The 5 Most Wildly Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History
Everyone loves a good courtroom scene. We get lots of dramatic speeches and over-acting and Jack Nicholson reminding us that we can in no way handle the truth. But more than that, these scenes ultimately lead to Lady Justice being served. The bad guys go to jail.
Unfortunately, much of the time justice gets served only because a screenwriter twisted the law beyond recognition.
#5.
The Untouchables
The Crime: Murder, Assault, Bootlegging, basically being a Mob Boss and Tax Evasion
Also, jaywalking.
The Ruling: Guilty Because Your Lawyer Says So
Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness is determined to break the stranglehold that Al Capone has on Prohibition-era Chicago. He assembles an elite team of "untouchable" (i.e. not actually corrupt) cops, and after a couple dozen people are killed, they arrest Capone for the capital crime of tax evasion, which today can get you made secretary of the treasury. But anyway.
Look, Kevin Costner!
The Trial:
When Ness discovers mid-trial that the jury has been bribed, he confronts the judge, who is also in Capone's pocket, and threatens to expose him if he doesn't do something. Instead of declaring a mistrial, the judge switches the entire jury with the jury from the trial next door, after the trial has already begun.
In a moment of panic, Capone's lawyer changes the plea to guilty, and the courtroom erupts as though all crime has just been wiped off the face of the Earth.
Hooray! We're safe forever!
The Law:
Ever had to go in for jury duty? And the lengthy selection process? All that stuff happens for a reason. Juries are specially selected to avoid a conflict in the case being tried -- hell, Capone's second cousin could have been in the jury next door for all they knew. That's why a judge doesn't have the power to place a jury that the lawyers haven't selected or interviewed, let alone do so mid-trial.
But this point becomes moot minutes later, when, seeing that the evidence is stacked against them, Capone's lawyer switches his plea to guilty. The court erupts, cheering, while Capone punches out his lawyer and is then seen in the background being led off to jail screaming, "Is this justice?"
Well, no, actually.
This is Sean Connery.
The whole point of the scene seems to be that Capone's lawyer switches sides and pulls the rug out from under Capone. But in real life, a court can't accept a plea without a defendant's verbal consent, no matter what the lawyer suddenly announces.
"Oh, and that DUI I got charged with last week? He's pleading guilty to that, too."
The lawyer works for the accused, after all. Which means that instead of the court celebrating like they had all just won the lottery when they hear the guilty plea, Capone actually could have just fired his lawyer, had him killed (not necessarily in that order) and then stuck with his not-guilty plea and bribed the next jury, too.
#4.
Primal Fear
The Crime: Murder
The Ruling: Not Guilty by Reason of Awesome Acting Abilities
In Primal Fear, Edward Norton viciously murders a priest, stabbing him 78 times and cutting off his fingers, and then runs away covered in his blood. Richard Gere is a Chicago defense attorney who goes apeshit over the awesomeness of this and takes Norton's case. They submit a plea of not guilty, but while investigating the case, Gere finds out that Norton totally did it, but he also appears to have multiple personalities, so he should be all set to go with an insanity plea.
Pleading insanity is the duct tape of legal defenses.
The only problem is that he isn't allowed to change the plea in the middle of the trial, which means his crazy, guilty client is going to be found just plain guilty, without the added fun and lenient sentencing that comes with the crazy part.
The Trial:
The only solution Gere can come up with is putting Norton, who is soft-spoken with a polite stutter, on the stand in his own defense. When the tough-talking female prosecutor lays into Norton about murdering the priest, his alternate violent personality comes out and Norton attacks her, proving he's crazy.
After Norton is arrested yet again, the judge calls both lawyers to her chambers to discuss the case. After Gere assures her that Norton is actually crazy, she decides to dismiss the jury, declare it a bench trial, find Norton not guilty by reason of insanity and remand him to a mental institution to decide how long he'll be committed. And then comes the twist ending ...
*SPOILER ALERT*
... In the final scene it is revealed that Norton was faking the whole time: There was no alternate personality and he is simply the world's greatest actor. The cold-blooded serial killer is his true personality, and the soft-spoken stutterer was all an act.
The best part is he can't be tried for the same murder twice (that'd be double jeopardy), so once he checks out clear at the mental institution, he'll be back on the street. Gere is both mortified by this and insanely jealous of Norton's acting ability since, unlike himself, Norton clearly has enough range to play characters who aren't lawyers.
The Law:
Psychology can be an inexact science, sure. But still they tend to, you know, actually have experts test people before declaring them insane. Instead of subjecting Norton to testing by any kind of court-appointed psychiatrist and waiting for a report from an actual expert, the judge just decides that "yeah, he seems pretty crazy" and sends him off to the loony bin with no questions asked.
Hugs all around!
And keep in mind, we as an audience have been seeing Norton's split personality emerge slowly throughout the film, and we know that he switches from mild-mannered kid to crazed sociopath. But the judge sees only one violent outburst in a courtroom from a defendant who is on trial for a vicious, bloody murder. Which is kind of what you'd expect to see.
And yet within moments, she has him declared not guilty by reason of insanity, partly because Gere assures her that Norton is indeed insane.
"Who in his right mind would do this? Not guilty!"
There was no reason for the judge not to wait for him to be tested to make her decision, just in case the guy's attorney might have been lying or even mistaken, since he's a lawyer, not a psychiatrist. Or she even could have declared a mistrial and allowed him to be tried again with an insanity plea to begin with, but apparently she's very busy, as she is seen going home immediately after making her decision. She doesn't have time for shit like this!
#3.
A Time to Kill
The Crime: Double Homicide
The Ruling: Not Guilty Because It's Really Sad
Samuel L. Jackson's daughter is raped and beaten by two white guys who are almost immediately arrested. Samuel L. Jackson doesn't trust any form of justice that he doesn't get to dish out personally and is worried the men won't be found guilty. Instead of waiting to find out whether that's true, Samuel L. Jackson shoots them both dead right in the courthouse, because he's Samuel L. fucking Jackson.
And he does it with an M16. Reason for this: See above.
The Trial:
Knowing he's going to be tried by a white jury, Jackson hires the whitest guy he can find to defend him -- Matthew McConaughey.
He actually only wanted to hire McConaughey's abs, but apparently they're a package deal.
McConaughey enters a plea of not guilty due to "temporary insanity" and proceeds to not back this up in any way. In his closing argument, McConaughey doesn't even pretend to believe that Jackson was insane at the time, legally or temporarily.
In fact, in his entire eight-minute closing argument he uses the word "insane" exactly zero times. Instead he urges the jury to see the crime from Jackson's point of view, to imagine that it was a white girl who had been attacked, and to imagine what they would do if it had been their daughter. Because as we all know, rape is OK unless the victim is from your same race.
McConaughey: OK with racial discrimination.
The Law:
Jackson is found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, which is a pretty big slap in the face to the justice system. First of all, no one truly believes he was insane -- he even sat in the courthouse all night with a loaded weapon, waiting for the guys, which proves pre-planning and a lot of patience.
In fact, McConaughey basically admits in his closing argument that Jackson did it, and asks the jury to find him not guilty anyway. A jury, however, is instructed to convict based on evidence alone. They are not there to decide whether he should have done it or what punishment he will face; they are there to decide whether he did do it or not. And he obviously did.
That is not the beard of an innocent man.
What makes it worse is that when Jackson killed the two rapists, he also accidentally shot a deputy who was escorting the two men -- the guy even needs his leg amputated. But hey, maybe he wasn't using that leg.
"No, it's cool. I mean, I was standing there, in your way, doing my job. And you're Samuel L. fucking Jackson."
So Jackson is accused of three separate charges: two murder charges and attempted murder of the deputy. Even though they're allowed to find him guilty of just the attempted murder, the jury absolves him of being responsible for shooting the deputy, too. Hey, how was Jackson to know that firing that M-16 in a crowded room would have consequences other than the ones he intended.
Basically, the court just rules that revenge is OK as long as racial grievance is involved. Doesn't that mean the deputy should have gotten to shoot Jackson in the leg too, or at least punched him in the face? You know, for justice.
And for making The Man.
"The guy even needs his leg amputated. But hey, maybe he wasn't using that leg". "They conclude that the old man probably didn't hear anything and made it up to feel important for once in his life." "Hey lady, is that a bag of bloody human teeth you got there underneath your tutu? Don't worry, you're not crazy, you're legally the Tooth Fairy" Just the funniest quotes I've ever read, ever. Thank you so much. Can I marry you based solely on the laughter you have given me?!
ReplyAccording to Miracle on 34th Street, Santa Claus is real. We all know Santa Claus is immortal and he has magic to deal with the impossibilities of the Santa Facts. So, seriously ... what's the problem here?
Reply#3 The thing is, when the deputy actually testifies, that sarcastic caption is more or less what he says - he calls SLJ a hero essentially considers the loss of his leg a small price to pay for ridding the Earth of the victims.
ReplyYou mean, ridding the earth of the assailants/accused?
exactly
#1 "Also, one year this old man is going to die. Try explaining that"
ReplyLike the President and James Bond (cf. "6 Insane Fan Theories That Actually Make Great Movies Better" by Derek James), Santa Claus is a position that passes from one man to another. Another man will find the suit and assume the role and powers of Santa. This man's name is Tim Allen Dick.
overruled!
Reply"Instead he urges the jury to see the crime from Jackson's point of view, to imagine that it was a white girl who had been attacked, and to imagine what they would do if it had been their daughter. Because as we all know, rape is OK unless the victim is from your same race."
ReplyWow, the point of that argument just flew right over your head, didn't it?
I think the point of the closing argument in the movie flew right over your head.
I think the writer of the article has sort of missed his swing in regards to the 12 angry men bit. The point being addressed was that the case had been far too routine and had not examined the details sufficiently. Most of the jury was convinced that the boy was guilty, but Juror 8s point was that the evidence was not clear enough to convict a boy for murder. The point was not to prove he was innocent (and they didn't) the point was to show that there was enough reasonable doubt to say he's not just obviously guilty. The moral being not to take things at face value, especially when someone's future is on the line, and for the most part, it's correct.
ReplyJuror 8 didn't have to prove anything to the court, or fabricate any evidence that the boy was innocent, all he had to do was make everyone else in the room say "Wait a minute, let's not be too hasty here".
Realistically, that probably wouldn't have been the end of the case. The boy wouldn't have just walked free, but it would have spurned a deeper investigation to prove without a doubt that he was guilty or innocent, rather than making the call based on unclear evidence.
I agree.Additionally, Im a law student and every lawyer I've spoken to about the point brought up in this article agrees that it is incorrect or only half true. It is part of a juror's job to interpret the evidence, not to wild extents, but what was seen in the movie and play was within reason.
The only problem with this is, our judicial system is worse than all of this could ever show. It is totally unfair and completely full of beaurocracy. Judges think they are better and smarter than any other man and most of them do not know how real life actually is lived and the hardship some people endure. Also, a lot of trials are lost or won solely on technacalities which is the dumbest crap I ever heard. It is like "screw the truth, this other guilty guy wins just because someone screwed up".
ReplyYou realize that if Judges could rule someone guilty even though the prosecution/police broke the law, there would be no reason for the police/prosecution to not break the law. You have no understanding of the law or justice thats why its left in the hands of lawyers and judgs.
Noooooooo!!! He's truly the Santa Claus :( There goes my childhood... Dammit!
ReplyA time to kill = JURY NULLIFICATION
ReplyIt was accepted from the beginning that Samuel L. Jackson was 100% guilty and that the insane argument was basically B.S. We as the viewers are basically given this truth right at the beginning. No one believes. That's kinda the point of the movie. Yeah he killed two men, wasn't crazy when he did it, and he took the law into his own hands. The jury didn't care if he was really guilty or not, from a human emotional point of view, the rapists did deserve it. That was kinda the message I think of the film. Also if you look up Jury Nullification, there's been cases where it has actually occurred.
Great Point! I was going to make the exact same point about "Time To Kill" that you did, until I read your comment. So, instead I'll just reply on the "there's been cases where it has actually occurred" portion of your comment.
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."
Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. Somewhere around 60% of the people accused of violating the Volstead Act where found "Not Guilty", despite all the evidence that made it abundantly clear that most defendants were in fact clearly "Guilty" of breaking a Federal Law on the distribution of alcohol.
Due to the high percentage of non-convictions by jury trials, was one of the main reasons why the Volstead Act of 1919 was eventually repealed in the 1930's as unconstitutional, and eventually restored control of alcohol to the states, thus ending the era of alcohol prohibition.
Now, if juries would practice Jury Nullification concerning the prohibition of drugs, we might eventually end that war as well?
jury nullification is a scary thing. a man cam be guilty as sin and get off. double jeopardy protects him from retrial. scary stuff. a jury taking the law into their own hands. deciding the fate of a person based on their own interests and NOT the facts of the case as they have been established.
however it's a lot less scary from a defendants POV, after all if jury Nullification is proven then they get a new trial n jury.
RE 12 Angry Men: You can debate the wisdom of the rules, but it seems to me there's a very good and valid reason why jurors are not allowed to do their own investigation and introduce their own evidence: The other side in the case has no opportunity to respond to this evidence. So Henry Fonda finds another knife similar to the knife the defendant used, indicating it is not as unusual as the prosecution claimed. But apparently in the courtroom, the prosecution claimed it was very unusual, and the defense had no good response to this. If the defense had found and produced the knife rather than a juror, the prosecution might have been forced to concede the point. Or they might have had some counter-argument, like maybe for example at the time the crime was committed these knives were not readily available, even though they are now. Etc etc, there could be any number of rebuttals. But because a juror produced this evidence himself after the child, the prosecution has no opportunity to reply. Lots of arguments sound very convincing until you hear the reply. It's decidedly unfair to let one side present arguments and not allow the other an opportunity to rebut.
ReplyBut this is a problem, shouldn't the fact that such evidence exists at least be brought to the attention of the prosecution? Incompetent defense attorneys shouldn't be the reason people are sent to the chair.
The first page was great but the second page of the article really didn't present anything illegal.
ReplyIn 12 Angry Men, investigating=/=debating. No. 8 can go out and buy whatever the Hell kind of knife he wants to and use it however he wants to as long as he's not hurting anyone. Everything they did was just interpreting the evidence as they saw fit and swaying the opposing side to their point of view which is, you know, the thing that jury is supposed to do.
While Miracle on 34th Street's reasoning doesn't fully hold up, they do explain that, for one, it was in the judge's best interest to find this guy not guilty if he wanted to keep his job (why wasn't this brought up?). Also, as they pointed out in the film, the post office is part of the national government which is superior to state government so, technically, if the post office views this man as Santa Claus, then the judge has to acknowledge that he's Santa Claus.
The jury has nullification power. They can decide whatever the hell they want as long as it's for the defendant. The only real problem is McAbs mentioning the nullification power which is a big no-no.
ReplyMaybe the original novel version of A Time To kill is better.
ReplyIt just occurred to me that "12 Angry Men" featured both Henry Fonda and Robert Webber. These two gentleman would later costar in "Midway". Coincidence?
ReplyI thought A Time To Kill was already lunacy, an obvious stupid race relations movie that offers absolutely nothing new in that regard. Then he gets off capital charges because the jury feels bad for him. Uh, what? The movie acts like how the jury relates to the defendant has anything at all to do with whether or not he premeditatively killed two people with a f*****g M16 in a crowded room. As the article says, how they feel about it is completely unimportant, only whether the evidence is sufficient or not to prove he did it, and there were like three dozen witnesses watching him do it. One got shot by accident. But that's all cool, since he was really pissed off when he did it, and the jury would be, too, so give him a break on all of that.
ReplyYeah, I hate that movie. I knew as soon as I heard the girl say, "I'm sorry I dropped the groceries, daddy..." after she's raped and beaten that I knew I was in for another generic and stupid movie about blacks and whites. No kid would say that after what she'd been through, black or white, but they add that line in there so we feel bad for her, since she's simply an angel, along with every other black person in the movie. Yeah, movies like that are the worst.
So the U.S. Postal already acknowledges Santa as a real entity. He even left them a forwarding address! Not much of a miracle in the fact that you exists, is there folks, when the postal service knows your address?
ReplySo... 'To Kill A Mockingbird', anyone?
Replyin defense of 12 Angry Men, I think the movie was pretty open about the fact that Henry Fonda KNEW he was breaking the law and that he did so anyways, because he decided to value morality over legality.
Replytrue, and besides, if the jury is supposed to rule based on logic, this means they have the right to assume, and do their own investigation in their mind.
I would say ethics over morality.
About #1, the judge was asking the defense for authoritative proof. Because the USPS carries government-sancitoned authority, and they are required to deliver mail to the rightful recipient, the fact that they delivered all these letters (bearing only the name "Santa Claus" and nothing else) to the defendant proves that - if this authoritative branch or government is, in fact, properly doing its job - that the defendant is the person whose name is on each letter: Santa Claus. There is nothing in the evidence to say the USPS is NOT doing its job properly, so the judge can rightfully rule that Kris Kringle is Santa!
ReplyThat's all~