Bad Accent Dept. Mason may have a sharp mind but he has no ear for accents; he credits the blonde he bumps into as having a "Jersey City accent," but she exhibits not a trace of it. Submitted by francis, 6/14/13.
This is the first of many episodes in which William Hopper works with an actor he had worked with before PM. He and S. John Launer worked together a few years earlier in an episode of Gunsmoke, "Robin Hood". Launer played a judge in that episode too! Submitted by DyNama, 3/15/2014.
+ SJL's Filmography Begins with a "Judge" role, "Meet Corliss Archer"/1954, & Ends with a "Judge" role: "Billionaire Boys Club"/1987 [IMDb]. Mike Bedard 5.25.16.//
This is the first of two consecutive episodes where an alarm clock plays a crucial role. In both episodes we see Perry winding the clock in court (although at least it's not the same clock). Submitted by 65tosspowertrap, 5-8-14.
Free rent: How long did Perry allow Sidney to stay in the apartment? Submitted by H. Mason 10/11/14
Camera Focus problems? This episode had two scenes were the camera focus did not seem right. The first was when Perry was standing by the jury box and Burger at his table. The camera was behind the jury. During this sceene even after Burger stopped talking and Perry continued, the camera focus was on Burger and Perry was always severely out of focus. The second time was at the scene where we got the confession with Perry and Burger were in focus while the murderer was clearly out of focus as he talked. When you watch the DVD version on a large screen HD TV you see a lot of details including all the beat up set furniture. Submitted by Perry Baby 1/20/15.
Della and Paul sitting very close and cozy on Della's desk as Rhoda, leaving Perry's office in a huff, flings open Perry's office after her first visit (9:45 in the DVD). The scene is so artfully staged that it is hard to avoid the impression the director is toying with us. Don't they know we could never suspect Della and Paul of anything? Fred Flintstone 12/27/2020
Incredible Parlor Trick Annex If TCOT Caretaker's Cat - 14 episodes on - is "without doubt the most convoluted of all episodes," then this episode, without doubt, contains the most absurd client-aiding strategy in the entire series: not only does Perry go to all the trouble of buying an apartment house for a simple demonstration, he tampers with evidence, and explicitly directs someone to give misleading testimony. I don't have trouble with the latter two elements - on the contrary they seem much in keeping with the wily defender portrayed in the novels - but rather with the idea that he would admit to such in open court, and the judge would do no more than look on amusingly. Even in the implausible perryllel universe that is the show, it's beyond credibility that anything less than a(n immediate) mistrial, and charges of obstruction of justice - if not disbarrment - would result. Ranted by Notcom, 052516.
+ Mason's actions were not only dishonest, they were pointless. He went to a lot of trouble to create the false testimony that the neighbor, Ellen, heard the alarm clock at 2 am, rather than the doorbell at 2:15 am. But it was also pointless. He solved the mystery by deposing Casey Adams/Max Showalter and confronting him with the fact that a second car left his home after his "wife" went to meet the blackmailer. But this decisive confrontation could have been done without any tampering with evidence as to the time of death. BTW, the fact that he bought the apartment complex, which entitled him to enter, would not have protected him from a charge of obstructing justice. Ed Mahl 9/27/17
++ What evidence was tampered with? The original doorbells were never submitted as evidence, only the one that the buzzer hating tenant that moved in installed. Submitted by HamBurger, 10/7/2017
Indeed, the vital clue is so obvious that even on first viewing we knew the killer from the moment that garage door wouldn't close. All that rigmarole with bells and buzzers was just a lot of filler meant to show how clever Perry was in defending his client. He did nothing illegal or unethical. He just cleverly maneuvered Burger into showing his own witness was not particularly credible. With that anticlimactic ending, all in all not a very memorable show.
Incredibly Indulgent Literally. After Rhoda learns her (maybe) husband is the killer yet still let her be charged for murder, she says she "stands by" Carl. When told Carl wants an anullment, she asks "he doesn't need me?" Abosolutely absurd. I guess though the perfect ending to an implausible episode. Rick P 10/5/21