I like the movie; it is fast-paced and grabs my attention for two hours non-stop, but the ending... is it supposed to be ambiguous: Will the DA arrest the protagonist or not?
Can the DA really go after someone else when the man they prosecuted is already being found guilty? It will be the same offense with two different trials and convicted men.
Yes. Yes you can go after someone else if new evidence comes out. Obviously this would qualify. The person in jail would be released and a new trial would begin.
As far as the ending I don't think it's ambiguous at all. Pretty sure everyone knows what she was there to do.
I don’t think it was ambiguous. she’s coming to arrest him
Even after that dude has been found guilty, they can move to vacate the conviction on the basis of new evidence.
How can she arrest him by herself? She has no power to do that. She would most likely be trying to discuss a deal so that he could admit what he did and free the innocent man since that's the part that will weigh on her conscience.
shareI don’t think she was coming to arrest him at that very moment.
showing up at his door at the end was a message that she wasn’t letting it go and that she would be coming for him
Agreed, terrible ending. Was she coming to arrest him (no cops present), let him know she was quitting as DA based on her convictions, coming to question him more, lazy directing/screenwriting asking us the audience to finish the script. Also didn't like how they never provided resolution for the detective, who essentially solved the case.
shareIt seems obvious to me that the ending means she will not be letting the trial result go unchallenged and has made the decision to pursue him and have the original verdict overturned. She had made a decision of conscience rather than one of political expediency.
shareThe ending was stupid. Even if she showed up just to tell him she will continue investigating, it is ridiculous.
Why would you alert a criminal that you are going after him?