Anyone else think Al Pacino was ROBBED for Justice For All?

Okay, so I just rewatched "...And Justice for All" (1979) last night, and man, it still hits hard. Pacino is absolutely electric as Arthur Kirkland, that defense lawyer who's slowly losing it. Seriously, the scene where he's arguing with the judge in the courtroom, practically spitting venom – give this man an Oscar, already! I know it's a heavy movie, dealing with corruption and the messed-up justice system, but Pacino's performance keeps you glued. Makes you wonder how much of that rage was real, you know? But here's what I'm wondering: Does anyone else feel like the pacing is a little off sometimes? Like, we spend a lot of time with his personal dramas, which are interesting, but then the central rape trial with the judge feels almost rushed towards the end. I get that's kinda the point - the system doesn't care about justice, but structurally, I'm not sure it all quite gels. Maybe it could have used a tighter edit in the second act to really amp up the tension leading into that insane outburst in the courtroom? Def feel like the ending packs a good punch and that he should be frustrated at this point, but still... I wonder. I'm not knocking the whole movie, mind you. It's still powerful as hell and Pacino carries the whole thing. The supporting cast is great as well (Jack Warden!), but something feels... not quite perfect. Maybe it's just my editor brain kicking in. What do you all think? Did the pacing work for you, or did it feel a bit uneven? And Pacino not winning Best Actor that year...criminal, I tell ya, CRIMINAL!