Last Updated on August 27, 2024
One of the defining character-building moments of Netflix’s Daredevil series is the complete and utter failure of Matt Murdock as a defense lawyer in the courtroom trial of Frank Castle, a.k.a. The Punisher. While Murdock and his legal partner, Foggy Nelson, always had the deck stacked against them in this case (Frank Castle is undoubtedly a known mass murderer), their inept defense leaves the viewer to wonder if Castle ever stood a chance in the first place. But courtroom outbursts aside, Castle could reasonably have expected a better defense than he received.
The Punisher’s Guilt Isn’t In Question
In the show, there is little doubt that Frank Castle did, in fact, kill all the people he has been accused of murdering. For this reason, Nelson and Murdock believe their best defense is to show how corrupt the District Attorney is, presumably with the hopes that evidence of her prosecutorial misconduct will lead to a mistrial. The only problem? A mistrial sometimes means that a defendant walks free, but it can also mean that a new trial will be arranged. In the case of The Punisher, the DA may have acted in a very illegal manner, but it’s still unlikely the case would be thrown out because there is so much evidence against Castle, and the murders he committed became so well publicized.
A much better strategy would probably be to argue that Castle was suffering not from insanity, but from PTSD. While Castle refuses to falsely claim that he got PTSD from fighting in the war, he could rightly claim that he fell victim to the condition when his family was slain —something Nelson and Murdoch never consider as though combat is the only way someone could experience PTSD. To be fair though, as seen in the clip above, Frank himself blows up his insanity defense in the second part of the trial, seen in episode 8, “Guilty as Sin.”
Nelson and Murdock’s Terrible Legal Services
Even if their strategy was the strongest one for the case though, Nelson and Murdock’s performance is purely awful. Matthew has the excuse of moonlighting as a vigilante, but that doesn’t change the fact that he shows up late to the opening argument and completely bungles his examination during Castle’s testimony.
Foggy tries to step in when Matt doesn’t show and does a decent job, but he still misses multiple opportunities to help his client. For example, when things go wrong with the medical examiner’s testimony, he fails to object when the judge strikes the testimony from the record —which means this decision can’t be fought on appeal.
Additionally, when a person in the courtroom starts shouting at Castle, Foggy and Matthew miss the opportunity to request a mistrial based on the outburst —again, something that could have assisted them in the appeal. Finally, they push Frank into testifying against his wishes —something an attorney should never do, and inevitably the testimony ends up hurting their case further.
Frank Deserves a New Trial
As Escapist magazine points out, the trial itself is filled with procedural errors that would entitle Frank to a new trial. While we understand that a TV show, particularly one that is focused on ninjas and superheroes and not courtroom procedurals, has to take some liberties to speed up the true criminal process, this show is still supposed to depict the law at least somewhat accurately, being as how Foggy and Matt are both lawyers. The prosecutor’s opening statement alone could prove grounds for a mistrial as District Attorney Reyes doesn’t provide any evidence,
By the end of the trial, Frank may have been found guilty, but he may have actually benefited by Nelson and Murdock’s poor performance as it would give him grounds to request a new trial based on his defense’s incompetence. Under the law, a person who feels they were denied their constitutional right to a fair trial may seek a new trial if they can show that they suffered as a result of deficient performance by counsel that resulted in prejudice that affected the outcome of their trial.
Castle would have ample evidence for this claim between Matthew’s showing up late for his opening argument, the team’s failure to object to decisions that could have allowed for an appeal later on, and more. Frank would have a pretty strong case for a retrial if he attempted this move, and with a more competent team, he may have successfully fought the charges or at least receive a much lighter sentence than he would have through his first trial. Of course, this would go much better if he didn’t escape shortly after he was incarcerated, but that’s a different story.
The best time to search for a good lawyer is at the beginning of your case, when an investigation or arrest occurs. Please call Peter M. Liss at (760) 643-4050 or (858) 486-3024 to schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your case.
