104 Fixed loophole repair Case patient paralyzed by taking medicine for migraine sued Diane Alicia, head of the law firm of a pharmaceutical company Partner lawyer: Unable to judge Lee Sutman opposing lawyer James Macloon The plaintiff testified in the first trial: He originally had a headache, but he ate After the medicine prescribed by the doctor, he suffered a stroke and paralyzed his lower limbs. Out-of-court developments Alicia found a slip of paper with a jury seat map and an amount on it. She and Kelinda found out that it was paper from a restaurant where someone must have been talking about trial tactics (probably involving bribing a jury). They discovered that the regular was a defense attorney for the pharmaceutical company. Discussion Regarding this matter, Diane and Will have different understandings. There are several possibilities: 1. The other party deliberately wanted to cause an invalid trial. 2. Someone in the opposing team discovered illegal behavior and deliberately disclosed it to oneself. So: strategy, to investigate whether the jurors involved were actually bribed. Out-of-court investigation Kelinda found that although jury member No. 2 was out of work, the family's financial situation was still very good. She tracked down the juror's husband and discovered he was working for Macloon's company. In the second trial, the plaintiff's wife testified: the other party proved that even though he was paralyzed, the plaintiff's quality of life did not decrease much. Discussion The question of whether or not to replace jury number 2 was again in a dilemma. Will's suggestion is that if the opponent is mad when he proposes to replace No. 2, it means that No. 2 has indeed been bought, and he should strive to replace him. If the other party is not mad, then the other party will say that it is just a reminder, and does not strongly demand a replacement. Results of the jury question (No. 2) The other party agrees to replace the jury member No. 2. Diane Feeling annoyed because she got the other person's trick. Kelinda went on to investigate Juror No. 11, found that he had just deposited $20,000 in cash in his account, and found that he said he was going to give his ex-wife a sum of $10,000. The third trial The pharmaceutical company testified: The drug does not relieve headaches, but a drug for schizophrenia. The plaintiff may have taken the drug by mistake to cause the stroke. Fourth Trial Drug Company Testimony: Diane found the drug company's application for the drug as a migraine treatment. Out-of-court investigation Kelinda followed Juror No. 11 and found that he had exchanged envelopes with someone. But Kelinda didn't remember the license plate number. Jury Question Results (No. 11) Diane explained the situation to the judge. The judge held Diane in contempt of court for stalking jurors. The judge said that if there is conclusive evidence, it can be brought to court. But before that, it depends on the jury's verdict. Results The jury ruled against the pharmaceutical company. Kelinda discovered that the plaintiff was actually paying bribes to the jurors. Diane tells Alicia not to get too caught up in the details, because they've done justice. Politics Peter's lawyer Dainel is taking evidence for Peter's appeal, and he asked Alicia to say that Peter's concealment of the prostitute was only to conceal the affair from his wife, not to conceal a mistake at work (embezzlement). He asked Alicia to find out if there was any evidence that Peter didn't meet someone one day. Alicia saw a video and realized it was a day Peter was at home with the kids preparing gifts for her. She found out that Daniel had brought gifts to her family, was angry, returned all the gifts, and told him not to try to buy her and her children. Daniel finds Alicia again and asks her to find the receipt for the bracelet. Because the other party may say that the bracelet itself is a proof of bribery. Alicia found a jewelry store, but the jewelry store said the buyer was not named Florrick. Peter asked Alicia to testify for him. Let Alicia not get too caught up in the details, because they did justice. Politics Peter's lawyer Dainel is taking evidence for Peter's appeal, and he asked Alicia to say that Peter's concealment of the prostitute was only to conceal the affair from his wife, not to conceal a mistake at work (embezzlement). He asked Alicia to find out if there was any evidence that Peter didn't meet someone one day. Alicia saw a video and realized it was a day Peter was at home with the kids preparing gifts for her. She found out that Daniel had brought gifts to her family, was angry, returned all the gifts, and told him not to try to buy her and her children. Daniel finds Alicia again and asks her to find the receipt for the bracelet. Because the other party may say that the bracelet itself is a proof of bribery. Alicia found a jewelry store, but the jewelry store said the buyer was not named Florrick. Peter asked Alicia to testify for him. Let Alicia not get too caught up in the details, because they did justice. Politics Peter's lawyer Dainel is taking evidence for Peter's appeal, and he asked Alicia to say that Peter's concealment of the prostitute was only to conceal the affair from his wife, not to conceal a mistake at work (embezzlement). He asked Alicia to find out if there was any evidence that Peter didn't meet someone one day. Alicia saw a video and realized it was a day Peter was at home with the kids preparing gifts for her. She found out that Daniel had brought gifts to her family, was angry, returned all the gifts, and told him not to try to buy her and her children. Daniel finds Alicia again and asks her to find the receipt for the bracelet. Because the other party may say that the bracelet itself is a proof of bribery. Alicia found a jewelry store, but the jewelry store said the buyer was not named Florrick. Peter asked Alicia to testify for him.
View more about The Good Wife reviews
