I still don’t understand how Claire won this case

He was found in possession of stolen property but the lawyer failed to provide evidence that he intentionally stole the phone. Its like signing a document with a different signature, if it’s not your signature, you didn’t sign

Simple: that's how the writers wrote the script

Asking about his suit when she rocking a sparkly jacket like that?? They were made for each other lmao

No judge would accept Claire’s case. Boston Legal was pornography for coastal libshits.

Leave it to women to help a guilty minority walk.

Female judge letting a career criminal walk. If this is heartwarming to you no need to watch it on tv just go visit your local courthouse.

In Juror #2, she didn’t prove innocence — she planted doubt. That’s all it takes.

She won because to prove a case there has to be mensrea and the actus reus . When a person commits a crime he must have had the intention to carry out that crime and actually carryout the action . In this instance he did not have the intention of stealing and though he was in possession he was not charged for that offence so he cannot be held liable for a crime he wasn't charged for

Because the prosecution charged the guy with stealing the phone but the only they could prove is that he had a stolen phone. It is not rocket science. He could have easily just found it, and kept it, knowing it wasn't his. Which is a dick move, but not the act of theft.

Nollywood no go don use "objection my lord" wond us 😀😀😀😀

Good lawyers know the law, great lawyers understand the law. Boston Legal 👏🏽

The great hambino is a terrible prosecutor he messed up.

Boston Legal, this was my show and it is why I never fully was into Suits. There's another Legal show whose name I can't recall but it had to do with a young woman and her ridiculously short skirts

Aaaaand Jerome steals her purse that evening. Gets off scott free.... again... this continues until Jerome becomes more violent during his thefts, hurting people... then he boards a train in Charlotte, NC in 2025 and stabs Anna Zarutska...

The performance of the prosecutor was not integrated and there was a gap Just like once I had a traffic violation in Staten Island, NY, the police officer had put a wrong code for the U-turn I did, there for the judge dismissed the ticket

Is this supposed to be good writing and acting??? It's so awful!

Perfect example of how flawed the justice system is by technicalities

This nowhere near imitates reality.

Everyone out here asking Grok what show this is from and I’m just wondering when the Great Hambino became a lawyer…

Seems pretty straight forward to me. What part didn’t you get? DA failed to charge posession, as a lesser included offense, and he couldn’t prove a required element of the crime he did charge 🤷‍♀️

And this is how all the creeps involved with Jeffrey Epstein get off all the time. Shitty soulless lawyers

Jerome later murdered a white woman on a train

He doesn't like how she used his first name because they were familiar for her to use it that way and she afterwards went ahead to take part of his snacks to eat lol

In real life his ass would be in jail.

Yeah the Suit brings him luck

Horrible storyline, the person who wrote this was high 😂😂😂

🤣🤣 this guy is a thief What does he mean by i didn’t mean to take it

So this dumb bitch got her life threatened then defended the guy. What a clown

So writing court room shows is just making up sock puppets so you can then dunk on them?

What a shitty legal system

All black phones of the same size look alike. He picked up a phone, supposedly thinking it was his. No intent to steal. He had possession of stolen property, but that was not the official charge. It was implied in the stealing charge, so that’s the double jeopardy part.