I felt like Alex was getting her revenge on Piper. And I’d have a hard time blaming her for that. Then again, I can’t stand Piper - what a whiny baby!!
I’m pretty sure “I don’t recall” is a cast iron way not to answer a question in a legal setting - they can’t prove you do (even if they prove that Piper knew him, they can’t prove that she remembers that she knew him right now), you’re not making a statement that can be demonstrated false and bite you in the ass later, and they can’t *compel *you to recall or be found in contempt either.
It’s certainly popular.
Most lawyers have a respect for the law and a sense of professional ethics which would compel him or her to advise their client to tell the truth when on the witness stand. I don’t think it was any more than that. And, quite frankly, this is just another example of Piper fucking up.
And that’s why she apologized afterward?
No, she changed her mind because someone offered her a deal, and Piper just got screwed. It wasn’t malice, but it was certainly selfish.
Agreed. And I don’t think Alex was out to deliberately screw Piper over, she just was given an opportunity and took it. Piper fucked up by taking Alex’s advice instead of her lawyer’s.
Well accept for that woman who maid an ersatz diaper out of maxi-pads. And to be fair the guard who took her out of solitary did ask if she needed to pee several times.
Well Alex was wearing civilian clothes instead of a prison uniform. She sure as hell didn’t look like she was being led back into a cell. IIRC there’s no parole in the federal system, but you can be released early for good behaviour after serving 85% of your sentence. Presumably the Justice Department can get even earlier if it suits their needs.
I agree with this. But I think Piper finally got wise by the end of the show.
About the early release stuff… I’m pretty sure Alex had a much longer sentence than Piper. Piper was only going to be in for 15 months. I guess it would be nice to know how much time passed during season 1. I believe season 2 picks up a month after the end of season 1.
Well, yes, but do they have any ethics when it comes to protecting their clients’ lives? Doe professional ethics about getting the truth out in court trump concerns for the ability of their clients to continue breathing once they’ve testified?
That’s in the show. I was talking about in real life.
If the lawyer thinks there’s a legitimate reason for their client to fear for their safety, they would try to strike a deal for additional protection, a transfer to another prison, witness protection or whatever rather than tell their client to commit perjury.
Not saying all these options would have been available in Piper’s case but the goal would be “protect you” rather than “lie so we don’t have to protect you”.
But getting back to the dramatic end of the spectrum, Larry’s father has a conflict: he thinks Piper has been bad for his son. He’s not so motivated, shall we say, to protect her. And not going that extra mile to protect her might force her to disappear or get killed … he would not have had to do anything POSITIVE to get rid of her, just not go that extra mile. Lawyers are accustomed to working with laws and not morality, so he might not even understand it to be unethical.
Howard (Larry’s dad) never struck me as being that morally bereft. But even if he were, if got back to Larry that something Howard did allowed Piper to die, that wouldn’t be good for his relationship with his son. Also, giving advice that caused the death of one of his clients probably wouldn’t be good for his practice either.
In short, I don’t think Howard believed Piper was in any real danger.
I thought it was pretty clear what happened but I could be wrong. The prosecution was expecting Piper’s testimony to be sufficient to put the kingpin away. When Piper refused to testify, the prosecution was put under pressure and made a plea deal with Alex that she could get her sentence commuted in exchange for testifying.
Alex knew this was going to happen and deliberately engineered it to be the case. All of the stuff about the kingpin having people on the outside and threatening her was bullshit.
You must not have watched the whole season yet. 
It’s an interesting theory, but none of that was obvious. I don’t think we even see any evidence that it’s true.
I like it, though.
Gee thanks for that…no, we haven’t, that’s why this is an episode 1 thread.
If I could, I’d like to suggest that going forward nothing in episodes past the one being discussed is mentioned (or implied), even in spoiler boxes.
There was no reason for that.
I don’t think the prosecution would have the ability to make that offer on a dime.
Agreed. I clicked it because I wasn’t expecting future spoilers in the Episode One thread (and half the time people use spoiler boxes for jokes and stuff). Lame.
You weren’t expecting a spoiler box to contain a spoiler. Gotcha.