In the film The Verdict, the opposing attorneys could not be any more different in their approaches to the case. The medical malpractice suit involves a young woman left comatose after childbirth. She was given anesthetics for the operation, after which she began to choke on her own vomit and became deprived of oxygen. Although the legal issue in the central focus of the case, the story is more about each attorney’s journey to the final verdict, rather the case itself. Frank Galvin, a hard boozing, has-been attorney represents the plaintiff in the case. In stark contrast, the high-profile, sophisticated attorney, Ed Concannon, defends the doctors of the Catholic hospital. Each lawyer differentiates himself with distinct tactics, philosophy, …show more content…
His passion for serving others is reignited after visiting the comatose women, whom is representing. In the early phases of the case. Frank is presented with a settlement check of $210,000 from the defense. Frank comes to the realization and responds with, “We've been paid to look the other way. I came here to take your money. I brought snapshots to show you so I could get your money. I can't do it; I can't take it. 'Cause if I take the money I'm lost. I'll just be a... rich ambulance chaser. I can't do it. I can't take it” (The Verdict, 1982). Frank views the court system as a way of serving justice to those who have been wronged. In his closing argument, Frank pleads to the jury to not fall prey to doubt, but to instead have faith. Faith that the justice system is serving the wronged and to “act with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts” (The Verdict, 1982). Concannon philosophy of the legal system, on the other hand, is not to discover the truth, but always prevail. Concannon states, “I'd prepared a case and old man White said to me, "How did you do?" And, uh, I said, "Did my best." And he said, "You're not paid to do your best. You're paid to win" (The Verdict, 1982). The defense does not make decisions and strategize based on their moral compass; instead, they do anything and everything possible to succeed. Concannon is even referred to in the film as “the prince of f**king darkness.” His …show more content…
After losing his star witness, he is forced to change approaches mid-way through the trial. Frank discovers that a nurse, during the detrimental operation, has signed off on important documents that supports the defense’s case had since quit and seemingly disappeared. He learns of the nurse’s address and breaks into her mailbox. Frank discovers that the nurse, by the name of Kaitlin Costello, is now a teacher in New York. He goes as far as flying to New York to plead for her testimony. His desperation is apparent in his strategies throughout the film. Frank acts on impulse and hint of luck to guide him through the trial. Very little research, had been done prior to his client’s court date. The only person that seems to keep Frank’s head out of the water is his colleague and old professor, Mickey. Mickey is a fellow lawyer and Frank’s only aid in the case. In fact, he goes as far as leaving a fake note from a nonexistent secretary to give the appearance of a larger staff to his client. Mickey had handled all of the paperwork and proceeding prior to the court date, as Frank seem to be attempting to drink away his sorrows. He continually advises and helps Frank through the process with an occasional dose of tough love. The defense, however, has a much more aggressive and methodical approach to the case. Supported by a large legal team, Concannon has the ability to cover all his
In the court room Mr. Hooks makes a point with the evidence he is given and testimonies by witnesses to prosecute Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Hooks takes some drastic measures by using personal attacks and being prejudice towards the defendant to convince the jurors that Mr. Miyamoto is a killer. During the trail Alvin hooks b...
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Opinion: Why do you think Frank has confessed at this time? What is his motive? Has he underestimated his brother, or has he estimated correctly?
This documentary portrays the life of wheelchair-bound individuals that are professional rugby players. A few of the players take the spotlight in this independent film such as; Mark Zupan, Joe Soares, and Keith Cavill. These particular individuals were chosen as the icons of this movie because of their phenomenal spirit and determination. The most heartfelt and inspirational story was of Mark Zupan who plays for the United States Quad Rugby team. He was the victim of a tragic car accident provoked by his best friend who was driving while intoxicated. This misfortune left him paralyzed from the waist down while his friend was unharmed. Zupan is an amazing individual that was able to forgive his friend and still involve him in his life. He
The person that I have chosen from the film that works in the criminal justice system is Mark Ciavarella. Ciavarella was a former president judge of the Luzerne County court system in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. This former judge was involved in a “Kids for cash’ scandal in 2008, along with Michael Conahan who was was also a former judge in the Luzerne County, Pennsylvania court. These two judges accepted money from Robert Mercile and Robert Powell, who owned two for-profit detention centers. As Merciles detention centers grew, so did Ciavarella and Conahan money. Ciavarella earned 1,000,000 dollars in this bribery scandal which all came from 4,000 juvenile offenders from 2003 to 2008. Ciavarella was found guilty of
Literature commonly depicts lawyers as justice-seeking protagonists, and though this is done in Anatomy of a Murder, when analyzed, Paul Biegler’s actions did more to subvert justice than to achieve it, and because of this justice is not achieved. Biegler does this in two ways. First, he coaches Manion into taking up an insanity plea, and continues to pursue this argument, despite knowing Manion was in control of his actions at the time of the murder. Secondly, he adopts the persona of a “small town country lawyer,” while in court in order to make the jury sympathize with him, and get in certain arguments he might not be able to present conventionally.
In the film, “Simple Justice” the ‘separate but equal’ of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to the unanimous 1954 overturn of Plessy in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka without discussing the tortuous legal and political path that resulted in eventual public school desegregation. It caused a huge diversity among the schools, for whites and blacks but it wasn’t enough because people kept questioning about Plessy v. Ferguson, especially of Jim Crown laws regarding the changes they wanted to have. Therefore the film “Simple Justice” indicates the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated schools were unconstitutional, and something necessary was needed to be done.
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
The Bad and The Beautiful (1952) and State and Main (2000) are films within films that unmask Hollywood Cinema as a dream factory and expose the grotesque, veneer hidden by the luxury of stars. The Bad and the Beautiful, directed by Vincent Minnelli, is a black and white film narrated in flashback form. The films theatrical nature requires more close-ups than wide-screen shots to capture the character’s psychological turmoil. For example, Fred and Jonathan’s car ride is captured in a close-up to signify their friendship; however their relationship deteriorates after Jonathan’s deceit. While the camera zooms out, Fred stands alone motionless. Here, Fred is captured from a distance at eye-level and he becomes ostracized by the film industry and
The plot of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” takes the viewer on a journey as Jesse Metcalfe, an “award-winning” reporter, is convinced that DA Mark Hunter is fabricating DNA evidence to win convictions. After watching DA Hunter in a murder trial, Metcalfe requests a videotape of the murderer’s interrogation and a date from ADA Crystal; reluctantly, she agrees to both. After reviewing the video, Metcalfe and his cameraman, Corey Finely, approach the news editor about conducting an investigative story on DA Hunter and the fabrication of DNA evidence; the editor declines the story, which causes Metcalfe and Finely to mastermind a plan to catch Hunter in the act. The plan was to use a current murder case and plant circumstantial evidence pointing to Metcalfe. After acquiring a copy of a police report for a prostitute’s murder, Metcalfe and Finely round up th...
In the documentary “Fed Up,” sugar is responsible for Americas rising obesity rate, which is happening even with the great stress that is set on exercise and portion control for those who are overweight. Fed Up is a film directed by Stephanie Soechtig, with Executive Producers Katie Couric and Laurie David. The filmmaker’s intent is mainly to inform people of the dangers of too much sugar, but it also talks about the fat’s in our diets and the food corporation shadiness. The filmmaker wants to educate the country on the effects of a poor diet and to open eyes to the obesity catastrophe in the United States. The main debate used is that sugar is the direct matter of obesity. Overall, I don’t believe the filmmaker’s debate was successful.
District 9 is a film that takes us into a realm of a different world from the one that we know now. It combines extraterrestrial life with immense science fiction to illustrate a story we could only imagine to ever actually occur. Although it was created for entertainment purposes, the motion picture can be compared to many different types of individuals and situations. District 9 displays many underlying concepts throughout the movie about racism, prejudice and discrimination. While studying and analyzing the plot and characters, these concepts became more translucent to me, the viewer. This paper will discuss the treatment of District 9 residents and equate their treatment to people with disabilities.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
‘Our interest in the parallels between the adaptation inter-texts is further enhanced by consideration of their marked differences in textual form,’
The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror