I know, it’s just a TV show, but…
To recap:
*In the latest episode of “The Practice”, Donnell’s client killed his wife in the heat of the moment, hid her body in his trunk, then got pulled over by a cop. The cop, a female, thought he was acting suspicious, searched the trunk, and found the body. The client confesses upon the discovery.
Before trial, A.D.A. Helen Gamble questioned the cop. The cop’s suspicions weren’t enough to do a search. Helen wink-wink-nudge-nudges the cop into an elaborate reason for searching the car.
On the stand, the cop’s story is torn apart by Lindsay. The evidence in the trunk is ruled inadmissable, as is the confession. The client gets away with murder.
(BTW, Helen and Lindsay are roommates.) After the trial, Lindsay goes home to tell Helen that she’s moving in with Bobby. She leaves, then calls and talks to Bobby, who is on his way to the client’s house to console him.
But just as he gets there, the client is leaving with an overnight bag. Bobby gets suspicious, and tails him. He ends up at the lady cop’s apartment. It all becomes clear: the client and cop are lovers and arranged this whole thing to get him clear of killing his wife. Bobby is mad, and calls Lindsay, gets her answering machine, and leaves a message about the deception.
Helen regularly retrieves Lindsay’s messages. When she plays back the message, she immediately calls the cops, and the couple is arrested.
In court, Helen plays back the answering maching tape, which Bobby objects to. The judge allows it, since he didn’t consider it work-related conversation and protected by attorney/client priviledge.
Later that night, Lindsay’s trying to think of appeals they can file. Bobby is just dismissing them. She then realizes that he called her machine when he 1) knew she wasn’t there, and 2) that Helen checked those messages.*
So, now, my questions:
[list=1]
[li]How unethical is Helen’s coaching of the cop? Does this happen often?[/li]As a defense attorney, Bobby often gets charges dismissed on defendants that he knows are guilty, but had some technicality applied against them. So now, because his client premeditated to kill, he’s mad and wants him put away? Shouldn’t he be satisfied that his client was free, no matter what the procedure that freed him? I thought that was his goal.