nandue0929 Reviews

12 Angry Men (1957)

12 Angry Men: Improper behavior of a juror

[5/10 · 21 February 2011]

12 Angry Men is the utmost in entertainment as a character study, but only that, not as jury reality. It is fascinating due to the magnificent actors who portrayed the jurors. The viewer becomes increasingly engrossed in the dialog by their superb acting, which transcends the drab setting of the jury deliberating room. However, as a lawyer myself, the movie contains an instance of jury impropriety, which ruins the film from a legal standpoint.

During jury deliberations, one of the jurors brought in an item identical to one that was introduced at the trial and showed it to the other jurors. This is a classic case of improper jury behavior! Jurors may only consider the facts, witnesses, and evidence presented at trial and what may or may not be inferred from them; not outside items that were introduced in the deliberating room, such as this "second" item. Reasonable doubt in a criminal case must exist itself, not be deliberately manufactured by a juror. Additionally, the movie takes a considerable "stretch of the imagination" to conclude that not one of the other jurors reported this behavior to the judge at the time it happened. The juror who mentioned that it was against the law was ignored.

Despite the excellent acting, 12 Angry Men is disturbing even if it is "only a movie" because the legal content is pure fiction. The movie gives a distortion about permissible jury conduct and would never have ended the way it did. If the case had been real, there would have been either a mistrial or this juror would have been dismissed and replaced with an alternate juror who heard the trial and the deliberations started over again. Also, the juror would probably have received a stern rebuke from the judge when he was dismissed, mistrial or not. This juror (the late Henry Fonda) was not some kind of "hero" as the viewer is led to believe, indeed, he was quite the contrary. 12 Angry Men is not a movie for someone who may be called for jury duty for the first time, despite how it may seem to those untrained in the legal system. I have read that this is the only movie Mr. Fonda ever produced (as well as acted) and, perhaps, he let his personal feelings of justice interfere with reality.

The Practice (1997–2004)

The Practice: A different viewpoint

[1/10 · 7 July 2010]

The Practice (1997-2004) contained fine actors, however, its scripts defied reality. For instance, the starring defense lawyers were confronted with a lawsuit for defamation of character since they cast suspicion on a different person other than the defendant on trial, during their case. The other person then filed this lawsuit against them. In reality, as a lawyer myself, words spoken or recorded during judicial proceedings are given complete immunity from defamation of character. It is called "absolute privilege," therefore, the lawsuit could not have happened.

On another occasion, the lead lawyer, Bobby Donnell (Dylan McDermott) angrily shouted within inches of the trial judge's face at a conference in the judge's chambers. Almost all judges would not have tolerated this even in the heat of anger. Donnell would probably have been cited for contempt of court and jailed immediately, depending on the temperament of the judge.

On still a different occasion, Donnell commended a junior partner, Lindsay Dole (Kelli Williams) after she presented what he called the finest appellate argument he had ever heard. Actually, her appellate argument was arrogant since she kept rudely interrupting the different judges' questions, which is unheard of in an appellate court. Instead of favorable recognition, she would likely have received a lecture from the senior partner for jeopardizing their client's case by disregarding the court's decorum.

While it dealt with some important issues, The Practice had a flair for the overly dramatic, so much so that it far overshadowed these issues. The series purported to be "realistic" when it was anything but! It contained legal misinformation and overblown, inaccurate lawyer behavior that was contrived to seem believable to viewers.

The Law (1974 TV Movie)

The Law: A "must-see" movie

[10/10 · 1 February 2009]

The Law (1974) was an excellent TV movie about a high-profile case that was similar to that of Charles Manson. Judd Hirsch was outstanding as the lead character, Public Defender Murray Stone, and he deserved far more recognition than he ever received for the role. He represented one of the defendants in the case through the maze of the Los Angeles criminal justice system. He was very dedicated to his client, which sometimes is not so among overworked public defenders. John Hillerman was also memorable as the District Attorney when speaking cynically, almost to himself, about a staff member. Following the movie, there were three additional episodes of The Law that were also very good. They may have been an "extended pilot," so to speak, of a TV series that never materialized. I found a particular character in the movie, Jules Benson, to be interesting. He appeared only briefly and was strongly reminiscent of the the late Melvin Belli, famed San Francisco trial attorney, since his demeanor and publicity orientation were remarkably similar to Belli. (Perhaps, intentionally so.) As a lawyer myself, "The Law" offered no illusions about the criminal justice system and many of the people in it, including an abruptly seen judge nicknamed "The Dragon Lady," who had a gun under her judicial robe! It is one of the best movies I have seen on the subject.

Owen Marshall, Counselor at Law (1971–1974)

Owen Marshall: Counselor At Law: A view from the legal profession

[8/10 · 1 August 2008]

Owen Marshall: Counselor At Law (1971-74) was an appealing series that was somewhat unique. The late Arthur Hill was excellent in the title role and his performance exceeded the scripts. I think it was Mr. Hill's fine and compassionate portrayal of an attorney that made him ideal for legal organizations that honored the series. He was later featured by a company that advertised in Trial magazine, the publication for The Association Of Trial Lawyers Of America, now The American Association For Justice.

An episode in the first year of the series, "Victim In Shadow," was very powerful and involved the indignities a rape victim must endure when dealing with the legal system. The focus of the episodes changed in the last half of the third and final year. During that time, there were also some outstanding episodes and one entitled, "House Of Friends," was simply brilliant. It was an unusual episode and its emotional impact was shattering. Owen Marshall defended a physician who was sued by a private hospital for his defamatory statements about it. To say more might divulge the heart wrenching contents of this episode for anyone who may get the chance to see it. David Hartman superbly played the physician, Joyce Van Patten, his wife, and Kathleen Quinlan, his college-aged daughter. After this, some other first-rate episodes included such subjects as: the right to bear arms; a warrant-less break-in; military desertion; pornographic sales; and sterilization of the mentally deficient.

Unfortunately, Owen Marshall: Counselor At Law was canceled just as it began to ripen. Before the episodes described above and after an honorable beginning, the plots had drifted with Owen Marshall's client often being exonerated near the close of the trial by another person's confession. This is entertaining but rarely happens. As an attorney myself, I personally believe more episodes should have had a closer connection to reality than those that were mentioned last.

Judd for the Defense (1967–1969)

Judd For The Defense: A long overlooked series

[9/10 · 16 July 2008]

Judd For The Defense starring the late Carl Betz is an overlooked series, both today and in the two seasons it was televised (1967-69). It was reminiscent of The Defenders in that it focused on controversial issues in a courtroom setting. The episodes ranged from good to excellent and sometimes preceded their time. In one episode, "Transplant," Judd defended a pioneering surgeon in a murder trial that was the result of a heart transplant operation. At the time it was shown in 1968, the trial was landmark since there was only one surviving heart transplant patient worldwide as the medical procedure was so new.

Another episode, "Epitaph on a Computer Card," dealt with a man's job and sanity, which were destroyed by a computer programming error. This prompted Judd to file a lawsuit for invasion of privacy in the man's behalf and by chance, the episode was viewed by the late Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin. From what I read at the time, Senator Proxmire was so moved by the episode's realistic contents that he introduced it into the congressional record as a timely expose on the invasive methods used by credit card and investigative companies. This was years before the computer age.

I remember that when the series premiered, the title character, Clinton Judd was described as a composite of several named famous trial lawyers who handled difficult cases. Out of interest as a lawyer myself, I have followed the careers of the names mentioned, and I personally think the closest correlation to Judd was the late Percy Foreman of Houston, Texas. Judd was also based in Houston and both had fathers who were county sheriffs. In two episodes, "Tempest In A Texas Town" and "Firebrand," reference was made to Judd's sheriff father in fictitious Amos County, Texas and Foreman's father actually was sheriff of Polk County, Texas, according to his biography by Michael Dorman in 1969.

It is unfortunate Judd For The Defense never received the following it deserved by much of the viewing public.

The Defenders (1961–1965)

The Defenders: The reason I became a lawyer

[10/10 · 14 March 2008]

This landmark TV series (1961-65) was years ahead of its time. It correlated many contemporary stories from the headlines and did so with uncompromising depth. The protagonist attorneys (The late E.G. Marshall, Robert Reed) lost nearly as many cases as they won, because the series focused on controversial social issues where there were no easy answers or solutions. This was reflected in the outcome of some episodes. The issues included abortion; euthanasia; capital punishment; censorship; blacklisting; criminal insanity; Nazis; cannibalism; and a variation of what is currently called "road rage." The first listed, "The Benefactor," was a compelling episode about abortion, years before it was legal. The last, "Death On Wheels," involved an enraged motorist who accidentally killed a pedestrian after a heated argument with his wife. A shocking case was the one about cannibalism. Two men were accused of murdering and literally devouring another man when they were all cast adrift in a lifeboat in the ocean. An unusual episode, "Mind Over Murder" involved a clairvoyant accused of murder based on ESP. The defendant's background was loosely parallel to the late psychic, Peter Hurkos.

The Defenders theme song coupled with an aerial view of the courthouses in Foley Square, New York City, were presented with the onset of each episode. Immediately before the theme, the viewer saw the actual crime being committed when possible, which was graphically realistic and sometimes unnerving. The lawyers then often interviewed their clients in a simulated version of "The Tombs," an archaic NYC jail. The late E.G. Marshall portrayed the lead attorney, Lawrence Preston, with flawless acting that was in a class by itself. Indeed, he was so convincing that it was difficult for me to think of him thereafter as anyone else. The style and integrity he displayed in The Defenders inspired my interest in the law and was one of the initial reasons I became a lawyer.