Does Hamilton Burger never win a case ever??

Prosecuting Perry Mason's clients is a futile task, but somebody has to do it. And it gives Perry's invariably innocent, invariably exonerated clients a purpose in life: to torment the hapless prosecutor who tries to prove them guilty. After all, would boulders have a reason to exist apart from the useless attempts by Sisyphus to roll them uphill? Would the Road Runner have a reason to exist apart from Wile E. Coyote's useless attempts to catch him?

Burger does defeat Perry in the opening scenes of TCOT Deadly Verdict. In that one, it begins with Perry's client, played by Julie Adams, being found guilty of first degree murder, with Burger as the prosecutor.

I also consider TCOT Terrified Typist to be a win for Burger. In that one, it turns out that Perry's client is actually guilty of the murder he is charged with. Of course, Perry and Paul are the ones who actually find out the entire truth in the end, but Burger was trying the right defendant in this one.

Raymond Burr apparently joked that the audience only got to see him one night a week and not on all the other days.

It's strongly implied that he won TCOT Weary Watchdog. Of course, Ham Burger lived up to his name in the end, when he has to march into court and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The usual pattern is that Perry uncovers the truth at a preliminary hearing, so most cases never make it to a jury trial. No doubt, Burger has an excellent record in convicting the real culprits, especially since most of them have confessed on the stand and probably enter guilty pleas.

Since Burger was D.A. for at least nine years, he must have been able to make his record look good to the L.A. voters. I have no idea how he explains trying all those Mason cases personally, instead of leaving that to ADAs so he can run his department.

As someone remarked in another thread, just consider each episode on its own. There's no concept of continuity from one episode to the next, no history retained, just the same enduring characters that win or lose cases. As viewers we can indulge a certain amusement seeing Burger from week to week kick off each case with unbridled enthusiasm and absolute assurance that he's going to win this time, but that's not the intention of the original author or of the subsequent writers of episodes in the series.

Burger never has a weak case and I wouldn't say the odds were insurmountable in the least if you treat each episode as a self-contained story. Quite the opposite.

Elsewhere on this board some of us have written more "imaginative" explanations of what's actually going on behind the scenes with Burger and Mason.

Somebody would have to identify the episode, if it hasn't already been mentioned here, but there was an episode where Hamilton Burger actually enlisted Perry to defend either himself or a family member or friend. I thought that was interesting in regards to Hamilton never 'winning' a case.

It could actually be argued his position is to ensure the legal procedure is followed, regardless of the outcome.

It exam a why Burger is so cranky all the time