

* DisregardThatStatement: One witness's Costello's entire ''testimony'' testimony is thrown out, out on a legal technicality, and both Concannon and the judge strenuously urges urge the jury to forget they ever heard it. In the end, however, it's pretty clear that the jury makes their decision based ''entirely'' on said witness's testimony.



* HollywoodLaw: The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
** Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it.
** And of course Galvin could have appealed and gotten a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office.

to:

* HollywoodLaw: HollywoodLaw:
**
The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. happen.
**
Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her Nurse Kaitlin Price's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled. The document is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence. To explain, the form is a ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.
** Judge Hoyle, who was obviously in the defense's pocket, could have issued a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict judgment notwithstanding verdict]] nullifying the jury's decision, if only Concannon had asked for it.
** And of course
it. Of course, Galvin could would still have appealed the option of appealing and gotten getting a new trial based on the defense's misconduct in placing a mole in his office.



* MagicalNegro: Averted with Dr. Thompson. His slightly bumbling demeanor is not ObfuscatingStupidity. Despite his serene "there's nothing they can do to me" attitude, [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin he really is just a plain old country doctor]].



* SurpriseWitness: Kaitlin Price, the surprise witness called by Galvin who reveals that Dr. Towler didn't look at the admittance form and then had her falsify it after everything went wrong.

to:

* SurpriseWitness: Kaitlin Price, the surprise witness called by Galvin who reveals that Dr. Towler didn't look at the admittance form and then had her falsify it after everything went wrong. Galvin is allowed to call her as a "rebuttal," but that ultimately gets her testimony thrown out.


Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and who spends his time lying his ways into funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden), gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement that will let her family put her in a much better nursing home.

to:

Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and who spends his time lying his ways into trolls for clients at funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden), gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement that will let her family put her in a much better nursing home.


Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and who spends his time lying his ways into funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey, gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement.

However, a visit to the girl deeply affects him, and at the meeting with Archdiocese of Boston to hammer out the settlement, he rejects the money, deciding that this is his last chance to save himself and resolves to fight it out. This, of course, displeases everyone, from the family to the judge. His opponent in the trial is Ed Concannon, backed by a large and professional legal team.

to:

Frank Galvin is a washed-up alcoholic attorney who hasn't won a case in years and who spends his time lying his ways into funerals. His friend, Mickey Morrissey, Morrissey (Jack Warden), gets him a medical malpractice suit about a woman rendered comatose during surgery with a guaranteed large settlement.

settlement that will let her family put her in a much better nursing home.

However, a visit to the girl deeply affects him, and at the meeting with the Archdiocese of Boston to hammer out the settlement, he rejects the money, deciding that this is his last chance to save himself and resolves to fight it out. This, of course, displeases everyone, from the family to the judge. His opponent in the trial is celebrity attorney Ed Concannon, backed by a large and professional legal team.



* HollywoodLaw: The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled, as the document (a photocopy that Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence). To explain, the form is a photocopy of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.

to:

* HollywoodLaw: The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled, as the bungled. The document (a is a photocopy that Nurse Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence). negligence. To explain, the form is a photocopy ''photocopy'' of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.



* JuryAndWitnessTampering: Galvin took the fall for this in the backstory, when the prestigious law firm he belonged to was playing shenanigans. He avoided criminal prosecution but it was the decisive turning point in his life, as he lost his position with a prestigious law firm and divorced his wife.

to:

* JuryAndWitnessTampering: Galvin took the fall for this in the backstory, when the prestigious law firm he belonged to was playing shenanigans. He avoided criminal prosecution but it was the decisive turning point in his life, as he lost his position with a the prestigious law firm and divorced his wife.


Added DiffLines:

* PrecisionFStrike: When Frank says Concannon is a good man, Morrissey snaps "He's the Prince of Fucking Darkness!"


* HollywoodLaw:
** The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled, as the document (a photocopy that Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence) is ''right there in her hand''. Obviously it can easily be produced.

to:

* HollywoodLaw:
**
HollywoodLaw: The defense should have been able to win at the close of Galvin's case by making a motion for "judgment as a matter of law" (i.e. the judge ruling in their favor as no rational jury could find against them). However that doesn't happen, and then Galvin puts on his surprise witness Nurse Kaitlin Price, who shows Dr. Towler was indeed negligent. Judge Hoyle then incorrectly rules that her testimony is inadmissible hearsay, though it fulls under the "admissions" exception. Topping it off, the "best evidence" rule (that when witnesses testify to the content of a document, it must be produced) gets utterly bungled, as the document (a photocopy that Price brings in showing that she altered an admissions form at Towler's order to cover up his negligence) negligence). To explain, the form is ''right a photocopy of the original, and the best evidence rule requires that the original document be entered into evidence. The real problem was that the best evidence rule allows the exclusion of a copy of a writing; it does not bar a witness from testifying about what she wrote in the original document. Galvin does not even attempt to offer the document into evidence. Rather, he just asks the witness what she wrote in the document. Furthermore, there is an exception to the best evidence rule: when the original is unavailable owing to a bad act by the party against whom the copy would be offered. Here, the witness is claiming that she altered the original document under the threat of the defendant, but made a photocopy of the original before she did so. So in her hand''. Obviously real life, the copy would almost certainly be admissible. As for the hearsay issue, while the admissions exception would apply to Towler's out-of-court statement to Price, the statement was not hearsay to begin with, because it can easily be produced.was not being offered to prove the content of the statement; whether Dr. Towler would have actually had Nurse Price fired for refusing to alter the admissions form is completely irrelevant to Galvin's case. It is only hearsay when the out-of-court statement is offered as evidence for the truth of the statement.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 38

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report