The Golden Cage
- Episode aired Sep 11, 1974
- 1h
A rich trophy wife gets accused of murder when she tries to leave her powerful controlling husband.A rich trophy wife gets accused of murder when she tries to leave her powerful controlling husband.A rich trophy wife gets accused of murder when she tries to leave her powerful controlling husband.
Photos
- Jamie
- (as Earl Smith)
- Judge #1
- (as Robert E. Tindall)
- Gate Guard
- (as Joe Rainer)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe viewer learns that Anthony Petrocelli's middle initial is J, and that he was a Phi Beta Kappa member from Harvard University.
- Quotes
Pete Ritter: [Admiring the Lamborghini parked outside Petrocelli's trailer] Tony! Well, it's about time you got yourself a client that's rich.
Anthony J. Petrocelli: No, no, no, that's not hers. And she's not rich. All I got so far is a one-dollar retainer.
Pete Ritter: A whole dollar? And for another twenty thousand you can buy one of these things. What makes a car like this so expensive?
Anthony J. Petrocelli: Well, look at her. She's gorgeous, she's beautifully put together, and she's fast. But that's not the real reason.
Pete Ritter: No? What is?
Anthony J. Petrocelli: She's Italian.
When the show begins, Mr. Holbrook (Joseph Campanella) is beating the crap out of his poor wife, Nancy (Rosemary Forsyth). She manages to escape the brute and runs from the house as you hear a shot ring out. Soon she arrives at Petrocelli's RV and asks he represent her in her divorce. He accepts the case and soon learns that Mrs. Holbrook is wanted for murder. Pretty soon, however, it's obvious she didn't do it and her monster husband is using his immense wealth to not only frame her but scare off Petrocelli. Is there any way justice could be served in such a climate?!
While I enjoyed watching this episodes it had two big flaws. First, with a man as rich and ruthless as Holbrook, there's no way Petrocelli could have won the case. It's more wishful thinking. Second, the only way he could have won the case was if one of the many paid or threatened liars admitted the truth in court...and the episode relied on one of these 'Perry Mason moments' for the truth to come out...and folks in court almost never admit that they are involved in conspiracies...especially when there's no evidence to prove it. Overall, watchable but weak. Also, while not a flaw, it's rather unlikely a trial lawyer would or could handle a divorce case. I suppose in the tiniest of municipalities this might happen...but normally you'd need a different type of lawyer in the USA.
- planktonrules
- Feb 22, 2020