I would guess a Public Defender with 200 other cases on their desk.
I vaguely remembered and just looked it up to make sure. It is defendant John Savoka’s sole IMDb credit. It’s not even like they took a crew member and told him, “Sit in this chair, kid, and look scared as we push in on you.”
That is how pretty much how they desribed his attorney in the movie. That even his attorney didn’t believe in him and didn’t even bother to challenge the witnesses.
Yeah, that was my impression. I generally only remember impressions of films, and I saw it a long time ago, so I don’t remember the details. I just remember it all feeling so subjective as it unfolded. But if the point was to introduce reasonable doubt, I think he did that. It’s not so much that this kid must be innocent but rather it’s plausible that he was. That’s what beyond a reasonable doubt is, right? (Actual question. Not a lawyer.)
It’s not even plausibility, so much. (Which seems closer to the standard in a civil case, where you are supposed to determine if it’s more likely that one set of facts is true than the other, based on the “preponderance of evidence”.) But rather that you have no good reason to doubt that a person is guilty, which is a high bar.
(I’m also not a lawyer, but I’ve been taught that in multiple settings.)
In a civil case, plausibility is the pleading standard.
The case for the plaintiff, yes.
Just a heads up that TCM is airing the movie tonight.
Thanks for the tip. I won’t be able to tune in, but I can certainly record it.
Looks like there’s a good lineup of courtroom dramas on TCM tonight. Later, they’re showing Witness for the Prosecution followed by Judgment at Nuremburg.
Here’s Florida’s jury instruction on reasonable doubt (fairly standard)
Man, now I’m trying to imagine someone falling asleep while watching a double feature that starts with Judgment at Nuremberg only to wake up during 12 Angry Men…
Yes, for this year’s 31 days of Oscar (playing only movies that have at least been nominated for one Oscar) they are doing it with theme nights.
Eh. My last name is Maccaby. I’m always getting stuff for McCabby, MacCaby, McAbey. Those hilarious McJews.
That’s Ed Begley, not sr., because his son hadn’t registered with the Screen Actors’ Guild yet.
Both times I’ve been on juries, we were told we could believe a witness wholly; not at all; or in part.
Ha! Just like my friend Dave Makofsky.
One of my favorite things about 12 Angry Men, the 1957 movie, is that everybody on it who isn’t a downright star, is at least a “that guy.” Juror 9 (the old guy) has credits going back to the silents, and was the butler in The Philadelphia Story. He might be the original “that guy.” Juror 2 was in one of Dr. Bob Hartley’s groups.
They were all really hard working-- they all have long lists of credits that means they must have done something new almost every week of their lives. Even the least famous were still people who made their living acting. None of them needed to work at The Cheesecake Factory.
John Feidler was Piglet!
.