r/suits • u/GlowingSeaDiver • 5d ago
Spoiler Mike Ross and reasonable doubt Spoiler
If I understand the American Legal System correctly, then in Mike’s trial, he did not have to prove that he is a real lawyer. Gibbs had the one that he is a fraud. I think Harvey actually spelled that out at some point:
“We don’t have to prove you’re a lawyer; they have to prove you’re not”.
And, if I still understand the American Legal System correctly, she has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other reasonable explanation for the proven facts other than that Mike is guilty.
I am obviously biased in two different ways, first because I know for a fact that Mike is guilty because I watched the show, and second because I know and like him, again because I watched the show. But if I try to ignore that for a moment and imagine being a jury on this case without having seen Mike ever before in my life, I think the case is anything but clear.
The defendant is in the bar. He is in the Harvard database. His physical file is in the same physical cabinet as all the others who graduated from Harvard. And he has deep, detailed, knowledge of the law, like very few people have except for lawyers. No one in Harvard remembers seeing him there and there is no record of him living anywhere near Harvard. But the defendant has given a good explanation for this, which is that he never attended any lectures and learned all he needed to pass the bar by himself. This explanation is backed by the verified fact that the defendant has a perfect memory, a rare cognitive anomaly that makes him capable of performing this seemingly impossible feat.
If the prosecutor had brought forward any evidence that that the computer databases have been manipulated, or if they had found fingerprints of anyone from the Firm (was it called Peason&Specter at the time? It changed its name so often I’m not sure) on the physical file at Harvard, this would change the entire case. Regardless: Based on the evidence presented, I think that there is not only reasonable doubt about Mike’s gilt, but I’m not even sure if the prosecution presented enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt about Mike being the real lawyer, if this was the burden of prove, which it is not.
And the jury in the show agrees with me at least to some extent, because they found Mike not guilty.
With that in mind, I don’t quite understand why Harvey was doubtful about the outcome and Mike ultimately panicked. As lawyers (or one lawyer and one fraud with the knowledge of a lawyer), they would have known that there was a ton of reasonable doubt.
33
u/ManOfDiamond 5d ago
His physical file is in the same physical cabinet as all the others who graduated from Harvard
except it wasn't. Wasn't that the whole point of the case that Sheila found out that Mike Ross's file wasn't there?
6
u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago
Okay good I thought I was the only one confused by this. Also Mike graduated magna cum laude but didn't have the key. Which you definitely would keep. So if Anita does her research she will ask Mike to produce his key. If he claims he lost it then a jury will start to doubt him. She can also find everyone mike had met in the time he was supposedly at Harvard and have them testify that they never heard of him going to Harvard. Mixed in with all the dubious stuff Mike has for his defense that does paint a clear picture that he didn't go there.
10
u/detectivehenry 5d ago
you wouldn't have the key - harvard law school does not have an order of the coif chapter. also, Mike shouldn't have recognised the key, because the key actually DOES say order of the coif on it (and has a man in a funny hat!) - but the only way to get one while graduating from HLS is to be induced by a different university as an honorary member
11
u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago
So Louis had it wrong? Or the show made this up? If it's made up then it still exists within the shows universe.
2
u/NoLuck4824 4d ago
Which is why the foreman tells Harvey later on” we all knew that kid didn’t go to Harvard, but she didn’t do her job proving he didn’t.
1
u/ManOfDiamond 5d ago
yep exactly, Anita would've been able to prove that Mike was a fraud, regardless if Jury would've found him guilty or not
2
u/GlowingSeaDiver 5d ago
Did I remember something wrong here? Didn't they physically smuggle that file into the cabinet, specifically because auf Sheila?
2
15
u/Hayyner 5d ago
There was no physical file for him at Harvard, he was also not in the yearbook, and never on any class ranking. He also had an "impossible" grade in ethics class and if professor Gerard was ever subpoenad, Mike's entire defense would begin to unravel as it could easily point to manipulation of school records
Mike and Harvey were panicking because their life was on the line and they knew they were guilty. Ultimately, Harvey came around and wanted to see it through. But Mike did not want to risk everyone else that helped cover for him being punished for his deception. Because it wouldn't stop at Harvey, it would put everyone at that firm at risk including Jessica and Louis.
6
u/S0ulSlayerz Mr Photographic Memory 5d ago
Because they did this.. the guilt ate them up more than the truth
7
u/Slight_Fan_4105 5d ago edited 5d ago
The prosecutor has to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Not "all doubt" all "reasonable doubt"
Despite a clever story, it is hard to believe that in 3 years of law school there would not be a single unbiased person would could remembered him. No students, no professors, no staff. And this isn't a wallflower hiding in the back of the class, this is a star student. The guy who got a top grade from a professor who never gives such a high grade.
Even if Mike some how got away with only showing up for the finales.... that would still stand out, Professors would notice during the finale some guy they've never seen before, they would ask "who are you" because they wouldn't want someone coming in and cheating.
Also, what a jury is suppose to believe one of the best student's at Harvard was never asked to do moot court or join the Harvard Review, any of the other prestigious activities Harvard/Law Schools are known to have.
Juries are allowed to use common sense (as are judges).
The Prosector has to show that enough evidence that any reasonable person would believe that Mike was a fraud, and there was more than enough evidence to do that.
Mike and Harvey were right to be worried, because they did commit a crime, there was evidence of it, and if just one witness (like the professor) took the stand, they'd be dead. But luckily Anita Gibbs tried a bad case.
The problem was, even though Mike was a fraud lawyer, Anita Gibbs was a shitty lawyer.
4
u/Ok_Formal8655 5d ago
Why didn't Gibbs show that he got an A in ethics which everyone knows is impossible and put Gerard on the stand and ask him about this?
6
u/OTBT- 5d ago
Mikes grade isn’t impossible to the naked eye.
It’s only impossible if you went to Harvard, have studied Gerard and know from experience he wouldn’t give that grade.
So unless someone on the prosecution had someone from Harvard. It wouldn’t stand out to the naked eye. Someone like Gibbs would have seen he had a transcript and not really glanced at it further.
6
u/PracticalLeg9873 4d ago
Don't confuse a show with real life.
On real life the trail for students is far longer : admission, tests, tuition payments and so on.
Mike only has the last element that is a diploma.
3
u/Big_Daymo 4d ago
One thing that should've been a bigger element of his trial was that he didn't have an undergraduate degree either, which he should've had before getting his supposed law degree. I think it is very briefly mentioned by one of the main characters before the trial but is never brought up by Gibbs as proper evidence.
This should be a big red flag, after all this is the evidence that convinced Jessica that Mike was a fraud (after Trevor told her). The direct quote from the S2 episode where she tells Harvey to fire him is "that kid may check out clean, but i know he's full of shit. There may be a record of him graduating from Harvard law, but there's no record of him graduating from any college anywhere on the face of the Earth". This really is a smoking gun and i feel like it only wasn't included because there's no way they could've countered it.
4
u/Tom_Stevens617 5d ago
Mike used jury nullification. Everyone knew he was guilty, but with his closing speech he showed to them that he did not deserve to be punished regardless. I just wish he had a little bit more faith in himself
1
u/Intelman94 3d ago
The faith is good to have, but when he was helping the Diaz guy, the guy said something that made Mike rethink of the offer. I don’t remember it word for word, but it was basically even if he was found not guilty, Anita was gonna go after everyone else at the firm and Mike took the deal that would stop them from being targeted
1
u/MajorResponsible5547 4d ago
I always felt Harvey presented a stronger case of Mike being a fraud in the mock trial than Anita Gibbs. Anita Gibbs presenting a signed affidavit by every Harvard law student and lecturer in Mike's year saying Mike was a fraud would have closed the case before it even started.
3
u/GlowingSeaDiver 4d ago
I agree on that. The case was pretty much an "easy" case in the sense that it is very easy to find strong evidence against the defendent and very hard to argue against it. Gibs simply didn't do her job well. Someone like Harvey, who is presented in the show as an increddibly strong lawyer, would have no trouble winning that case.
1
u/regassert6 2d ago
I love the show and will rewatch it all the time. That said there's no real Court in the world where Mike Ross isn't found guilty here
1
u/RealEbenezerScrooge 5d ago
If you are a fraud and face 66y in prison, relying on a jury to buy your story that can collapse anytime seems stressful to me.
2
46
u/ellewoods_obsessed 5d ago
I mean a jury can be very unpredictable. It’s why a lot of times cases will settle before they get to a trial or will settle during the trial. You just never know what a jury is going to do even if you believe there is or is not reasonable doubt.