The Case of the Lucky Loser

It's a wonderful episode, for many reasons, including Douglas Kennedy, who is just terrific at portraying sinister, menacing characters. He was in four installments of the show; this is his second appearance. (His first was the first filmed: The Case of the Moth-Eaten Mink (1957).) He has a gravelly low-baritone voice similar to J.D. Cannon's, Neville Brand's, and Lee Marvin's. But he also has a sneaky, shifty-eyed quality which the more famous tough-guys do not have. In fact, his face and demeanor bring back my childhood memories of President Richard Nixon trying to muscle his way out of his terminal scandal. (And I see that he (Douglas Kennedy) died, coincidentally, in 1973, when the impeachment proceedings began.)

He's definitely on my watch-everything list now.

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.

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.

The "Lucky Loser" in this case is the defendant, who--while trying to get assistance to repay a $20,000 gambling debt, is framed for manslaughter, which becomes murder.

I've seen (I believe) all 281 Perry Mason series episodes, as I used to watch them every day way back when TBS cycled them endlessly. There were only 82 Perry Mason novels, and this was novel number 52. I always go back and watch the episode matching a novel to see how they compare. Sometimes they're not all that close, at times even changing the murderer to a different character.

This episode happens to roll along very close to the story in the novel, only eliminating one important character and changing the role of second, combining it into the character dropped for the TV episode. The other main difference is the order of things in the novel are scrambled in the TV episode, so you see certain events at the start of the episode which you only learn about in the last half of the novel. There are a few sequences of dialogue in the novel which were adapted almost word for word into the TV episode, and that is QUITE unusual.

The episode itself is a good mystery, and off the normal plotting track from many Perry Mason mysteries. It's a good show.

Some reviewers noted they were let down by seeing the apparent crime unfold in the first few minutes. But of course that was an illusion. That is one aspect that makes this episode different. Another is the court ruling against Perry on double jeopardy. Perry cites a real case, State v. McDaniels, 137 Cal. 192 (1902), that is right on point and controlling precedent. The judge did not have discretion. In almost all Mason episodes, the judges are dead on right in their rulings, and neither Mason nor Burger wins via a bad call. But this ruling adverse to Perry, but wrong, sets up the pivotal scene between Perry and "Evil Steve," the Balfour family fixer, who is the embodiment of an anti-Mason. Steve wants Perry to present no defense for Ted Balfour and win on appeal, which will minimize exposure to the Balfour family and to "Evil Steve." Steve has made it clear to Perry that Ted is innocent and recounted to Perry what the viewer saw in the first few minutes. Perry tells Steve that Perry does not suborn perjury but relies on truth. He hands Steve a subpoena. Steve gets Addison Balfour to fire Perry but Perry continues to represent Ted. Perry wonders why Lawrence Balfour, the killer in Steve's version, has not shown up. Paul helps Perry to learn why. To viewers of shows like CSI and NCIS, the mistakes made by the State in this episode are unbelievable. Curiously, for the plan of the culprits to succeed, the culprits had to rely on the State making these mistakes.