In my wanderings around the web today I came across an article by John Denvir who teaches constitutional law at USF Law School. He is the editor of
Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Texts.
According to this article :
"At least "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Anatomy of a Murder" held out the possibility that law led to justice; most Hollywood films prefer to see law as an obstacle to the achievement of justice."
"As a law professor, I am always looking for "positive" images of lawyers to hold up for my students' emulation."
More below the fold....
With Mr. Fitzgerald conducting his Grand Jury investigations (Rove, Bushco, et al), this part of the article may provide him with an example to emulate:
"One current favorite is found only at the video store; it's Antonin Costa-Gavras' political thriller "Z" which was made in 1969. It presents a relationship between law and justice diametrically opposed to that implied in "Dirty Harry."
Here we see a legal story in which a competent (and courageous) judge following established legal procedures is able to make the legal system work. You might say that Costa-Gavras shows us that the rule of law must also be a "law of rules."
The plot is based on an actual political assassination in Greece in the 1960's. A popular democratic leftist politician (Yves Montand) is clubbed to death by thugs allied with the right-wing police force. The police deny any connection with the "accident." A judicial investigation begins under the supervision of a young magistrate (Jean-Louis Trintignant). Since the young judge comes from the same social background as the police and shares their antipathy for the leftist opposition, he is at first more than willing to accept their version of the events.
But he is also a legal professional, trained in sophisticated procedures for taking and evaluating evidence. We see two dramas unfold. One is the judge's slow realization that he is not dealing with an accident, but rather a political assassination followed by an official cover-up. He at first resists this conclusion, but his legal training requires him to exhaustively interview witnesses and cross-check their testimony against official records and the testimony of other witnesses. Slowly his fidelity to proper legal method overcomes his social and political prejudice.
The second drama is the insidious manner in which the political considerations threaten to undermine the autonomy of the legal investigation. The District Attorney announces that the judge is in complete charge of the investigation, but at first subtly and then not so subtly attempts to guide him to a predetermined politically acceptable legal conclusion. When attempts at persuasion fail, they are replaced by veiled, and not so veiled, threats of retaliation. Still the young judge indicts the Chief of Police.
Here is the moral I draw from "Z." The "rule of law" can produce justice; law is a cultural achievement about which we should be very proud. But the procedures do not work automatically. They require lawyers and judges who possess both keen intellect and moral courage because law is always in danger of being subverted by politics, and legal forms are always capable of being corrupted towards political ends.
So, my point is, Mr. Fitzgerald:
- do you have the moral courage?
- do you have the intellect?
- will you be subverted by politics?
We'll see!