Anyone who thinks that the United States legal justice system is fair and balanced has been watching too many movies. The poor and the marginalized get convicted and the rich and elite drive away from the courthouse. It's largely a matter of the size of the pocketbook. And it's still amazing how many innocent people are locked away with almost no hope of getting out. "Suspect" is how about a how a homeless man (Liam Neesom) and his public defender (Cher) find themselves in a case that has much larger ramifications than a simple matter of did a homeless person murder the victim for $9.The aspect that makes this movie a gem is the fine acting: Cher as the overworked and underpaid public defender, Liam Neeson as the deaf/mute defendant in one of his first major roles, Dennis Quaid as a sexy lobbyist (often messing around with congresswomen to get votes for his industry) turned juror turned amateur sleuth, and John Mahoney as the stoic judge at the trial. A lot of it is pure fantasy but the moments in the courtroom are actually very much like a real courtroom in its obsessiveness with procedure and protocol.The story begins with the suicide of a prominent Supreme Court Justice and the subsequent murder of his assistant who has been slashed to death. When police investigate the surrounding area, they find a homeless man sporting a knife and in possession of the victim's wallet which contained a king's ransom: $9. Cher is appointed to take the case, and Quaid ends up becoming one of the jurors. Because of the suicide at the beginning of the film, Judge Helms (Mahoney) becomes one of the people on the US President's short list to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Helms requests to preside over the murder case to free up his later schedule in order that he be considered for the vacancy.Several scenes take us into the bowels of the homeless of Washington DC. We see a lot of lawyers, a lot of law libraries and a lot of knives. Every homeless person appears to wield a knife. Cher with the unlawful help of Quaid (lawyers and jurors in the same trial are not supposed to commiserate, let alone team up) stumbles upon some evidence that makes the case much more complex. A thoroughly enjoyable courtroom drama with enough action to keep you on the edge of your seat, and an interesting commentary on the justice system and how it handles the poor and the homeless. Unfortunately, public defenders are probably not as successful as Cher appears to be.

This story had so many holes in it you could drive an oil tanker through each of them.Cher wore black leather in court as a defense attorney? The suspect is deaf and dumb, but Cher talks to him constantly? The suspect overpowers several policeman before he is subdued. But then Cher goes into his cell alone to talk to him? The suspect hits her, but then she continues being around him? What a wreck of a movie.At various points the dialogue was so bad it must have been written by a graduate of a junior high school creative writing class.In the middle of jury selection Cher has a lengthy tete a tete with prospective juror Quaid? In cross examinations the lawyers don't ask questions but speak in declarative sentences constantly? How can you take a movie seriously with so many preposterous moments in it?

I had missed this film during the many years since it was made, and caught it by chance on a Friday afternoon, after a particularly long and hectic week. I thought I might nod off, but instead I found myself engrossed in it very soon. It has some far-fetched aspects, and as the "goofs" section in this site points out, it wouldn't have been tried in a federal court, but in the local D.C. courts. However, given the rather surprise ending, this would be a necessary variation, given its circumstances.Cher is not a person whom you reference when thinking of leading, versatile actresses -- but this isn't so. This serious role, as well as a different type in the excellent "Moonstruck," display both her competence and versatility. Dennis Quaid is always excellent, and a favorite of mine, and the remaining cast were as well. John Mahoney's performance is well-delivered, and an interesting performance, in contrast with his more pleasant persona in "Moonstruck," also -- and particularly juxtaposed with his likable presence in the long-running "Frasier" series.As another pointed-out, there is a surprise ending, if somewhat more abrupt than seems necessary.But overall, an interesting, entertaining film.

i have just re-watched this film, maybe the 5th time since its release. What a treat!Smart, sexy,dynamic and compelling, socially relevant, with a good moral backbone.All the actors are spot-on. Cher easily convinces us of her serious attorney's commitment to helping society's outcasts;Liam Neeson in his first film role as the silent hulking Viet-vet street person accused of murder; Dennis Quaid at his cocky best as a razor-sharp lobbyist/juror, and John Mahoney and Philip Bosco. The screenplay ,directing and editing are all first rate.And if you pay attention, you can learn a lot about the inner workings of our government's congressional/lobbyist bedfellows and the scary fallibility of our justice system and its judges and lawyers. Some may think this is a piece of romance disguised as a get-into-your subconscious morality play, but i think it's just the opposite. How many films have you seen that convincingly made you put yourself into a street person's shoes and think about your attitudes towards them? I usually am close to agreeing with the IMDb average vote on a film, but not this time. For me, this is a real 10.