Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...
...forget everything you've seen on TV and in the movies.
There will be no surprise witnesses or tearful confessions.
You're going to be presented with a simple fact.
Andrew Beckett was fired.
You'll hear two explanations for why he was fired, ours and theirs.
It is up to you to sift through layer upon layer of truth...
...until you determine which version sounds the most true.
Certain points I must prove to you. Point one: Andrew Beckett was....
Is a brilliant lawyer. A great lawyer.
Two: Andrew Beckett, afflicted with a debilitating disease...
...made the understandable, the personal, the legal choice...
...to keep the fact of his illness to himself.
Three: His employers discovered his illness.
The illness I'm referring to is AIDS.
Point four: They panicked.
In their panic, they did what most would like to do with AIDS.
Get it and everybody who has it as far away from us as possible.
His employers' behavior may seem reasonable to you. It does to me.
AIDS is a deadly, incurable disease.
No matter how you come to judge...
...Wheeler and his partners, in ethical and moral terms...
...the fact of the matter is, when they fired Beckett because he had AIDS...
...they broke the law!
Fact:
Andrew Beckett's performance on the job varied...
...from competent, good, to oftentimes mediocre...
...to sometimes flagrantly incompetent.
Fact:
He claims he's the victim of lies and deceit.
Fact: It was Andrew Beckett who lied...
...going to great lengths to conceal his disease from his employers.
Fact:
He was successful in his duplicity.
The partners at Wyant-Wheeler did not know...
...that Andrew Beckett had AIDS when they fired him.
Fact:
Andrew Beckett is dying.
Fact.
Andrew Beckett is angry...
...because his lifestyle, his reckless behavior...
...has cut short his life.
And in his anger, his rage, he is lashing out.
And he wants someone to pay.
Thank you.
Andrew Beckett represented your company in 1990, is that correct?
-That's correct. -Were you pleased with his work?
We were satisfied with the outcome of the litigation.
Satisfied.
Mr. Laird, when I approached you about being a witness at this trial...
...you gave sworn testimony in a deposition, correct?
That's correct.
In that deposition you said that you were impressed and delighted...
...with the quality of Andrew Beckett's work. Do you recall saying that?
In all honesty, I was delighted with certain aspects of Andy's efforts.
But in general, I found the work to be merely satisfactory.
Do you agree...
...that a bologna sandwich is a satisfactory meal...
...whereas caviar and champagne, roast duck...
...and baked Alaska are considered delightful?
We object. These gastronomical comments...
...are irrelevant to the proceedings.
They are not irrelevant. Five months ago...
...this witness characterized Beckett as caviar.
Now he's a bologna sandwich.
I think the jury is entitled to know...
...what powerful force has caused him to change his mind.
He hasn't changed his mind. He's amplified his answer.
Objection sustained.
All right.
Mr. Laird, explain this to me like I'm a 4-year-old.
Did Andrew Beckett win your lawsuit for you?
Yes, we won.
Congratulations. That must have been a very...
...satisfactory experience.