A Few Good Men question

[Robot_Arm]

@Ellen_Cherry

Yay. Someone sorta laughs at my joke.

I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 mods who are trained to ban me, so don’t think for one second that you can come down here, quote a movie, and make me nervous.

@Human_Action

My primary beef with it is that Caffee never calls Jessup out on his hideous, self-serving hypocrisy. The man was lecturing all and sundry about honor and loyalty, while conspiring to evade punishment for something he’d done, and put two other men in prison in his place. Caffee has one line about it (“And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!”), and given the quick-hitting, dramatic nature of the final testimony scene, there probably wasn’t a good opportunity for it, but every time I watch the movie I want to leap into the film and give Jessup a nasty scolding.

I don’t particularly hold that against Caffee. He’s already seen to not be the spit-and-polish, honorable, Navy type. If anything, he’s a stickler for the law; it doesn’t matter that Jessup and Kendrick may be self-serving hypocrites, it only matters what he can prove.

I think you’re on to something with respect to Dawson and Downey, though. They’re the ones who talk about living by the sacrosanct Marine code of honor. They’re supposed to be loyal to the chain of command, then they get to sit in court and watch their commanders lie their asses off to save their own skin. I’d expect them to express some disillusionment at being hung out to dry like that.

[Bricker]

@Dale_Sams

Let me clean up my hypothesis. This is the prosecutions case:

One doctor who says Santiago ‘Absolutely’ died of poisoning. (I wonder if later, if he needs to, he can fidget around that by saying Santiago did die of poisoning. Acidosis)

Motive: To silence Santiago.

The defendants confession.

Now IMHO the motive is weak. Cruise says as much in the montage.

The doctor. IMHO his ‘absolutely’ HURTS the case. Cruise was already prepared to call several experts who would refute the doctor’s claim.

I don’t recall that being mentioned in the movie – do you happen to remember when Kaffee/Cruise says he can call several experts who would refute the claim?

On a larger note, you’re discussing how you think the jury would view the evidence. I’m discussing legal sufficiency – if the jury convicts, does the record withstand appeal?

So when Cruise recalls Stone (The doctor. Provided he has that right) and asks Stone, “Now you’ve heard ten men with more expertise than yourself in criminology, and poisons testify that there is NO WAY anyone can claim Santiago was absolutely poisoned. And that it is EXTREMELY unlikely Dawson and Downey would have access to the ‘literally dozens of toxins that leave no trace in a body or on a rag it was soaked in’…given that they are exotic and obscure. Dr. Stone, how can you sit there and put your entire career on the line and say in the face of these ten men, Santiago was ABSOLUTELY poisoned?”

As a general rule, witnesses (other than parties) are not permitted to listen to other witnesses’ testimony. Moreover, I don’t know if it’s true that these poisons that cause acidosis are all that obscure. I’m certainly no toxicology expert, but in reading [url=“Lactic acidosis - Wikipedia”]Wikipedia’s page on the subject, it seems that lactic acidosis can be caused by, inter alia, cyanide poisoning, which is present in various common pesticides and insecticides. Can you explain why you feel this is " exotic and obscure" as a source?

The confession. The defendants confessed to manslaughter, not to murder one. And manslaughter wasn’t an option for the jury.

What the hell are you talking about? Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980). In a murder case, the jury must be given lesser-included offense instructions if the evidence supports it.

IMNSPO, the prosecution doesn’t have a chance. They have no poison, no witnesses to establish motive (“I heard him say he was going to get Santiago”) no witnesses to establish conspiracy. No bruises or marks on Santiago.

They have a witness that said “Poison” with certainty, and the confessions to establish the conspiracy.
Closing argument: “It doesn’t matter if Dawson and Downey went in with a Code Red, or if it was a tickle fight gone wrong. The prosecution has not even remotely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dawson and Downey conspired to go to Santiago’s room and murder him. Ladies and gentlemen, which is the more likely scenario? That Dawson and Downey snuck out into the Cuban jungle and milked the venom sacs of female Wolfenstein Spiders for three days? Or that they were engaged in the practice of… which we’ve already established as a common occurrence…called a Code Red?”
[/QUOTE]

Or the accused decided to abandon the Wolenstein Spiders and simply use the pesticide that was kept on post to control the spiders.

[Linus_Van_Pelt]

OK, I’m going to repeat the question that I asked in another thread about this movie.

Here’s the thing that I’ve always wondered:

A lot of of the drama in the movie comes from the statement made by Ross that Kaffee would be risking his own court martial for claiming that Dawson and Downey were acting under orders since by doing so he’d be accusing Jessep and Kendrick of committing a crime without proof. That always struck me as a bit of a stretch, but I’m also aware that there are a lot of rules covering lawyers’ behavior in court that seem odd to the layperson. Can one of the experts in military law that are reading this thread comment on this? Was Kaffee really at risk? Or was that idea simply made up by Sorkin to create the conflict?

The relevant bit of dialogue (from IMDB):

Capt. Ross: Alright. I have an obligation to tell you that if you accuse Kendrick or Jessup of any crime without proper evidence then you’re going to be subject to a court martial for professional misconduct and that is something that’s going to be stapled to every job application that you ever fill out. Markinson’s not going to hold up, Danny, he’s a crazy man! Now, I’m not telling you this to intimidate you I’m being your lawyer here.

Kaffee: Oh, thanks, Jack. And I want to tell you that I think the whole fucking bunch of you are certifiably insane! This code of honor of yours makes me want to beat the shit out of something!

Capt. Ross: Don’t you dare lump me in with Jessup and Kendrick just because we wear the same uniform. I’m your friend and I’m telling you, I don’t think your clients belong in jail but I don’t get to make that decision! I represent the government of the United States without passion or prejudice and my client has a case! There you go. Now I want you to acknowledge that the Judge Advocate has made you aware of the possible consequences of accusing a Marine officer of a felony without proper evidence.

Kaffee: I’ve been so advised.

The response I got in the other thread was, essentially, that he wouldn’t really be risking anything in a normal court room, but who knew about the UCMJ?

Can anyone answer this? As much as I enjoy the movie, I’d like to be able to separate fact from Hollywood fiction.

[Dale_Sams]

@Bricker

I don’t recall that being mentioned in the movie – do you happen to remember when Kaffee/Cruise says he can call several experts who would refute the claim?

On a larger note, you’re discussing how you think the jury would view the evidence. I’m discussing legal sufficiency – if the jury convicts, does the record withstand appeal?

As a general rule, witnesses (other than parties) are not permitted to listen to other witnesses’ testimony. Moreover, I don’t know if it’s true that these poisons that cause acidosis are all that obscure. I’m certainly no toxicology expert, but in reading [url=“Lactic acidosis - Wikipedia”]Wikipedia’s page on the subject, it seems that lactic acidosis can be caused by, inter alia, cyanide poisoning, which is present in various common pesticides and insecticides. Can you explain why you feel this is " exotic and obscure" as a source?

What the hell are you talking about? Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980). In a murder case, the jury must be given lesser-included offense instructions if the evidence supports it.

They have a witness that said “Poison” with certainty, and the confessions to establish the conspiracy.
Closing argument: “It doesn’t matter if Dawson and Downey went in with a Code Red, or if it was a tickle fight gone wrong. The prosecution has not even remotely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dawson and Downey conspired to go to Santiago’s room and murder him. Ladies and gentlemen, which is the more likely scenario? That Dawson and Downey snuck out into the Cuban jungle and milked the venom sacs of female Wolfenstein Spiders for three days? Or that they were engaged in the practice of… which we’ve already established as a common occurrence…called a Code Red?”

Or the accused decided to abandon the Wolenstein Spiders and simply use the pesticide that was kept on post to control the spiders.
[/QUOTE]

I was taking at face value that there are some toxins that leave no trace in the body or on a rag ‘soaked in it’. But the more I thought about it, the more unlikely it seemed. My beef isn’t with the doctor ruling poison, it’s with him ruling poison and then making a claim there are ‘dozens’ of toxins that leave no trace in a body or rag.

FWIW…“Shockingly!” I was unable to find magic poisons on the internet that kill and then dissolve into completely undetectable material or evaporates leaving only a dry rag. I did find one medical site that said such things are a movie fiction.

Thank you for the manslaughter reference. That’s not referenced in the movie, and it would certainly add interesting complexity to the movie if we learn that the jury gave the men a pass on manslaughter because they were ordered to give the Code Red.

Also…so in the recent Dunn murder case that has so many people inflamed…if the jury couldn’t agree on Murder one, why didn’t they find Dunn guilty of manslaughter?

[etv78]

@Ellen_Cherry

Yay. Someone sorta laughs at my joke.

We WANT you to moderate this board, we NEED you to moderate this board.

[Dale_Sams]

@etv78

We WANT you to moderate this board, we NEED you to moderate this board.

And he wants us to sit here and type on these ******ty white keyboards and show him some GD respect.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Dale_Sams

And he wants us to sit here and type on these ******ty white keyboards and show him some GD respect.

I, uh, have no responsibilities here whatsoever.

[Dale_Sams]

As for referring to Lance Corporal Dawson as ‘Corporal’ at the trial…I’ll bet Dawson got that promotion between the Code Red meeting and the actual event. Much as Kendrick becomes the XO after Markinson leaves.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Dale_Sams

As for referring to Lance Corporal Dawson as ‘Corporal’ at the trial…I’ll bet Dawson got that promotion between the Code Red meeting and the actual event. Much as Kendrick becomes the XO after Markinson leaves.

Good theory but no; he has LCpl chevrons on his uniform.

[Bricker]

@Dale_Sams

Also…so in the recent Dunn murder case that has so many people inflamed…if the jury couldn’t agree on Murder one, why didn’t they find Dunn guilty of manslaughter?

I didn’t follow the trial during the jury instruction, so I have no idea precisely what instructions the jury was given.

But I do recall reading “Juror Valerie’s” post-trial media interview, in which she said the jury deadlocked on murder because some jurors accepted the self-defense claim.

If that’s true, it would also negate the manslaughter claim. So my tentative answer to “Why didn’t they find Dunn guilty of manslaughter?” is: because some members of the jury believed his self-defense claim.

[Bricker]

@Linus_Van_Pelt

The response I got in the other thread was, essentially, that he wouldn’t really be risking anything in a normal court room, but who knew about the UCMJ?

Can anyone answer this? As much as I enjoy the movie, I’d like to be able to separate fact from Hollywood fiction.

Unfortunately, I don’t know a huge amount about the UCMJ either.

From my perspective, Kaffee certainly had a good-faith proffer available: he had spoken to Lieutenant Colonel Markinson and been told that Jessup had told him he wasn’t going to transfer Santiago off base, that the transfer order was a forgery and part of a coverup, and that there had been an earlier flight off base.

My best guess is that Ross (or Sorkin) was overstating the issue.

[Linus_Van_Pelt]

@Bricker

Unfortunately, I don’t know a huge amount about the UCMJ either.

From my perspective, Kaffee certainly had a good-faith proffer available: he had spoken to Lieutenant Colonel Markinson and been told that Jessup had told him he wasn’t going to transfer Santiago off base, that the transfer order was a forgery and part of a coverup, and that there had been an earlier flight off base.

My best guess is that Ross (or Sorkin) was overstating the issue.

Pretty sure that it would be Sorkin, not Ross - it just wouldn’t fit the characters as established that Ross would be able to bluff Daniel “I know the law!” Kaffee that easily. So Hollywood Law most likely, then (“are you a cop? You have to tell me if you’re a cop”) unless the UCMJ is really that different. Good to know.

Huh. I guess I could handle the truth.

Thanks, Bricker.

[ekedolphin]

Couldn’t Dawson and Downey also have been charged with manslaughter, in addition to murder, conspiracy to commit murder and conduct becoming a United States Marine? (Or do you have to choose between murder and manslaughter?) They may have gotten off on the Murder 1 charge, but certainly the jury would have gotten them on manslaughter or Murder 2. (IANAL).

[dj6ta]

Sorry to revive a kinda old thread, but I’m just so glad that I finally found a good debate regarding this movie. Arguably one of the best movies and one of my favorites of all time being that I am a Marine and I worked closely with the JAG core while I was in. I don’t really have any remarks for the tangents brought up above regarding other real life cases, I just purely want a forum to discuss some of the problems/inaccuracies I found in the movie and perhaps gain some insight from any of you who can shed light on my inquiries.
I’ll start off with some trivial Hollywood added stuff that we don’t ever do in the real Marine Corps or Navy.

1.We DO NOT salute in doors ever unless we are on watch inside of a building.
2.We DO NOT call attention on deck for anyone under the rank of O-6 (Colonel).
3.I know the movie is a little dated but we no longer wear our “utilities” on planes (Colonel Jessup said he wore his on the way to DC) and we also never called them “utilities”. We call them “Cammies”.
4.What the Hell is a “Switch”? Did they mean Post? Armory? Duty Hut?
5.The S.O.P for the base would always have a map that included were the buildings are and what they are called. (“Are you saying in all your time at Gitmo you never had a meal?”)
6.Lance Corporals are never called Corporals. Period. (This is a big deal since Corporals in the Marines are considered Non-Commissioned Officers and as such, are regarded as a much higher class of Marine.)
7.An enlisted Marine never addresses a Commissioned Officer by their rank. It is always “Yes Sir” or “No Sir” for a direct question. For a command given from an Officer the response would be “Aye Aye Sir”.

Now that I have voiced those issues, I will acknowledge that Hollywood often adds things to make the movie more dramatic which explains a lot of this. On a side note, I give credit for the wardrobe designer in the movie because to date, I have never seen another military movie that so properly depicted the look of our uniforms or how they are worn.

On to other things. I suppose the biggest thing I don’t understand is why the Counsel didn’t flat out explain to Dawson and Downey that no matter what the outcome was, they were, at the very least, still going to be kicked out of the Marine Corps after the trial. I will explain further, when a Marine/Navy person gets in trouble for something they are usually presented with two options. One, take an NJP (Non Judicial Punishment) which is just the Commanding Officer yelling at you for a few minutes, assigning punishment, a little paperwork and you are on your way. Two, you can choose to take the offense to a court martial in which you have to prove your innocence of the charges. Of course some charges will land you immediately in a court martial, but I’ll get to that in a second. The big thing about court martials is that you only need to be proven guilty of ONE charge and that’s it, your career is over and the only things that happened after that is brig time and either a Dishonorable discharge/Bad conduct discharge. The charge you are found guilty for doesn’t have to be a big one, you could prove yourself innocent from everything except disobeying an order and because you took it to a court martial you are now getting kicked out of the Marines. This fact is what ANY Navy counsel would have told Dawson and Downey which completely negates the whole “We have a code, we won’t admit we did anything wrong, blah, blah, blah…” argument. Lt. JG Kaffee should have just broken down like this, “Look, you didn’t mean to kill the guy, but it is your duty as a Marine to not obey an unlawful order (hazing) which you did, so no matter what happens you are guys will still be charged with conduct unbecoming and dishonorably discharged.”

Now then, lets just saw Kaffee, Weinburg, and Galoway all have a mental lapse for the entire trial and forget all of what I just mentioned. Why the Hell did anyone lay any type of faith in the Doctors testimony? I know a couple of you guys mentioned the Doctors credibility above, but to further this issue; any and I mean ANY Marine knows that the Naval doctors are a group of medical school rejects that found it easier to join the navy after school, do the bare minimum all day long and expect to have their asses kissed because they got an MD from a medical school in Bumfuck Nowhere School for medicine, Kentucky. Seriously, these guys look at us when we come in with a broken leg and prescribe a bottle of 800 mg Motrin and some type of splint that looks like it came out of a 1800’s magic show who’s magician was a misshapen, cerebral palsy having plague victim and then tell us to not let the door hit us on the way out.

Ok, so I have addressed the bulk of my issues with the movie and for today I think Im done. Im sure I will have more ammunition to fire once this post stirs the pot a little bit.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

All of this reminds me that I wish I had seen the original production with Michael O’Hare in the main role. Not a very flexible actor, but I can see him killing the role in a way much different than Nicholson’s take.

[Robot_Arm]

@dj6ta

Now then, lets just saw Kaffee, Weinburg, and Galoway all have a mental lapse for the entire trial and forget all of what I just mentioned. Why the Hell did anyone lay any type of faith in the Doctors testimony? I know a couple of you guys mentioned the Doctors credibility above, but to further this issue; any and I mean ANY Marine knows that the Naval doctors are a group of medical school rejects that found it easier to join the navy after school, do the bare minimum all day long and expect to have their asses kissed because they got an MD from a medical school in Bumfuck Nowhere School for medicine, Kentucky. Seriously, these guys look at us when we come in with a broken leg and prescribe a bottle of 800 mg Motrin and some type of splint that looks like it came out of a 1800’s magic show who’s magician was a misshapen, cerebral palsy having plague victim and then tell us to not let the door hit us on the way out.

Are Naval lawyers a bunch of law school rejects, too?

[nevadaexile]

@Sicks_Ate

The question I’ve always had is why nobody told them that Lance Corporals are never referred to as “Corporal.”

Surely they had a former Marine on the set to advise them of finer points?

I can still can’t get past the fact that Col. Jessup, a Marine officer, called a firearm a “gun.”

A Marine may call it a “gun” once.
Maybe twice.
They’ll never do so again.

[Isamu]

@dj6ta

I worked closely with the JAG core

The central part of the JAG?

[dj6ta]

@Isamu

The central part of the JAG?

Lol, I meant to type “corps” when I wrote that.

[dj6ta]

[ul]
[/ul]

@Robot_Arm

Are Naval lawyers a bunch of law school rejects, too?

You might think so when you read my post regarding the Naval doctors, but most of the Naval lawyers are very smart and on the path to becoming judges/justices.