Les accusés

Even though it only ran between 1961-1965 on CBS,this was one of those shows that broke ever taboo with subjects that were too rowdy for television back then. This show was the forefront other successful courtroom shows to follow,even though it came out at the height of the Civil Rights Movement and the overall turbulance of the Vietnam War. Based on a Studio One play of the same title(which starred Ralph Bellamy and William Shatner) its premise was similiar to that of "Perry Mason",but with amazing results. E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed(long before he became one of the "Brady Bunch") were terrific as the father and son defense team who tackle issues head on in the courtroom and outside the premise as well. Great show!!!

before this show came out, Television was meant to be pure escapism meaning that like movies,people who watched TV often times watched it to escape from all the turbulent and sometimes horrendous things that happened in that 60's. So because of that, Most network & daytime TV shows often avoided current social issues of the day, making them seem very unrealistic. And then the Defenders came along.

Now, back in the 60's if you decided to make a show that focused on contemporary controversial social issues, you would risk getting your show cancelled because most big corporations would be uncomfortable sponsoring a show that did that, and that's exactly what the Defenders did. They were the first show that was brave enough to focus on such controversial social issues of the 60's such as civil rights,abortion neo-natzis and they almost got cancelled because of it. there was one episode where the father-son lawyer team of Lawrence and Kenneth Preston (E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed) had to a defend an abortionist, and almost every regular sponsor of the show, decided not to sponsor the episode and all of the sudden, the series was hanging by a thread, until one sponsor came in at the eleventh hour to sponsor the episode, and they saved the show from cancellation singled handed.

the bottom line is that this show was incredibly groundbreaking because if was one of the first TV shows to deal with contemporary controversial social issues, something no other show before or on on at the same time did, making it one of the most realistic shows of it's time. it also paved the way for socially conscious shows that came after it. Now what I really don't understand is that the show's not on DVD and it hasn't been seen in reruns in 20 years. But regardless, the show needs to be on DVD or in syndication, and it definitely can't be forgotten by the next generation of TV watchers.

I have not seen an episode since the mid-60s (YIKES, how long is that?), but I remember many of them. In one, these father/son are assigned the defense of a young Nazi. The man was defacing a synagogue when he was interrupted by the rabbi, who accidentally fell and hit his head and died. The man was caught and charged with murder, since it was assumed that he had killed the rabbi. There turned out to be a witness who could clear the man. When the Defenders finally tracked him down, he told them the most horrific story of his arrest and transfer to a concentration camp - and for that reason he would not testify for "one of THEM." Their response was, "Do you want us to be like them, ignoring the truth?" And that was how the episode ended - would the witness testify or not? How childish modern TV "drama" seems in comparison...

From the early Sixties came this show which one viewer described as that era's Law and Order. It wasn't that, it couldn't be that because the Prestons were defense attorneys. Still the cases raised some of the legal issues that Law and Order raises. The Defenders whatever else it was, was not a who done it show like Perry Mason.

E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed played the father and son law firm of Preston&Preston. E.G. as Lawrence Preston was a widower and Reed was his son Kenneth. What I remember was these two guys apparently had no personal life at all. I can't remember a single episode where these two weren't on the clock defending all kinds of clients.

But lawyers and law students loved this show as it took on some really important issues. The episode that I remember best was one involving the McNaghten Rule which evolved from an English murder case in which a guy named McNaghten killed Prime Minister Robert Peel's Secretary, thinking it was Peel. The poor demented jerk thought that the government was plotting against him personally. That case set a standard for a successful insanity defense, that someone like McNaghten had to be unaware of the difference between right and wrong when he committed the homicide.

I still remember Marshall saying that in behalf of his client the McNaghten Rule should be repealed. He certainly gave it one good effort in trying to repeal about a 120 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The rule's been modified, but never repealed. But that was typical of the stuff the Prestons did. No arraignments in night court for this duo.

The scripts though were intelligently written even if you didn't agree with what the Prestons were doing. Proof that entertainment can be intelligent and informative, the show ran for four years.

I wish that TV Land would pick up this series.

"The Defenders" realistically portrayed issues of the day, often in a court room setting. They produced the show in New York City with, if memory serves, location exteriors. The court room scenes were well written and directed, usually the high point of each program.

At its best, the acting could be very good indeed. E.G. Marshall and Robert Reed worked well together as father and son attorneys. Their roles in this series provided them with career high points. The guest stars added further strength to the show.

As a teenager then, I thought it was a cutting edge show. It would probably be dated if viewed today, since it was filmed mostly in black and white (though the last season might have been color), and production values were different then. One of the best shows of its era, it should be released on DVD, but probably won't be because of onerous residuals obligations.