Perry Mason moment
It takes its name from Perry Mason, a fictional character in novels and stories written by Erle Stanley Gardner, where such dramatic reversals occurred, often in the form of witnesses confessing to crimes others were accused of in response to the sudden exposure of an inconsistency in their alibi.
Among the misdeeds that it cited to support the motion was the testimony elicited from one government cooperating witness who had agreed to take the stand in return for plea agreements or immunity.
She told the prosecutor that another driver had given her the finger and attempted to run her off the road on the way to court that morning; after being asked if she recognized that person, she identified him by name and also as the defendant's sister's boyfriend.
The court found that level of detail completely unnecessary, as there were other possible causes of her condition, including a medical diagnosis of anxiety, and it was only when the prosecutor asked that the jury and the defense became aware the driver was connected to the defendant.
[3] Five years later, the Seventh Circuit heard the appeal of two bank robbers who argued that the trial judge had, by disallowing a line of questioning on cross-examination over one key witness's motivations for testifying, violated their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
"It is unlikely that counsel expected Simmons to break down on the stand and admit that his perjury was part of an elaborate scheme to frame the defendants", wrote Judge Daniel A. Manion.
"[8] Judge D. Michael Fisher of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, dissenting from the majority's grant of habeas corpus relief over, among other things, evidence not shared with the defense in the case that could likely have exculpated the petitioner, wrote that "a dramatic courtroom reversal is more likely in a Matlock or Perry Mason script than in reality.
"[10] In deciding a 2003 patent infringement case, Wayne Andersen of the Northern District of Illinois wrote of a "a very rare Perry Mason-esque moment" when the plaintiff patentee conceded on the stand that the defendant's pool cover was not topped with a dark material like his patent had described his own, resulting in "the least difficult infringement analysis this Court has ever been required to perform" and summary judgement for defendants.
[11] In his 2010 book I Love It When You Talk Retro, author Ralph Keyes connects the term to the Perry Mason TV series, which ran from 1957 to 1966.
"As played by portly Raymond Burr", he wrote, "Perry Mason was a resourceful lawyer who generally pulled his client's chestnuts out of the fire at the last minute with some deftly posed question or just-discovered piece of evidence.
Harlow Brian Sails was accused of murdering an off-duty Prince George's County police officer while robbing a jewelry store a year earlier with three accomplices.
It occurred during a highly publicized trial broadcast live on television, when a prosecutor's question to a defendant undermined a key aspect of his defense and increased popular perception of his guilt.
[16] On direct examination, both claimed that the brothers went to a nearby Big 5 store to buy handguns, ostensibly to protect themselves from their parents, only to find out that there was a mandatory waiting period of seven days before they could take possession of the weapons.
When cross-examining Erik, prosecutor Lester Kuriyama focused on that aspect of his testimony, asking him to clarify whether he and Lyle had looked at revolvers or more modern "automatic" handguns, and what caliber they had considered.
At the end of the year humorist Paul Slansky described the whole incident as a "'Perry Mason' moment" in a multiple-choice quiz on the trial in Newsweek, one of the earliest uses of the term in a major national publication.
Despite the high drama the question created and the increased perception of the brothers' guilt, the separate juries deadlocked on the charges, resulting in a mistrial.
The defense lawyers realized early on that Darden had "hot buttons" which, if pressed, would lead him to act rashly, to the possible detriment of the prosecution.
"Marcia Clark [the lead prosecutor] turned white but did not move from her seat," wrote author and filmmaker Lawrence Schiller, in American Tragedy, his inside account of the trial from the defense perspective.
"[T]he prosecution created a 'Perry Mason' moment that could provide the basis for some jurors' reasonable doubt," said UCLA law professor Peter Arenella.
"Detailed explanations regarding shrinkage ran headlong into the old adage that one picture is worth a thousand words," she told the Los Angeles Times.
[21] In his closing argument, Cochran turned the glove demonstration into a metaphor for the inconsistencies throughout the prosecution case, using the phrase "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" repeatedly.
[24] Simpson was later found liable for the deaths in a civil suit brought by the victims' relatives;[25] he served time in a Nevada prison for a 2007 burglary and was released in October 2017.
"[28] In 2022, alt-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones went on trial for a defamation lawsuit filed on behalf of the parents of victims in the Sandy Hook shooting, whom Alex Jones had called "crisis actors" due to his false assertions that the shooting was a hoax perpetrated by gun control advocates.
Furthermore, Jones' lawyers were notified of the mistake and had failed to claim that the records were protected under client-attorney privilege, allowing Bankston to provide the evidence during the trial.
In Slate, law professor Adam Winkler later called that "the closest the Supreme Court gets to a Perry Mason moment," and observed that it did indeed take Clement's suggestion three months later.
agrees Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor who frequently appears as a legal commentator and analyst.
Morley Swingle, the elected prosecuting attorney for Cape Girardeau County, Missouri, and a published mystery novelist, recounts how his extensive preparation for the cross-examination of an expert witness led to a Perry Mason moment, as recognized by a journalist present.
At trial he got Dinwiddie to admit that she had only reviewed the victim's letters, had not been allowed to speak at length with any of her family members, and could not officially make a diagnosis as she was, unlike a psychiatrist, not a physician.
Finally he asked if she agreed with a statement by Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor Harrison Pope that "it would be pure speculation for a psychiatrist to try to give a formal diagnosis of a dead person he has never met."
[38] Eric Dubin, the attorney for Bonnie Lee Bakley's family in their civil suit against actor Robert Blake over her death, took a gamble during the trial that resulted in a Perry Mason moment.
