Best Legal Dramas No 1: Anatomy of a Murder

More than 50 years after its release, Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder (1959) still reigns as cinema's most gripping and realistic courtroom drama.  (Click here for the movie trailer which lasts nearly 5 minutes.)

Based on the 1958 novel by Michigan Supreme Court Judge Robert Traver, which in turn was based on a real-life murder in Michigan's upper peninsula, it is a story of rape, sex, murder, insanity and . . . panties.  Anatomy of a Murder was so direct in its treatment of sex and rape that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley banned the movie from being shown in Chicago theaters until Preminger went to court and had the ban overturned.

Even today, the movie remains a frank treatment of rape, lust, sex and violence.  But the movie also gets the law right.  The objections, the rulings, the instructions to the jury - they all ring true.   The movie stands as a testament to the fact that writers can get the law right and not reduce the dramatic tension or compromise the plot.

Click here for a great YouTube clip on three reasons why Anatomy of a Murder remains a great movie.

Jimmy Stewart plays former prosecutor, now defense lawyer, hired to represent a soldier (Ben Gazara) accused of murdering his wife's rapist.  After Stewart takes time to explain the defense of irresistible impulse, and giving the soldier time to consider it, the soldier's story fits neatly into the available defense.

The movie is rare in that the prosecution is not portrayed as evil. George C. Scott plays the talented prosecutor who is effective in presenting his case and gives what Stewart's character calls the "best closing argument I've ever seen."  He makes only one mistake - one which many lawyers make.  He asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.  And it bites him and his case.

At the center of the trial are the wife's panties.  (Click here for clip as the lawyers discuss what term to use for the undergarment) And the court's handling of the subject is a classic of both cinema and a lesson for courtrooms.  The judge turns to the jury and explains that a word will be used.  He says "Panties" and the jury titters.  The judge instructs the jury to get all their laughter out of the way because from that point forward, the term was to be used as an important matter of evidence and was to be taken seriously by the jury.

 The wife (played by Lee Remick) must answer about her panties.  Did she lose them?  Did she wear them? Did she go out to bars not wearing them?  Even today, it is an uncomfortable examination, culminating in the judged admonition to the prosecutor to "get off the panties."  It all leads to the stunning truth, or maybe the truth, about the wife's relationship to the murdered man - the man she said raped her

Click here for a clip of George C. Scott's cross exam of the wife.  

The ending of the movie, as so often happens in real life, is ambiguous.  The jury has decided the case, but maybe not the truth, and certainly not the whole truth.  There are hints about what wasn't disclosed in court, but no clear cut answers.

The only absolute truth comes the day after the trial concludes.  Jimmy Stewart and his buddy (character actor Arthur O'Connell) show up at the soldier's trailer to collect the lawyer's fee.   The trailer is there, but Gazarra and Remick are gone.  Amid the broken whiskey bottles, Stewart find a note explaining that they left because they were "seized with an irresistible impulse."

So in the end, maybe that is what makes this the most accurate of all legal dramas.  The lawyer worked hard, got a great result, but in the end got stiffed on his bill by an ungrateful client.

Note: Anatomy of a Murder is also known for its classic opening sequence and its jazz soundtrack by Duke Ellington, who also has a small dramatic role in the movie. Click here for the opening title sequence featuring the music of Duke Ellington.

Best Legal Drama: No. 2 To Kill A Mockingbird

Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) and the movie version (1962) staring Gregory Peck are  classics in every respect. Click here for the movie trailer.

Harper Lee  captured the people and times of a depression-era small Alabama town - and maybe of America.  But she also got the law right.

The daughter of a small town Alabama lawyer, Harper Lee spent many afternoons (sometimes accompanied by childhood friend Truman Capote) in court watching her father and the other lawyers in the area practice their profession.  And much of what she saw made its way into both the book and movie.

The well-known story revolves around the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman.  Against a wave of public sentiment and scorn, Atticus must stand for what he believes is right. He teaches lessons to his children who face name-calling and torment at school because of their father's defense of a black man.

Atticus puts forth a well-crafted defense for Tom Robinson, impassioned without being shrill; reasoned without being condescending.  Atticus' cross examination of Mayella Ewell, the purported victim, is a lesson in the delicate balance used in the cross of a victim - challenging her story without alienating the jury. (Click here for movie clip of the cross-exam of Mayella). His cross of Mayella's father, Bob Ewell, is pointed. His cross of the Sheriff is respectful, but points out the shortcomings in the investigation.  And Atticus' closing, though he knows it is futile, is a passionate call for justice.

But the scene which still gives me chills is when Atticus walks from the Courtroom after the case has concluded.  In the Colored Section - the balcony of the old courthouse - the black pastor turns to Scout, who is sitting at his feet.  His rich baritone voice carries the immeasurable respect earned from Atticus' fight for equal justice in an unjust world:

"Miss Jean Louise, stand up.  Your father's passing."

Click here for the movie clip.

It is writing at its best.  Moving making at its best.  It is when fiction contains more truth than non-fiction. 

 

Best Legal Drama No. 3: My Cousin Vinny

My Cousin Vinny?  The loudmouth New Yorker trapped in rural Alabama comedy?  The one with "two youts," slow-cooked grits and a red velvet suit?  The one with the Karate Kid as an accused murderer and Herman Munster is the judge? That My Cousin Vinny?

Absolutely!

Start with the acting. Joe Pesci's performance as Vinny was perfect. Marisa Tomei won the Best Supporting Actress Award for her performance as Vinny's fiance Mona Lisa Vito. Character actor Lane Smith was letter perfect as the down-home prosecutor Jim Trotter III, and Fred Gwynn gave a wonderful farewell performance as Judge Chamberlain Haller.  Click here for the original movie trailer.

But from a legal perspective, the magic of this movie is that from start to finish it got the law right.

Compare Vinny's cross-examinations with the one in A Few Good Men.  As opposed to standing nose-to-nose and yelling "I want the truth," Vinny did what real lawyers do.   Vinny pokes small holes in the testimony of prosecution witnesses without alienating them or the jury. He smiles when needed, feigns ignorance to advance his questions, and pushes when he has to. He takes the steps that accumulate into reasonable doubt.

Example 1:    The ability of an eye witness to perceive events is always fair game.  Vinny delicately cross examines a nice older woman who has testified that she saw the defendant's car from across the street. Vinny gets her admission that she wasn't wearing her glasses.  This is followed by a demonstration in which the older woman is drawn to admit that her vision isn't what she thought it was, and that maybe she was mistaken. 

Example 2:  The three great weaknesses of eye witness testimony are time, speed and distance.  Vinny cross-examines the good ol' boy who saw the suspect car arrive just before fixing his breakfast, then saw the car leave five minutes later as he was sitting down to eat.  Vinny gets the witness to admit that it would take 20 minutes to cook grits, thereby disrupting the timeline of the prosecution's case.  Click here to watch the cross examination which begins at the 11:00 mark (including the classic "two youts" comment).

Example 3:  The opposing side's expert is always well-prepared and eliciting anything to help your case is difficult.  Vinny makes an objection that the expert was not properly disclosed. When the objection is overruled and the prosecution's witness testifies, Vinny does a credible job of drawing small holes in the assumptions the witness makes, assumptions that add to the piles of possible doubts. He then recalls the prosecution's own expert in the defense case to confirm the testimony of Vinny's own expert - his fiance.

Example 4:  The gem of the movie is the treatment of Ms. Vito, Vinny's  shapely Brooklyn-accented fiance, as an expert witness.  It is flawless both legally and cinematically.

First, Vinny gets permission to question his fiance as a hostile witness. ("That would explain the hostility," Fred Gwynn deadpans.)  Then he presents her as an expert, not qualified by formal education but by her experience. In trials, a plumber or a mechanic with years of experience often is a more persuasive expert than the engineer with a superior education but no practical experience.

Prosecutor Trotter requests to "voir dire"* the expert to challenge her credentials.  It is the precise procedure used to challenge an expert's qualifications to testify.  Ms. Vito is able to answer his trick question on the timing of a car/engine combination that was never built, thereby establishing her credentials. This sets the stage for the dramatic conclusion in which Ms Vito testifies that the defense theory of the case "doesn't hold water."

In short, from beginning to the dramatic end, the law in My Cousin Vinny is spot on.  It is so good, that scenes are used in teaching evidence and trial advocacy in law schools and continuing legal education sessions. It is also a lesson that writers - even comedy writers - can get the law right and not lose any of the drama or the humor.

*Voir dire is Old French for speak the truth.  The term most commonly refers to the questioning of jurors to determine their qualifications to sit on a jury.  But the term is also used for preliminary questions related to the competency or qualifications of a witness - such as a witness being presented as an expert.

Walmart & Target Drop Kindle; First Salvo in Business War with Amazon?

Walmart this week joined Target in no longer selling Kindles, the staple of Amazon's ebook empire. 

The business decision has little to do with ebooks, and a lot to do with Amazon's online Marketplace. 

Amazon's Marketplace offers an array of merchandise ranging from electronics, to clothes, to kitchen appliances.  Walmart and Target view Amazon's Marketplace as challenges to their brick-and-mortar stores as well as their online sales.

So Walmart and Target have taken the business offensive and banned Kindles from their stores and websites.  Walmart, Target and other brick-and-mortar retailers are also pushing for federal legislation requiring internet sellers (read that Amazon) to collect state sales tax.

This business squabble follows the recent settlement of the ebook anti-trust litigation.  It is something writers who market their books in ebook format (and that's everyone who writes, isn't it) should keep an eye on.

For more information, click here for Washington Post article: "Wal-mart drops Amazon Kindle products."

Best Legal Drama: No. 4 The Brass Verdict

The Brass Verdict (2008) is the second of Michael Connelly's Lincoln Lawyer legal thrillers.  I put it on this list because of its powerful opening page.  But in reality, any of Connelly's novels* featuring LA lawyer Mickey Haller could fill this spot.

Connelly has won nearly every thriller and mystery writing award, including the 2009 Anthony Award and the Ian Fleming Steel Dagger Award for thriller of the year for The Brass Verict.  His 2011 Lincoln Lawyer novel The Fifth Witness won the Harper Lee Award for legal fiction from the American Bar Association.

Connelly is best known for the interlocking Harry Bosch detective novels and the Lincoln Lawyer legal thrillers.  But in the course of spinning excellent tales of murder, greed, serial killers, corruption and everything else readers of detective and lawyer stories want, Michael Connelly gets the law right.

Connelly's courtroom strategies are well-conceived.  He knows how lawyers communicate with clients and jurors.   He captures the pulse and pace of the courtroom.  His knows civil procedure and evidence, and keeps the plot moving along within the bounds of the rules of court.  His recitations of testimony have a realism to them, capturing the ebb and flow of courtroom testimony. He even gets it right when dealing with expert witnesses.

The opening chapter of The Brass Verdict  -- only one page -- is not only the best opening page of any legal thriller, it may be the most gripping opening page I've ever read.  And even in that first page, you know that he gets the law right. Here it is:

   "Everybody lies.
    Cops lie. Lawyers lie. Witnesses lie. The victims lie.
    A trial is a contest of lies.  And everybody in the courtroom knows this.  The judge knows this. Even the jury knows this.  They come into the builing knowing they will be lied to.  They take their seats in the box and agree to be lied to.
    The trick if you are sitting at the defense table is to be patient. To wait. Not just for any lie. But for the one you can grab on to and forge like hot iron into a sharpened blade. You then use that blade to rip the case open and spill its guts out on the floor
    That's my job, to forge the blade.  To sharpen it. To use it without mercy or conscience. To be the truth in a place where everybody lies."

Now the kicker.  The guy who writes what maybe the most accurate legal thrillers you will ever read isn't a lawyer.  He's a former journalist.  Go figure.

Movie note: The Lincoln Lawyer movie staring Matthew McConaughey (click here for movie trailer) was a big hit in 2011. Articles  this summer reported that McConaughey was pushing hard for making The Brass Verdict into a movie, and that plans were going forward, including preparation of a script. However McConnaughey and Woody Harrellson recently signed to do True Detective, an HBO crime series with an 8-episode first season. Its unclear how this may impact plans for a movie sequel to The Lincoln Lawyer.

*Michael Connelly's Lincoln Lawyer novels to date are:  The Lincoln Lawyer, The Brass Verdict, The Reversal and The Fifth Witness.

Best Legal Drama: No. 5 Bleak House (Jarndyce v. Jarndyce)

-->

*Public use image via Wikimedia Commons

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce is the Chancery case that weaves its way through the entirety of Charles Dickens classic Bleak House (1852).   

Dickens introduces the case in the first chapter:
  
"Jarndyce v Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable old people have died out of it.  .  .  .  Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce v Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless."

 Dickens used his experience as both a law clerk and a litigant in Chancery Court, to write this scathing indictment of the British judicial system, which ultimately led to the judicial reforms of 1870.

Richard Carstone, an heir in the Jarndyce litigation,  restlessly wanders from one potential career to another without the aptitude or fortitude for any.  He pins his hope for financial affluence upon resolution of the long-standing Jarndyce v. Jarndyce dispute.  But as the novel draws to its conclusion, his dreams are dashed upon the hard truth of the English legal system.

Over the years of litigation, lawyer fees have eaten up the entire Jarndyce estate.  There is no money left. Devastated, Richard dies.

The lesson of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce continues to ring through the judicial system.  264 state and federal cases have cited the fictional Jarndyce case. Only the most significant of legal precedents have been cited more.

Dickens' excoriation of the English legal system is brought down full force in two biting paragraphs as the novel draws toward its conclusion:

    We asked a gentleman by us if he knew what cause was on. He told us Jarndyce v Jarndyce. We asked him if he knew what was doing in it. He said really, no he did not, nobody ever did, but as well as he could make out, it was over. Over for the day? we asked him. No, he said, over for good. Over for good! When we heard this unaccountable answer, we looked at one another quite lost in amazement. Could it be possible that the will had set things right at last and that Richard and Ada were going to be rich? It seemed too good to be true. Alas it was! Our suspense was short, for a break-up soon took place in the crowd, and the people came streaming out looking flushed and hot and bringing a quantity of bad air with them. Still they were all exceedingly amused and were more like people coming out from a farce or a juggler than from a court of justice. We stood aside, watching for any countenance we knew, and presently great bundles of paper began to be carried out--bundles in bags, bundles too large to be got into any bags, immense masses of papers of all shapes and no shapes, which the bearers staggered under, and threw down for the time being, anyhow, on the Hall pavement, while they went back to bring out more. Even these clerks were laughing. We glanced at the papers, and seeing Jarndyce v Jarndyce everywhere, asked an official-looking person who was standing in the midst of them whether the cause was over. Yes, he said, it was all up with it at last, and burst out laughing too.

    "Mr. Kenge," said Allan, appearing enlightened all in a moment. "Excuse me, our time presses. Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?" "Hem! I believe so," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes, what do YOU say?" "I believe so," said Mr. Vholes. "And that thus the suit lapses and melts away?" "Probably," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes?" "Probably," said Mr. Vholes.

Worst Legal Drama: No.1 The Verdict

The worst legal drama?  No competition.  The Verdict (1982).

 Paul Newman is at his best  He is sensational as a once brilliant but now broken-down lawyer trying to find redemption for a career lost in bourbon and beer.  (Click here for his beer & an egg scene.)

James Mason is deliciously evil as the lawyer for the Diocese and its hospital.  Character actor Milo O'Shea is perfect as the smarmy politico Judge Hoyle.

The Verdict garnered five Academy Award nominations and is often listed among the top legal movies of all time. Click here for the movie trailer.

But legally, this movie is hideous.

So hideous in fact that it is used to teach legal ethics - not from a positive view, but from the standpoint of how many violations exist which would have gotten both lawyers and the judge disbarred, and maybe put in jail.

Let's start with the big one.  Newman's character, Frank Gavin, is given a large (for the time) settlement offer of $200,000.  Determined to go to trial,  Gavin turns down the offer without ever consulting with his client.

Rules of Professional Responsibility require that any settlement offer be conveyed to the client.  After all, it is the client, not the lawyer, who must make the decision on settlement.  Lawyers make recommendations, but clients make the decision.  Short of taking client money from a trust account, breach of this rule is among the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit.

But the settlement offer presents at least two other violations.  First, the judge is aware of this violation.  The offer is made and turned down in chambers in the presence of the judge.  He knows Gavin did not consult his client, and lawyers and judges are both required to report knowing violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

Second, Gavin's client finds out about the offer from the attorney for the Diocese & Hospital.  Communication by the Diocese/Hospital's lawyer with the plaintiff  is another major ethics violation.  Lawyers cannot communicate directly with represented parties.  Again, this is a major violation that can result in disbarment.

That brings us to the next violation.  Gavin misrepresents himself and gets a hospital nurse to disclose the current location of the nurse who was on duty when the malpractice occurred.  As mentioned above, lawyers are prohibited from communicating directly with represented persons. While there is a complex legal question about how far that representation extends when it comes to corporations, Gavin's deception and contact with the nurse is very questionable.

Next we get to the hospital lawyer, Ed Concannon, impeccably played by James Mason.  Concannon pays off Gavin's secretary for inside information on Gavin's strategy, makes Gavin's key medical expert witness disappear, and preps his witnesses to give knowing false testimony. And then there is the built-in conflict in representing both the hospital and the doctor, but that pales in comparison to the other ethical issues.

As jaundiced as one might be about the legal profession, this just goes too far.  Any of these incidents could result in disbarment.

Finally, there is the judge.  Clearly favoring the Diocese, the judge has improper ex parte conversations with both Mason (friendly) and Gavin (threatening).  He clearly shows his prejudice from the bench and in his rulings, which are both wrong on the law and clearly slanted to the defendant hospital.

But the movie is not without its legal accuracies.

First, any trial lawyer worth his salt can drink a shot of bourbon without ever listing the glass from the bar (the movie's opening scene).

Second, when the jury comes in with its surprising verdict, the judge correctly instructs the jurors that they are not limited by the amount of damages requested by the Plaintiff.

So enjoy the wonderful performances, the building tension, the triumphant conclusion. But just because it has the feel of "gritty realism," don't think it bears any resemblance what actually goes on in a courtroom.

*Next week:  My five best legal dramas.