1. the Practice S6 E17 the Plot Final Parcon and Murillo

 The Practice Practice (Season 6, Episode Episode 17) – Manifest Necessity Necessity  The Plot: Boy and !i""y (The #efendant) $o a$ainst %elen and &enneth 'alsh (The Prosection) in a case here the defendant Mc*ntry has a ac+$rond in or$anied cri"e ("rderin$ his siness partner) and on in his last case, 1- years prior, a$ainst 'alsh. The case/prosection initially as spearheaded y %elen ntil the case eco"es ot of her hand and 'alsh insisted his athority to ta+e the lead on the case. The cr0 of this episode is 'alshs "iscondct. 'hen (1) Prosections itness (Mr. 2osie), too+ a stand re3ertin$ his initial testi"ony that the person he initially pointed ot is innocent, oldly insisted in the stand that he is tryin$ to do hat is ri$ht and correct hat he has done. Bt prosector 'alsh 'alsh after the hearin$, in a pri3a pri3ate te roo", roo", inti"i inti"idat dated ed and threat threatene ened d Mr. Mr. 2osie osie to recon reconsid sider er his 4rst 4rst testi"ony and y not doin$ so, he ('alsh) ill send hi" to 5ail for per5ry and ostrction of 5stice. The itness as not ale to re3erse his testi"ony for he as "rdered later that ni$ht. (-) Mr. 'alsh too+ o3er Ms. %elen as the "ain consel for the prosection and pt #etecti3e Si"ons on the itness stand. #etecti3e Si"ons, hile on the itness stand erroneosly ttered the fact that Mc*ntry as for"erly prosected for the "rder of his for"er siness partner. Both consels, consels, the prosec prosection tion and the defendan defendants, ts, called called into the 5d$e 5d$e cha"ers for a settle"ent and e0planation fro" the prosection, t yet heated ar$ ar$"e "ent nts s et etee een n part partie ies s for for the the alle alle$e $ed d cons conspi piri rin$ n$ ith ith the the itn itnes ess s and and intentionally to case a "istrial or "anifest necessity, in order to settle the isse, the defendant consel reested the 5d$e to ha3e his co/consel, %elen to ta+e a stand for a hearin$ aot his co/consel alle$ed "iscondct, in hich the !d$e $ranted. $ranted. The 5d$cleare 5d$cleared d the cort cort roo" roo" and condcted condcted a hearin$ hearin$ re$ard re$ardin$ in$ the iss isse e of het hethe herr the the #, #, Mr. Mr. 'alsh alsh cor corroo roora rate ted d ith ith dete detect cti3 i3e e Si"o Si"ons ns to intentionally case a "anifest necessity ("istrial). Ms. %elen, hile on the itness stand, confessed that she had sstantial reasons to elie3e that indeed, Mr. 'alsh 'alsh prposely anted a "istrial. The 5d$e after hearin$ Ms. %elens state"ents and on accont of the lac+ of e3idence directly i"plicatin$ the defendant for the "rder of  his siness partner prononced the case as a "istrial ith pre5dice pre5dice and dis"issed the sa"e. Ms. %elen later, as+ed for for$i3eness to the 3icti"s da$hter and told her that it as her ethical dty as a layer. Mr. 'alsh 3oiced ot his dissent side and said he old appeal the corts decision.