Virgil returns to attend to family matters, but perchance sits in the courtroom during a hearing. The judge sees him and decides to assign this new-to-the-bar attorney to defend a murder suspect.
Virgil objects, but the suspect sees having an ex-cop as a plus, and will not reject this pro bono defense attorney in favor of somebody with experience, as Virgil suggests. He claims he killed in self-defense.
As Virgil speaks with each of the witnesses, he develops his case and finds that Amanda, the deceased's wife and mistress of the accused, says she saw nothing. He disbelieves her story, and we see through flashbacks that she was there from nearly the beginning, as witnessed by an older gentleman who also saw most of the fight.
Virgil had a perfect opportunity to reveal her untruth when this older man was on the stand. This would have been much more Perry Mason-like. Virgil should have asked the older man about the whereabouts of Amanda, or if anybody else was there when he was witnessing the fight. In this way, he could reveal if there were other witnesses he should talk to.
Furthermore, once Amanda got on the stand, she would then be compelled to reveal what she saw. This would have been a much better story than her guilt randomly forcing her to give way to the truth. It would also set up Virgil as a cunning attorney.