The Case of the Lucky Loser

This is a different kind of episode than we are accustom since we know the facts early in the show instead of a who-done-it kind of mystery. But we know that the wrong person has been accused of the crime and Perry has been brought in to defend the lad.

To give you some background without giving away the crime, the story involves a powerful family with the named of Balfour's. Ted Balfour was first convicted of hit-and-run manslaughter charge into the killing of George Egan. Hamilton Burger has questions about the death and revisits the body to find a gunshot wound to the head. Now Hamilton Burger issues a murder warrant on Ted Balfour.

Now we, as viewers, know the circumstance of the murder, this is when Perry will enter the picture. When the murder trial begins, Perry will move for dropping the charges on the grounds of double jeopardy. Ted has already been convicted of the death and cannot be retried. The Judge makes a ruling to go ahead with the trail and a higher court would rule on the double jeopardy request. So the court hearing will continue.

During the trail we hear some strange testimony from the witnesses. Since we know the details of the incident we know most are committing perjury. But Perry, with much help form Paul Drake Detective Agency, will have to fight off all the lies in order to get his client cleared of not only the murder charge but also cleared of the manslaughter case. But before the end of the episode there is a bizarre twist that will have each viewer flabbergasted by the evidence and event of the murder.

At first I thought knowing the details of the murder early in the show would diminish the value of the show. However I was proved wrong as this episode was strangely interesting. And one person that could have had perjury charges against them will be facing much worse. And we, the viewer, will be entertained to the fullest.

This episode has everything - suspense, obvious lying and not so obvious lying, head scratching moments when you wonder exactly what law school Hamilton Burger attended, and red, green, and blue herrings.

Lawrence Balfour (Bruce Bennett) is getting on a train headed for Mexico and kissing his wife. Harriet, goodbye. But it is just a ruse. Lawrence gets off of the train and follows his wife in a car he has stashed nearby. He follows her to a remote cabin, she greets her lover, and Lawrence waits for her to leave. Lawrence, armed with a revolver, goes into the cabin to confront the other man, that other man shines a bright light in his eyes, there is a struggle, the gun goes off, and the other man falls to the floor dead. Lawrence frantically calls - not the police - but the Balfour family fixer as to what to do. The fixer, Steven Boles, tells Lawrence to catch the same train that he got off of at the next stop, try to get on unobserved, and act as though he never got off of that train. Boles says that he will take care of the body. Did I mention that the Balfour family is very wealthy, thus they can afford an able and loyal fixer.

Things don't go as planned. The body is discovered too soon, somebody sees the license plate of Steven's car as it speeds away from the dead body - the license plate belongs to Lawrence's nephew Ted. Ted was out drinking that night at the goodbye party for Lawrence, and can't account for his time during the accident. Ted is charged with vehicular manslaughter.

There is a hung jury before Perry gets involved in this case of the wrong man charged with the wrong crime. How does Perry figure out what actually happened? He doesn't have to figure out what I just told you. The fixer actually TELLS Perry everything just to let him know who has all of the power in this situation. It is the only time I can remember that somebody told Perry Mason to sit down and then he does so.

If you know what to look for in an episode of Perry Mason, some "tells" will hit you, as in - This is a common situation on Perry Mason, why did they do this scene in this particular way? Also note that, in the age of DNA and hard rules about forensics, the kinds of mistakes being made here by the prosecution would simply not be made today, or even in 1958.

I enjoyed this episode a lot. One of the most cohesive plots and endings, yet still, for me, a complete surprise.

This isn't a fun episode with lots of interplay with Street and Drake. It's all business and lots of it. And a bit on the dark side. Shades of Chinatown with lots of corruption and a very dysfunctional family. Lots of levels to uncover, but it didn't feel contrived (as many episodes do). Really first rate story.

Not that it doesn't have some small plots holes. But they are forgivable, if not undetectable. I didn't notice them until I read another review here. The red herrings are palatable, minimal, and suit the story.

And, for a change, no blackmail.

While the story is certainly interesting, I couldn't help thinking that the entire thing was totally illogical and probably a violation of Ted Balfour's constitutional rights. Since another court had already ruled on the illegality of double jeopardy, it made very little sense that the judge in this case overruled Mason's writ of habeas corpus. The case law quoted by Perry clearly stated that the same person cannot be tried for the same death more than once. Not even if the prosecution was incompetent and didn't adequately investigate. Once again, Burger was so anxious to get to court that he didn't notice a bullet in the head of the victim. He always had a habit of taking the most obvious answer and running with it. This led to his prosecuting Ted on a lesser charge of manslaughter. In any other court in America, that would have been case closed.

For some reason, the judge in the episode claimed he would send it to a higher court and then somehow they overruled it. Case law is there for a reason. It sets a precedent for judges to rule on tricky constitutional issues.

There were also way too many characters thrown at us at once (Boles, multiple Balfours and their wives, Mrs Ingle, and a butler). But the main problem with the episode is that this show is supposed to be all about justice. The double jeopardy thing was the opposite of justice. Even though the truth was exposed, the entire thing was a violation of Ted's rights. Why bring up double jeopardy at all if it's just going to be quickly overruled? Another thing that's weird is the judges seem a lot more cranky in this season. The judge in this case used to be a kindly old man who usually took Perry's side. In this case, he's crotchety and is downright rude at times. Wondering if the creators were trying to create more suspense by making it seem as though even the judges were against Mason?

Even with all the flaws in this episode, it's still miles ahead of any show on television today.

This is an absolutely top-notch episode, the kind that marks this as one of the very best mystery shows ever to come to television. In this episode, we have: action; a complex legal concept, explained so the audience can grasp it (not easy! I'm a lawyer!); beautiful women (well, Della, as always, plus gorgeous Patricia Medina and classy Heather Angel)and a tough antagonist for Perry; and an outstanding story. The pacing is swift. This is one you will remember.