Pull up a chair, grab a coffee and lets talk great movie Courtroom Scenes: In particular, good cross-examination scenes.
As an attorney, and trial lawyer, I am often amused to see how cross-examination is handled in Hollywood. A typical cross examination is designed to do two basic things:
1) Have the witness agree to any facts that help your case;
2) Chip away at the edges of the testimony to cast doubt on the witnesses credibility. This often is accomplished in a civil way by showing that memories fade or are unreliable, that the witness saw less than 100% of the event, etc . Sometimes, but less often than depicted on television, you can cast doubt on the witness’s veracity, which can get heated.
Rarely, maybe twice or three times a decade, do you really get to unravel a witnesses testimony and have them babbling on the stand. Even when a witness starts to sound incredible, you often have to wait and get ‘permission’ from the jury to go for the jugular. One or two jurors might roll their eyes, or sigh or just look incredulous after the witness clearly lies. Its a rarity. In twenty years of practice I have had three occasions to have a witness (both expert witnesses) completely discredited. This was do, in large, part, to their own laziness in not reviewing what they said they reviewed, contradicting their own reports and altering their opinions at the last minute. Homeruns are rare. Mostly, its singles.
In movies, it happen all the time. A real, run-of-the-mill, cross exam would make a terrible scene. Naturally, Hollywood throws in drama, tension, suspense and often hostility. After all, we’re there to be entertained and not to listen to a trial advocacy lecture.
With the popularity of John Grisham and Turrow in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, legal dramas became quite popular. It may be my imagination but there seems to be fewer and fewer the past decade or two, at least from the major studios. It makes me wonder if people today would sit and watch a film that takes place on mainly on one set and that is dialogue heavy.
So, here are some good ones. I won’t spoil anything in case this diary entices people to watch one of these films that they haven’t seen. Add, your own, please.
Inherit the Wind (1960):
Adapted from a play based on the Scopes-Monkey trial, Inherit the Wind tells the story of a school teacher’s prosecution for teaching evolution. Spencer Tracy is defense attorney Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow). The prosecution is handled by Matthew Brady (William Jennings Bryant), played by Frederic March. Both men are titans of the law and famous throughout the country.
Brady asserts that he is an expert Biblical scholar and that the Bible is literally true. Drummond calls Brady to the stand. Brady, obviously, does not have to take the stand, but wants to defend his belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Technically, this is a direct examination not a cross, but Brady could be declared a hostile witness so leading questions are allowed.
Below is a part of the examination of Brady by Drummond.
A Few Good Men (1992):
If I didn’t mention the final scene of this Rob Reiner film I’d never hear the end of it. Another play (by Aaron Sorkin) adapted for film, A Few Good Men is the story of the Court Martial of two Marines for the death of a fellow Marine.
If you have not seen A Few Good Men...well, I’d be surprised. It’s probably the best-known and most readily available of the films listed. The final scene is great Hollywood drama. It is far from realistic. The Cardinal Rule of cross-examination is to always know the answer to the question asked. Not only does Tom Cruise not know the answer to the final question posed to Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson), unless he could establish a good-faith basis for the question, he could be sanctioned for even asking the question. Nonetheless, few movies are able to create lines that permeate popular culture. This one did. Code Red indeed.
The Verdict (1982):
Frank Galvin, a once promising Boston attorney (Paul Newman), now an alcoholic, gets a seemingly solid medical malpractice case worth a ton of money. The case slowly falls apart due to not only the brilliant defense attorney (James Mason), but to Galvin’s own actions. The Verdict boasts a number of
great courtroom direct and cross examinations so it is difficult to narrow it down to one scene.
The Verdict is all the more interesting because the defendant hospital is owned by the Archdiocese of Boston. If you know anything about the Catholic Church’s influence in Boston, you know that Galvin faces almost insurmountable odds. I recommend the movie, not just the courtroom scenes. Galvin, our protagonist, is a deeply flawed person. Mason is brilliant.
Presumed Innocent (1990):
Based on a Scott Turrow novel, Presumed Innocent is a legal thriller that follows the arrest and prosecution of an Assistant District Attorney for the murder of a colleague. One of the most realistic
cross-examinations occurs in this film. Sandy Stern (Raul Julia) represents Rusty Savitch (Harrison Ford). The medical Examiner testifies, describing the autopsy findings.
Defense counsel Stern, calmly, with no hysterics or bombast, methodically tears down the ME’s testimony by using he ME’s own report and findings. It is a good scene and more realistic than most depictions of what actually goes on in a courtroom.
The film itself is a good one, directed by Alan Pakula (Inside Daisy Clover, Sophie’s Choice, All the President’s Men), one of our more underrated directors. Pakula also produced our next film...
To Kill A Mockingbird (1962):
I’ll assume you’ve seen it. If not...shame. ‘Nuff said.
A quick personal story. While in law school I helped put together a conference on ethics, with a special emphasis on the death penalty. There were numerous speakers including judges from the Court of Appeals (our highest appellate court) and a leading ethicist from NYU. Because the topic was my idea, the student who did all the real work invited me out to dinner with the ethics professor (can’t remember his name) and the faculty advisor, my Evidence Professor. It was the four of us and the topic somehow landed on To Kill A Mockingbird. The two professor had a great conversation and I just listened. They ultimately disagreed about the character and motives of Atticus Finch. It got slightly heated until they realized that the guest speaker was talking about the novel and my Evidence Professor was talking about the movie.
We got up to leave and my professor leaned over to me and said: “I don’t care what he says about Atticus Finch but he better not say anything bad about Gregory Peck.”
Finally, perhaps my personal favorite:
Breaker Morant (1980):
Another court martial movie, this time its during the Boer War. The Bushveldt Carbineers were an irregular unit created to fight Boer Commandos (Commando is a Afrikaans word) during the South African conflict. The British, much like the French and Americans in Vietnam, had little experience fighting an enemy that wore no uniform and could attack and then blend in with non-combatants. Or with civilians that aided their enemy.
Three Australian officers are arrested and court martialed for the murder of a number of Boers. Their defense is that they were following the orders of superiors and acted in accord with official policy. They also suspect that they are being scapegoated in order to show the Boers that the British legal system is fair and just, in order to facilitate a peace treaty.
The assigned counsel for all three defendants in this capital case is a small town solicitor, experienced in real estate matters and wills. Naturally, he has no idea about trials or criminal law. However, there is a terrific scene where the attorney begins a cross examination shakily and unsure of himself. Slowly, he begins to dig in and ultimately has a great cross examination of an important prosecution witness. It is a great scene in a terrific, under-discussed movie.
Breaker Morant is based on true events* and stars Edward Woodward, Bryan Brown, John Waters and Jack Thompson.
See it if you haven’t.
I have not seen A Soldier’s Story (1984) in many years so I don’t recall the courtroom scenes. I enjoyed it very much at the time and need to re-watch that film.
I was tempted to list some more but there are so many legal dramas it would be a long, long list. Everything from Twelve Angry Men to And Justice For All to A Civil Action, Anatomy of a Murder, Judgment at Nuremberg, Witness for the Prosecution, Philadelphia … the list goes on.
* My scale of what Hollywood means when they base a movie on something historical (not to be taken too seriously):
A True Story =50% accurate
Based on a True Story/True Events= 25% accurate
Inspired by a True Story =10% accurate