But there's gotta (supposed to) be no evidence FOR him in order to convict. I feel like Derwin created reasonable doubt.In real life they probably still find his ass guilty. Even though he is a good lawyer and they've seen him in action there's just too much evidence against him. Donna pleading the 5th would be the nail in the coffin
TrueBut there's gotta (supposed to) be no evidence FOR him in order to convict. I feel like Derwin created reasonable doubt.
No it wouldn't. I mean court-room wise, what evidence has been brought up against him? Mike LOOKS guilty as hell, don't get me wrong. But I'm not sure what the jury has to prove him guilty.In real life they probably still find his ass guilty. Even though he is a good lawyer and they've seen him in action there's just too much evidence against him. Donna pleading the 5th would be the nail in the coffin
mike admitted he was a fraud in the closing statement thoughBut there's gotta (supposed to) be no evidence FOR him in order to convict. I feel like Derwin created reasonable doubt.
He didn't admit he was a fraud as being a fake lawyer though. He said he was a fraud for some other shyt if I remember correctly; he did that shyt almost sarcastically. I gotta rewatch it though, I could be wrong.mike admitted he was a fraud in the closing statement though
jury would have had to say guilty
and its motherfukk louis
hmmm...i seeHe didn't admit he was a fraud as being a fake lawyer though. He said he was a fraud for some other shyt if I remember correctly; he did that shyt almost sarcastically. I gotta rewatch it though, I could be wrong.
U rightHe didn't admit he was a fraud as being a fake lawyer though. He said he was a fraud for some other shyt if I remember correctly; he did that shyt almost sarcastically. I gotta rewatch it though, I could be wrong.