"The Second Verdict" is for the most part a fine entry about justice and the law, let down by a predictable conclusion. Martin Landau is attorney Ned Murphy, who successfully defends traveling businessman Lew Rydell (Frank Gorshin) from a murder rap. Following the verdict, Rydell privately confesses to Murphy that he is guilty of the crime, beating a grocery boy to death because of his psychopathic rage over the flirtatious nature of his wife Melanie (Sharon Farrell), who remains oblivious to the effect she has on other men. Scrupulously honest, Murphy is engaged to the daughter (Nancy Kovack) of his employer (Harold J. Stone), who is reluctant to have his future son-in-law tarnish the firm's reputation by going to the D.A. with Rydell's confession. Tony Hardeman (John Marley), whose brother was saved by Murphy's defense, decides to take matters into his own hands, while the attorney has a heartfelt talk with the judge (Richard Hale) who helped shape him into the lawyer he's become. Best remembered as The Riddler on TV's BATMAN, Frank Gorshin, one of the greatest impressionists of his generation, proves himself to be a solid character performer, quite believable and even frightening.
9 Reviews
The death of innocence
sol-kay14 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Funnyman Frank Gorshin who earlier that year-1964-had practically blown off the stage and made people,watching him, forget the Beatles in their US debut on the Ed Sullivan Show with his hysterical comedy routine does a great job as psycho killer Lew Rydell in this Alfred Hithcock Hour episode.
Rydell on trial for the murder of grocery delivery boy Freddie gets off with an innocent verdict that his lawyer Ned Murray, Martin Landau, with his brilliant defense strategy got for him. It's later at Murray's office that Rydell confesses that he in fact did kill Freddie because he made a pass at his sexy wife Melanie, Sharon Farrell, when he delivered the groceries. Shocked that he let a guilty man off the hook or the electric chair Ned want's to get in contact with the D.A's office and tell him that he's responsible for letting a guilty man, a cold blooded murderer,get away with murder! The problem for Ned is that it would be double jeopardy to retry Rydell! So what's he use of trying!
It's then out of nowhere that a good friend of Ned's mobster Tony Handeman, John Morley, shows up at his home to thank him for what he did for his son in getting him off on a assault rap. The boy has now become a productive citizen and family man which he wouldn't have if Ned didn't keep him from being convicted in a court of law. Ned who was determined to go to the D.A is also told by his boss Mr. Osterman, Harold Stone, to whom he's engaged to his daughter Karen, Nancy Kovack, just to forget about it. It's over and done with, Rydell's trial, and just go on with your life Mr. Osterman tells Ned. As for Rydell who in fact told Ned that he in fact did murder Freddie the delivery boy he's now planning to sue Ned and his law firm headed by Mr. Osterman for impugning his "spotless character" as a respectable door to door salesman.
***SPOILER*** Thing soon work out for Ned but in a way he never imagined. Tony takes it upon himself to do him a favor by knocking off Rydell but something goes very wrong for both him and his intended victim. Yet what happens do tie up all the loose edges in this whole messy matter for Ned like in knocking off two birds with one stone. It's now up to Ned to live with the consequences that he's responsible for in both freeing a guilty man of murder and at the same time having another no so Innocent man killed in him trying to ratify his mistake!
Rydell on trial for the murder of grocery delivery boy Freddie gets off with an innocent verdict that his lawyer Ned Murray, Martin Landau, with his brilliant defense strategy got for him. It's later at Murray's office that Rydell confesses that he in fact did kill Freddie because he made a pass at his sexy wife Melanie, Sharon Farrell, when he delivered the groceries. Shocked that he let a guilty man off the hook or the electric chair Ned want's to get in contact with the D.A's office and tell him that he's responsible for letting a guilty man, a cold blooded murderer,get away with murder! The problem for Ned is that it would be double jeopardy to retry Rydell! So what's he use of trying!
It's then out of nowhere that a good friend of Ned's mobster Tony Handeman, John Morley, shows up at his home to thank him for what he did for his son in getting him off on a assault rap. The boy has now become a productive citizen and family man which he wouldn't have if Ned didn't keep him from being convicted in a court of law. Ned who was determined to go to the D.A is also told by his boss Mr. Osterman, Harold Stone, to whom he's engaged to his daughter Karen, Nancy Kovack, just to forget about it. It's over and done with, Rydell's trial, and just go on with your life Mr. Osterman tells Ned. As for Rydell who in fact told Ned that he in fact did murder Freddie the delivery boy he's now planning to sue Ned and his law firm headed by Mr. Osterman for impugning his "spotless character" as a respectable door to door salesman.
***SPOILER*** Thing soon work out for Ned but in a way he never imagined. Tony takes it upon himself to do him a favor by knocking off Rydell but something goes very wrong for both him and his intended victim. Yet what happens do tie up all the loose edges in this whole messy matter for Ned like in knocking off two birds with one stone. It's now up to Ned to live with the consequences that he's responsible for in both freeing a guilty man of murder and at the same time having another no so Innocent man killed in him trying to ratify his mistake!
"Look, in my business, we don't have double jeopardy."
classicsoncall21 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike a few other reviewers here, I thought this episode, much like the one that appeared before it back in 1964 ('Bed of Roses'), was pretty much bulletproof. The conundrum of attorney Ned Murray (Martin Landau) having successfully defended a guilty man of murder was made known after the fact of the innocent verdict. It would be reasonable for him to express remorse and regret over the circumstance. When gangster Tony Hardeman (John Marley) offered a somewhat ambiguous resolution to Murray's plight, you could tell Murray didn't go for two wrongs making a right. It was interesting to see actor Marley on the opposite side of 'making an offer that couldn't be refused', but at least no horse heads made their way into the program. Where Murray couldn't find a way around a double jeopardy case, a conversation with Judge Arthur (Richard Hale) provided him with a clue about a criminal insanity defense that was made all the easier by Lew Rydell (Frank Gorshin) getting the upper hand on Hardeman in a twist ending via some sleight of hand by the scriptwriters. Ned Murray would get his retribution, if that's what you want to call it, by sending Rydell to an asylum with his very next court case.
One top episode for me
searchanddestroy-114 August 2015
What a thrilling, very clever, brilliant story and so in the typical AH series style. It would remind me Richard Marquand's JAGGED EDGE back in 1986. But just a little, a lawyer defending a finally guilty innocent man... This scheme has although been used before, I assure you. I won't tell much more, than the other two guys have already said about this episode. Just one thing is weird: the director: Lewis Teague, you know the B movies director from the seventies and also eighties, who gave us CUJO, ALLIGATOR, a man who worked for Roger Corman enterprises...So I did not know he began his career with a Alfred Hitchcock Hour episode. And in 1964. And if you check his filmography you'll notice that he did absolutely nothing between this time and the early seventies: acting, directing, producing, editing... Nothing. So what the hell did he do during all that time?
WATCH THIS FOR TWO SUPER TV ACTORS
tcchelsey28 June 2023
This was the very first episode directed by Lewis Teague, who was in his 20s at the time, and an apprentice with Sidney Pollack (THE WAY WE WERE) at Universal Studios. Teague would later direct such creepy classics as CUJO and CATS EYE. He does a very good job here.
You have to see this for two of the best actors in the business; Martin Landau and Frank Gorshin.
In fact, this episode may have paved the way for Gorshin to appear as the Riddler in the BATMAN tv series. He is that sly and crafty. Watch him, especially his expressions.
This is an old story with Hitchcock, but always with possibilities. Landau plays a distinguished attorney who just happens to have the luck of defending a slickster (Gorshin), who actually turns out to be guilty of murder. He wins his case and now what?
There are some actual legal questions at play here, as to what a lawyer can and cannot do in real life, and this would have made a terrific PERRY MASON episode. However.... this is Hitchcock, and watch what happens. A solid supporting cast with lovely Nancy Kovak, who was in a ton of movies and tv shows at this stage in her career, and the ever durable Harold J. Stone, remembered for THE UNTOUCHABLES, and many other classic shows. Stone was a favorite in Hollywood, very popular.
Great late night entertainment. SEASON 2 EPISODE 30 CBS dvd box set. Shop around for the hour long Alfred Hitchcock tv episodes, though the half hour shows are enormously popular and more readily available on dvd and blu ray. Thank you so much METV.
You have to see this for two of the best actors in the business; Martin Landau and Frank Gorshin.
In fact, this episode may have paved the way for Gorshin to appear as the Riddler in the BATMAN tv series. He is that sly and crafty. Watch him, especially his expressions.
This is an old story with Hitchcock, but always with possibilities. Landau plays a distinguished attorney who just happens to have the luck of defending a slickster (Gorshin), who actually turns out to be guilty of murder. He wins his case and now what?
There are some actual legal questions at play here, as to what a lawyer can and cannot do in real life, and this would have made a terrific PERRY MASON episode. However.... this is Hitchcock, and watch what happens. A solid supporting cast with lovely Nancy Kovak, who was in a ton of movies and tv shows at this stage in her career, and the ever durable Harold J. Stone, remembered for THE UNTOUCHABLES, and many other classic shows. Stone was a favorite in Hollywood, very popular.
Great late night entertainment. SEASON 2 EPISODE 30 CBS dvd box set. Shop around for the hour long Alfred Hitchcock tv episodes, though the half hour shows are enormously popular and more readily available on dvd and blu ray. Thank you so much METV.
Talk talk talk
caseyabell11 August 2020
I'm not as enthusiastic as other reviewers about this installment. I like action and suspense from my Hitchcock episodes, not talky disquisitions on legal ethics.
To be honest, the ethical issues hardly seem clear-cut to me. Are defense attorneys only supposed to defend innocent clients? Perry Mason had that luxury, but in the real world most criminal defendants are guilty, guilty, guilty. And their lawyers know that they are guilty, guilty, guilty. Does that mean the lawyers should run to the prosecutors with evidence against their clients? Then why bother with defense attorneys in the first place?
Beyond the legalities, the episode dawdles along with way too much talking and agonizing over the ethical conundrum. Things finally start to move at the end, but the padding is excessive throughout the middle half of the show.
I still give the episode five stars for Frank Gorshin's crazily over-the-top performance as the perp. He could genuinely scare any audience with his barely controlled psycho act. Speaking of Psycho, maybe we should have heard shrieking strings every time Gorshin appeared onscreen. Martin Landau chips in a solid performance as the tormented lawyer, though Gorshin overshadows him and everybody else in the episode.
To be honest, the ethical issues hardly seem clear-cut to me. Are defense attorneys only supposed to defend innocent clients? Perry Mason had that luxury, but in the real world most criminal defendants are guilty, guilty, guilty. And their lawyers know that they are guilty, guilty, guilty. Does that mean the lawyers should run to the prosecutors with evidence against their clients? Then why bother with defense attorneys in the first place?
Beyond the legalities, the episode dawdles along with way too much talking and agonizing over the ethical conundrum. Things finally start to move at the end, but the padding is excessive throughout the middle half of the show.
I still give the episode five stars for Frank Gorshin's crazily over-the-top performance as the perp. He could genuinely scare any audience with his barely controlled psycho act. Speaking of Psycho, maybe we should have heard shrieking strings every time Gorshin appeared onscreen. Martin Landau chips in a solid performance as the tormented lawyer, though Gorshin overshadows him and everybody else in the episode.
Apart from much of the plot not making sense, the acting is pretty good.
planktonrules31 May 2021
The story begins in court. Lew (Frank Gorshin) is on trial for murder and his lawyer, Ned (Martin Landau), was able to convince the jury that Lew is innocent. However, shortly after this, Lew confesses to Ned that he DID commit the murder....and he seems pretty happy about it. Well, Ned isn't happy...in fact, he's angry that he helped a scum-bag beat the system. What's next? Plenty!
I had a very hard time accepting the premise to this episode. Ned supposedly is a defense attorney who ONLY defends innocent people...and Lew's being guilty throws him. I saw two problems with this. First, I cannot imagine any defense attorney ONLY defending innocent people. Apart from Perry Mason and other TV attorneys, in real life this really cannot be the case and most folks defended by attorneys are guilty. Second, you'd THINK Ned would realize that sooner or later he'd defend a guilty person...even accidentally. Him having such a crisis of faith seemed bizarre and totally unrealistic. I think having Ned be less idealistic and more realistic would have made for a better episode. For example, what if he got the guy off for murder...only to find he's a serial killer!? Now that would have been interesting and believable....but the notion of a lawyer ONLY defending the innocent seems incredibly naive to say the least.
So, it's obvious I am not a fan of this episode. But it's not all bad. The acting was very good...in particular Gorshin as the sociopath. I just felt mesmerized by his vivid performance....and that's reason enough to see this one.
I had a very hard time accepting the premise to this episode. Ned supposedly is a defense attorney who ONLY defends innocent people...and Lew's being guilty throws him. I saw two problems with this. First, I cannot imagine any defense attorney ONLY defending innocent people. Apart from Perry Mason and other TV attorneys, in real life this really cannot be the case and most folks defended by attorneys are guilty. Second, you'd THINK Ned would realize that sooner or later he'd defend a guilty person...even accidentally. Him having such a crisis of faith seemed bizarre and totally unrealistic. I think having Ned be less idealistic and more realistic would have made for a better episode. For example, what if he got the guy off for murder...only to find he's a serial killer!? Now that would have been interesting and believable....but the notion of a lawyer ONLY defending the innocent seems incredibly naive to say the least.
So, it's obvious I am not a fan of this episode. But it's not all bad. The acting was very good...in particular Gorshin as the sociopath. I just felt mesmerized by his vivid performance....and that's reason enough to see this one.
Major plot holes?
bellaparkinson-335379 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I had a hard time with this one - **spoilers to come**
So supposedly this guy gets acquitted and immediately tells his defense lawyer he did in fact kill the person for whom he was on trial. The lawyer gets all worked up and threatens to go to the district attorney and everyone freaks the freak out. But why? They act like it will put this huge stain on the law firm (where nepotism is rampant) but idk why it would?
Wouldn't he just get tried again for (assumedly) lying on the stand aka perjury? I'm not sure why this would be so damaging to the law firm so I had a tough time getting into the plot.
The acting was great and I love the daughter/fiancé's hairstyle it looks like a wig lol. Love the actors too and when I can identify folks who were also on twilight zone (my other comfort show).
So supposedly this guy gets acquitted and immediately tells his defense lawyer he did in fact kill the person for whom he was on trial. The lawyer gets all worked up and threatens to go to the district attorney and everyone freaks the freak out. But why? They act like it will put this huge stain on the law firm (where nepotism is rampant) but idk why it would?
Wouldn't he just get tried again for (assumedly) lying on the stand aka perjury? I'm not sure why this would be so damaging to the law firm so I had a tough time getting into the plot.
The acting was great and I love the daughter/fiancé's hairstyle it looks like a wig lol. Love the actors too and when I can identify folks who were also on twilight zone (my other comfort show).
If He's a Lawyer, How Did He Pass the Bar?
Hitchcoc23 May 2023
Martin Landau is a successful lawyer who only defends innocent people. How does he know? Because they say so. He gets a psycho played by Frank Gorshin (the Riddler) off after a young man has died. Instead of being elated, Gorshin admits he actually killed the guy. Now, Martin should be angry and feel used, but for him to think he can go after this guy when double jeopardy applies, plus attorney-client privilege, flies in the face of the most fundamental ethics an attorney can have. I can't get past that. He goes running around, trying to get people to deal with his issue. It's a fact of life that every once in a while a criminal manages to get away with his crime. Look at our current politicians. Anyway, his cluelessness makes him look incompetent. Bad writing!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
