The 5 Most Wildly Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History
#2.
12 Angry Men
The Crime: Murder
The Ruling: Not Guilty by Reason of Independent Investigation by the Jury.
This is the classic courtroom movie, based on an equally famous play. 12 Angry Men follows the deliberation of a jury on a case we never get to see in the courtroom -- we spend the whole story with the members of the jury. The case they're examining involves a young man accused of killing his father.
"Take the Xbox and see what happens, fucker."
At the start, 11 of the 12 men are convinced the defendant is guilty, but Juror No. 8 is a stubborn bastard who's determined to get this murderer off the hook. He questions every piece of evidence that the prosecution brought forward and even buys a knife similar to the murder weapon to prove to the other jurors that it was not as unique as the prosecution led them to believe.
Slowly he sways each juror, one by one, into the territory of reasonable doubt by making ridiculous claims such as "that witness had glasses indents on her nose, so she probably wasn't wearing her glasses and didn't see anything." He makes a similar claim about an old man who heard the crime happening and as a group they conclude that the old man probably didn't hear anything and made it up to feel important for once in his life.
Justice, brought to you by Ensure.
In the end, after piecing together some radical assumptions about the witnesses and evidence presented, they find the defendant not guilty by reason of not wanting to argue with Juror No. 8 anymore.
The Law:
The guy should have been kicked off the jury the moment he went out and bought the knife. By law, juries are not allowed to conduct their own investigations, and if the other jurors had just reported Juror No. 8 for that, he'd have been replaced by an alternate. Yes, it's cool for characters in a movie to take the law into their own hands. In real life, you like to leave tasks like that to the people who have years of training and law enforcement experience.
Also Batman.
But that aside, Juror No. 8's whole line of reasoning is wrong at almost every step. According to the law, it's the jury's job to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, as is -- not to question and interpret the evidence any way they choose and make wild assumptions about witnesses. For instance, you don't just dismiss blood evidence as "probably planted or some shit" unless you are presented with evidence that it has been planted. Likewise, you can't just hand-wave away jury testimony based on, "Her eyes are probably bad."
It's kind of important that people stick to their roles in the criminal justice system. It's the lawyers' job to pick apart witness testimony and find any inconsistencies, just as it's the cops' job to hunt down evidence, and it's the prosecutor's job to present it. Once a juror decides to start doing all of that stuff himself, it's probably time to find a new juror.
Maybe one who isn't white, male and over 40?
#1.
Miracle on 34th Street
The Crime: Assault, Insanity
The Ruling: Sane and Santa Claus
When the original guy who Macy's department store hired to play Santa shows up drunk for the Christmas parade, Macy's hires a guy conveniently named Kris Kringle to be the new Santa and he proves to be the baddest-ass Santa who ever had a child on his knee.
This man eats tinsel and craps candy canes.
People love the new Santa, and the store's business is booming, which shouldn't be that surprising considering they run a department store and it's Christmastime, but OK, the guy in the Santa suit could be helping. The only problem is Kris thinks that he's the real Santa Claus, and the manager wants to fire him because she's worried he's delusional and might hurt someone.
To make everyone feel better, Mr. Macy has Kris sent to a psychiatrist to prove he's not crazy. Unfortunately, jolly old St. Nick ends up putting the smack down on his psychiatrist and hits him on the head with his cane. The manager only just barely refrains from shouting, "I told you so!" before Kris is carted off to jail.
"Don't you dare say it! Every time I hire crazy, homeless strangers without references or credentials, you throw it in my face! Like it's my fault!"
The Trial:
Kris' trial is actually a hearing to prove that he's not crazy and shouldn't be permanently committed to a mental institution. He decides to go with the defense that he's not crazy because he's actually Santa Claus. He backs up this claim with absolutely no evidence except for the fact that a lot of people, including the prosecutor's son, think he looks an awful lot like Santa Claus.
Somehow this overwhelming evidence isn't enough for the judge, though, and just as he's about to rule that Kris is batshit insane, the U.S. Postal Service shows up and delivers 50,000 letters addressed to Santa Claus.
The judge rules that since one guy at the post office wanted to clear out the dead letter basket and drop all these letters off here, then Kris must be Santa. That's the 1947 version. In the 1994, version the judge is similarly about to declare Kris headed for the loony bin when a little girl comes up to give him a Christmas card. It's got a $1 bill inside with "In God We Trust" circled. Ignoring the fact that this kid is obviously trying to bribe him to get Santa off the hook, the judge decides that since America can believe in an entity like God, then "Santa Claus does exist, and he exists in the person of Kris Kringle!"
"All right, you're legally Santa, so where's my air rifle?"
The Law:
We don't want to come off like dicks here. After all, what's to stop a judge from letting a kindly old man off the hook at Christmas? No harm done. What kind of a stodgy bastard could possibly have a problem with that?
Us. Stop and think about the implications of this. The judge basically gave this one guy the power to lay claim to every Christmas card, decoration and jingle that bears his name or likeness and claim a royalty for its use.
He's shaving his beard, he's buying a flight, he's getting laid in Hawaii tonight ...
And what does this mean for Kris Kringle on a day-to-day basis -- is he now legally sanctioned to break into people's homes once a year to leave them stuff? Will there be ramifications if he doesn't leave a present for every kid who writes him a letter? Oh, and about those letters. Considering the basis upon which the judge made his ruling, this old man now gets all of the tens of millions of letters kids send to Santa every year.
Also, one year this old man is going to die. Try explaining that one to your kids, parents!
That's an even more crashing end to a childhood than finding a dead clown in the ditch out back.
And let's not forget that it also opens up the door for all kinds of whack jobs to announce they're fictional people as well. 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 -- we've got a piece of mail here declaring it so. There's precedent for it!
For more movies we went ahead and ruined for you, check out 7 Movies Based on a True Story (That Are Complete Bullshit) and 7 Bullshit Police Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies).
And stop by Linkstorm because the Internet has destroyed even more beloved fiction of yours.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get sexy, sexy jokes sent straight to your news feed.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Do you possess expert skills in image creation and manipulation? Mediocre? Even rudimentary? Are you frightened by MS Paint and simply have a funny idea? You can create an infograpic and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!
"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~