As a rule I love courtroom dramas. They take intelligence and cleverness to execute. "The Trials of Cate McCall" lacked some of that intelligence and cleverness.
Cate McCall (Kate Beckinsale) was a lawyer who was trying to get her life together. She was assigned a pro bono case as a condition for her to get off of probation for a DUI. If she got off of probation then she may have had a case for getting custody of her daughter. She was assigned a habeas corpus case for Lacey Stubbs (Anna Schafer) who'd been convicted of killing a woman named Jen Cole. Habeas corpus is basically an attempt to prove that a person has been unjustly prosecuted (hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, etc.). After some interviews and listening to Lacey's side of the story, Cate was convinced that Lacey had been wrongly convicted.
I've seen many wrongfully convicted/charged movies, so how was this one going to be different? It was different in that Lacey actually was guilty. But even still, that isn't that novel ("Primal Fear," "Just Cause," and "High Crimes" come to mind). So, is it still a wrongfully convicted case?
In the case of this movie, yes and no. Yes, because the cops pulled some dirty tricks to secure a conviction, and that can't be allowed regardless of the defendant's guilt. No, because Lacey was actually guilty.
Cate was an exceptional lawyer who had to do minimal work to prove police misconduct to get Lacey a new trial. In fact, it was so easy you have to wonder how Lacey got convicted to begin with. Then, to show how much the writers really didn't care, they hand fed Cate the fact that Lacey really was guilty.
After Cate got Lacey out of prison, Lacey didn't even try to put up an appearance of innocence. She practically told her lawyer that she was guilty which was really dumb because she was still going to be retried. Then, to drive home that she was truly guilty, her co-defendant, in what can only be defined as schadenfreude, told Cate that Lacey was guilty because she helped her kill Jen. This made zero sense because Lacey's co-defendant could've gotten out of prison by the same means Lacey got out, but apparently she'd rather stay in prison out of nobility (I guess) just to make sure Lacey was convicted.
"The Trials of Cate McCall" was a poorly written movie. It was just lazy all around. Even Cate's trick to get Lacey back into prison wasn't all that special. The movie had enough intrigue and mystery to keep me watching, but for a lawyer movie it was substandard.
Cate McCall (Kate Beckinsale) was a lawyer who was trying to get her life together. She was assigned a pro bono case as a condition for her to get off of probation for a DUI. If she got off of probation then she may have had a case for getting custody of her daughter. She was assigned a habeas corpus case for Lacey Stubbs (Anna Schafer) who'd been convicted of killing a woman named Jen Cole. Habeas corpus is basically an attempt to prove that a person has been unjustly prosecuted (hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, etc.). After some interviews and listening to Lacey's side of the story, Cate was convinced that Lacey had been wrongly convicted.
I've seen many wrongfully convicted/charged movies, so how was this one going to be different? It was different in that Lacey actually was guilty. But even still, that isn't that novel ("Primal Fear," "Just Cause," and "High Crimes" come to mind). So, is it still a wrongfully convicted case?
In the case of this movie, yes and no. Yes, because the cops pulled some dirty tricks to secure a conviction, and that can't be allowed regardless of the defendant's guilt. No, because Lacey was actually guilty.
Cate was an exceptional lawyer who had to do minimal work to prove police misconduct to get Lacey a new trial. In fact, it was so easy you have to wonder how Lacey got convicted to begin with. Then, to show how much the writers really didn't care, they hand fed Cate the fact that Lacey really was guilty.
After Cate got Lacey out of prison, Lacey didn't even try to put up an appearance of innocence. She practically told her lawyer that she was guilty which was really dumb because she was still going to be retried. Then, to drive home that she was truly guilty, her co-defendant, in what can only be defined as schadenfreude, told Cate that Lacey was guilty because she helped her kill Jen. This made zero sense because Lacey's co-defendant could've gotten out of prison by the same means Lacey got out, but apparently she'd rather stay in prison out of nobility (I guess) just to make sure Lacey was convicted.
"The Trials of Cate McCall" was a poorly written movie. It was just lazy all around. Even Cate's trick to get Lacey back into prison wasn't all that special. The movie had enough intrigue and mystery to keep me watching, but for a lawyer movie it was substandard.