irvberg2002 Walter Pigeon plays the part of a truly disgraceful lawyer. He agrees to represent a defendant in a murder case, thereby assuming a duty of loyalty to his client. In the course of the trial he succeeds in establishing that the key eyewitness against his client could not reasonably identify his client in view of the poor lighting conditions and, most important, that the witness need eyeglasses which he was not wearing at the time. Having demonstrated that there is not only lacking evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but a virtual lack of any evidence of guilt at all, the verdict of acquittal is inevitable. Indeed, the case should never have even gone to the jury; the judge should have entered judgment for the accused at the close of the prosecution's case. Upon discovering that his client really did the deed, the lawyer proceeds to assume the defense of the client for a second murder, one that he, the lawyer, committed, not the client, and proceeds to secure a conviction by withholding evidence, i.e., his own testimony that he, not the client, committed the second murder. He then goes on to provoke the client into killing him by, in effect, taunting him by revealing that he is the one who committed the second murder and getting the client to believe that he is prepared to see the client will be punished for the murder he did not commit. It is hard to imagine a lawyer betraying his duty of loyalty to his client so blatantly.

dougdoepke Those early scenes between DA Sullivan and attorney Pidgeon are beautifully played. Note how subtly a competitive sense is conveyed, along with professional respect and perhaps mild dislike. So when Pidgeon decides to take Wallchek's (Braselle) case and challenge the DA, we understand why. Pidgeon is excellent throughout. His resonant voice and dignified bearing suggest that Old Testament worship of the law that drives Brad's character. Ditto Sullivan's first-rate performance. Nonetheless, his DA takes a more pragmatic view of the law, one that's importantly tempered by reality.Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't measure up. Crime dramas whether noir or procedure were simply not MGM's strong suit. LB Mayer's philosophy was escapism and celebrity stars, and not even new production chief Dore Schary's background at gritty RKO could modify the entrenched tradition. Director Thorpe was one of Mayer's favorites because of his ability to complete projects under-budget. Unfortunately, that style-less efficiency is on bland display here as the scenes unfold in strictly mechanical fashion. Crucially, there are no visual (noirish) counterparts to Pidgeon's moral dilemma. Then too, the screenplay apes fashion of the day by needlessly involving a "Mr. Big" as the invisible mastermind behind crime in the city. Thus, what starts out as a very real legal dilemma—exonerating a guilty man and what to do about it—evolves into a contrived storyline, not helped by a highly contrived climax in the prison cell. That compelling premise really does deserve a more thoughtful, less tricky, development than what it gets here. Then too, once you think about it, I'm not sure how well the scales of justice actually balance, contrary to what the final scene appears to imply. Anyway, two fine performances are largely wasted in what another reviewer aptly calls a minor film.

MartinHafer Walter Pidgeon plays an attorney who is persuaded to defend a man accused of murder. This is odd, as Pidgeon is NOT a defense attorney but is still a well-respected lawyer. When he is able to obtain a not guilty verdict, he is horrified to find that the man was guilty after all--and he'd been suckered into using his good name to get the acquittal.Later, when Pidgeon is talking about this case with a friend, he tells the guy that the murderer is part a larger organized crime scheme. And, in a twist, the friend turns out to be the leader of this mob--and rubs it in Pidgeon's face. In a fit of anger, Pidgeon kills the man and frames his client in the process.So far, this is great. I like the idea of a lawyer acting on what is morally right and committing a murder. However, from this point on, Pidgeon's character just muddles his way through the film--doing a really goofy job in the process. Although he set up the murderer to take the rap for the second killing and he knows that the guy is a hardened killer, he inexplicably agrees to defend him once again! And, instead of doing a sane job, he just kind of muddles about and casts much of the suspicion on himself! What is going on here?! Pidgeon's character changes his motivation so often, you'd swear he had Multiple Personality Disorder! As a result of this very weak character, the film ultimately fails--despite starting off with such a wonderful premise.Overall, an interesting time passer that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Too bad.

Nicholas Rhodes An excellent film on all counts, and especially on the side of the script. The little I have seen of Walter Pidgeon has convinced me that this man must have been in his time a great and imposing actor ! You are kept on tenterhooks throughout the film right up till the end. In addition, Pidgeon's voice was magnificent and deep, you just don't hear voices like that now. Unfortunately not available on video anywhere like so many of the great old films. Let us hope this situation will be remedied in the coming years !