A bout of insomnia brought me face to face with this movie for the first time in years. I remember having a generally good feeling about the movie, but watching it again brought up a number of questions that I thought I’d throw out to the TM (and especially any JD’s out here).
The trial seems to be rife with opportunities for a mistrial.
-
The judge’s behavior toward Paul Newman (as Frank Gavin) questioning a witness before a break was due would seem to me be something that would at least be looked at after the trial was over (or even during the trial, if that’s the procedure for a mistrial being declared). For those that don’t remember, Gavin was questioning his own witness (the old, black doctor who was the hired gun who testified many trials for a fee). The judge asks Gavin if he wanted to continue or to take a break, clearly indicating his desire to take a break. Gavin chooses to continue. The judge, being irked that Gavin didn’t take his hint, interrupts Gavin’s questioning and asks a direct question to the doctor that wasn’t beneficial to the defense in any way. The judge then wrapped up the questioning without asking Gavin if he had any more questions. The whole scene seemed very strange to me from a legal standpoint, and I wonder if anyone else can speak to this scene. I know a judge has significant power in his courtroom, and I know he has the right to ask a question to a witness, but when it is so clearly biased, is it not something that can be reviewed by whoever has to review these things for a mistrial to be declared?
-
The discovery of Concannon’s spy (Laura, the woman sleeping with Gavin but getting paid by Concannon to gather information to help sabotage his case) should have drawn an immediate penalty flag, correct? That’s a big unethical no-no, I would suspect, and the trial should have been stopped right there. In the movie, Gavin doesn’t want a mistrial, but if he lost the verdict, could he have appealed based on this fact? If so, it seems he was playing with house money knowing if he lost, he could immediately appeal and get another trial.
-
The testimony of Kaitlyn Costello. Sure, the judge ruled the testimony inadmissible, and instructed the jury to wipe it from their minds, but what juror, after hearing that the doctors on trial actually were negligent and turned the woman into a vegetable would actually be able to do that? I’m guessing the defense could immediately file an appeal based on the testimony and the verdict, again, causing a mistrial.
I know it was only a movie, but if this were an actual case and this many mistakes occurred during the trial, would the judge be in jeopardy of being removed? (based on his freakish haircut and eyebrows alone he should have been punted from the bench).
As for the actual trial itself, I thought the questioning of Costello was terrible by Gavin. He basically asked her what she wrote on the admission form. She said she wrote the woman had eaten one hour before surgery (not the 9 hours that was written on the original form). That’s it. He didn’t probe into why the form was changed, if she knew the one was changed to a nine… nothing.
Inexplicably, Concannon, the great defense lawyer who does what I’ve heard over and over what’s told to law students (never ask a question you don’t know the answer to) does exactly that, over and over. He accuses her of lying in her testimony because she stated she wrote a 1, not a 9 on the admittance form. He asks how she remembers the entry on an obscure document over 4 years ago (she had a copy), and why did she make a copy (she might need it someday). He pulls out of her that the doctors told her to change the 1 to a 9 because of the complications that caused the coma. (why did she change it?) If Concannon sat in his seat and said “no questions”, that would have been the easiest and best strategy, but this legal genius opens the door on his own clients in open court. If he said nothing, he could have still had Costello’s testimony removed from the record, and the jury wouldn’t have heard anything except what Gavin pulled out of her during his riveting examination.
I know it was probably written that way for dramatic effect, but it seemed very insulting to the audience to have it play out this way. Watching it again made me realize that the movie wasn’t as good as I remembered it, and certainly not a very good courtroom drama.
Anyone else feel this way, or have comments regarding the movie in general?
