Presumed Innocent is a 1990 film adaptation of the novel written by Scott Turow. Presumed Innocent depicts a courtroom drama where the courtroom is the focus point of the plot. Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford) is the main character of the film who is a prosecutor that is charged with the murder of his co-worker and ex lover. As the film unfolds, the viewer sees courtroom participants acting in an unethical matter and how this hurts them in the end. Rusty Sabich has to prove his innocence while trying to solve the murder of the woman he had a romantic history with.
Rusty Sabich is a prosecuting attorney who works for Raymond Horgan (Brian Dennehy), also a prosecuting attorney in the same law firm. Before Rusty Sabich is accused of the murder of
…show more content…
Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi), he is in charge of the case. Raymond Horgan wants Rusty Sabich to have the case and investigate further. At this point, it is evident that Rusty Sabich is a prosecutor because he is the one responsible for presenting the state’s case against the defendant. Rusty Sabich, as a prosecutor, has the responsibility to investigate the case that was given to him. (Schmalleger, 2013). Rusty Sabich would execute these responsibilities, but evidence points Rusty Sabich in the direction of now being the defendant. Rusty Sabich being the defendant means that he is an accused criminal law violator (Schmalleger, 2013). He is being accused of the murder of Carolyn Polhemus. Sandy Stern (Raul Julia) is an attorney in the defense counsel representing Rusty Sabich.
According to Schmalleger, these responsibilities entail “...represent the accused at trial, to present evidence in the defendant’s favor, to cross examine witnesses...” (2013). Sandy Stern during the trial cross examines Raymond Horgan and Dr. Kumagai (Sab Shimono). When cross-examining, Sandy Stern receives information that is going to help prove Rusty Sabich is innocent and there is unlawful actions taking place by certain courtroom participants. Sandy Stern discusses the disappearance of the glass and if it really did exist. He also states that the phone calls that took place between Rusty Sabich and Carolyn Polhemus could have been strictly for work. Sandy Stern questions multiple statements of the prosecution’s case. Sandy Stern gathers the information he needs from his cross examinations. Cross examining allows him to ask witnesses question that help his case. He fulfills his job of trying to prove his clients innocent and refute statements made against Rusty …show more content…
Sabich. Tommy Molto (Joe Grifasi) is the head of the homicide department and Nico Della Guardia (Tom Mardirosian) is the prosecuting attorney. They join forces to accuse Rusty Sabich and present the state’s case at the trial. The two pieces of major evidence they have are fingerprints on the beer glass and fibers from the carpet in his house that match the ones located on Carolyn Polhemus’s body. Nico Della Guardia holds the same position as Rusty Sabich. It is also his job to investigate cases. Nico Della Guardia and Tommy Molto do this together. Nico Della Guardia and Tommy Molto present their evidence to the grand jury and question witnesses. Both Nico Della Guardia and Tommy Molto want to prove Rusty Sabich committed the crime. A prosector, during a trial, is trying to prove that the suspect did commit the crime. Judge Larren Lyttle (Paul Winfield) is the judge selected for the trial. It is revealed in the film that Judge Larren Lyttle also has a past with Carolyn Polhemus. He accepted a bribe from a man named Leon (Leland Gantt) so his case would not appear in court. The role of a judge is to see that the procedure of court rules is followed by both sides. He is not bias and does not favor a certain side (Schmalleger, 2013). Judge Larren Lyttle demonstrates these characteristics by holding the authority in the court room and following the procedure of how a court room should be run during a trial. However, details emerge later on in the film that Judge Larren Lyttle is not the most honest Judge and participates in accepting illegal bribes. This is something that a judge should never participate in because it could sway their ruling. Presumed Innocent is the prime example of what a courtroom drama genre film should be.
According to an article on TheScriptLab, it states, “Courtroom drama film uses the justice system as a main component of the plot. The story usually unfolds inside a courtroom with the prosecutor, judge, jury, and the defense” (Drama, n.d.). It being a drama and a movie, the directors main priority is to keep viewers interested. By making it interesting, specifics pertaining to how a trial takes place, may not be accurate. The author states that “Courtroom drama buffs will recognize the familiar elements and characters - overmatched prosecutors, dramatic last-minute confessions, trusty investigators...” (Thompson, 1990.). Courtroom drama is a genre that truly tests the idea of reality versus media. This portrayal of how an incident would play out in reality versus media is seen in Presumed
Innocent. At the end of the film when Rusty Sabich found the bloody hatchet, he walks into his kitchen and listens to how his wife killed Carolyn Polhemus. She refers to herself in the third person and gave details. Rusty Sabich is a prosecutor and after hearing this information from his wife, he should have called the police or Raymond Horgan to let them know she was the one who commits the murder. Instead, the viewer is left with a voice over of Rusty Sabich stating that the murder has been filed under an unsolved case. Rusty Sabich did not fulfill his duty of informing anyone so she could be charged with the murder. This is so the viewer is left in shock of who the actual murder is and how Rusty Sabich would rather protect his wife than give her up. This is done for the viewer and the purpose of the movie. If it was reality, Rusty Sabich would have given up his wife allowing him to be free from any connection to the case. Including Rusty Sabich’s action of not informing of what his wife admits to, there is other examples of procedural and legal issues displayed throughout the film. The glass that is covered in Rusty Sabich’s fingerprints has gone missing right before the trial. It is such a critical piece, that it should have had more importance to those protecting it. The glass would help the prosecutor’s case extremely. The detective that is assigned authority of the case is friends of Rusty Sabich’s. Detective Dan Lipranzer (John Spencer) reveals to Rusty Sabich at the end of the film that he in fact has the glass. No one asks him for it back and Rusty Sabich throws it in the river. Concealing, tampering or destroying evidence is against the law. The article states that, “A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly: alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys any record, document, or tangible object (Tampering With Evidence, n.d.). This definition describes exactly what Detective Dan Lipranzer does and how he sways the outcome of the trial. Detective Dan Lipranzer is trying to protect Rusty Sabich, but what he does is wrong and against the law. Judge Larren Lyttle, Rusty Sabich and Raymond Horgan all have a connection to Carolyn Polhemus. When Rusty Sabich is told he is going to be in charge of the case, he should have stated that there is a conflict and he would have an unfair bias over the situation. A conflict of interest is described as, “a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties” (Conflict of Interest, n.d.) This is a procedural issue and all three are guilty of being involved with Carolyn Polhemus and still participate in the case. Raymond Horgan also gives Carolyn Polhemus cases that were not supposed to be for her area of work. The cases were supposed to be assigned to Rusty Sabich. This is due to Raymond Horgan and Carolyn Polhemus’s relationship at the time and her trying to advance her career. Presumed Innocent incorporates the idea of media versus reality and how a courtroom drama film is played out. The film is made solely to entertain those viewing and leave them wondering what will happen next. The film tests the viewer’s knowledge of the legal and procedural issues that take place throughout the production. They are able to see that what happens in the movie, would not be protocol of the law. Presumed Innocent displays different courtroom participants and their duties that make them have the job title they do.
In the beginning Alvin Hooks brings his very first witness to the stand sheriff Art Moran which was a minor character throughout the story but had to still testify. The sheriff explained that last night it was foggy on the lake and the boat lights where still on. Therefore he and his deputy came out to Carl’s boat later on the next day to see if everything was alright. Once they made their way to the boat they found that everything was clean except for a coffee cup on the floor. Later on, the sheriff found Carl’s net which contained him. They brought up the net from the water which had his dead body in it. They witness that they have seen a wound on the side of Carl’s head. Alvin hooks replies with disgust knowingly convincing the jurors already that Mr. Miyamoto is the one that killed Carl.
In this case, Vinny had to learn as he goes because he had never been in a real trial hearing before. Vinny was a personal injury lawyer in New York. During this case there were three eye witness saying that Bill and Stan were the criminals, who murdered
Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecuting lawyer and is good. She is pushing for the death penalty. She states that everyone involved in the crime is equally guilty including the one who wrestled for the gun, the robber and the two lookouts. She is trying to prove that Steve knew and associated with the two robbers who are bad characters.
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
This conveyed the central messages better than the play because in the play you had to envision in your mind (with a bit of imagination) the scene and the juror. In the movie, you could clearly see the situation and actors laid out for you. The actors were able to pack a punch and help you really experience the situation first-hand. People in their everyday lives, face peer pressure and often follow the crowd. It just takes one person to make a difference. It’s easier to stand along side one person rather than alone. By demonstrating the courage to do so you will also earn the respect of others around you. Its important to respect people for who they are in the present, and not who they were in the
...r as if they were in the courtroom of a murder trial. In some ways, the use of advanced diction could cause problems for the reader to comprehend it, however the author has worked in small descriptions of what some of the more advanced judiciary terms are. Finally, the author uses a very advanced characterization of virtually all the characters mentioned within the story, from the mature and well-respected Theodore Boone to the every-so opinionated office secretary Elsa. Without a doubt, Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer entices the reader into the mystery that is will Mr. Duffy be proved innocent or guilty? John Grisham does a great job into hooking the reader into wanting more of this eye-opening crime and drama novel.
Throughout time the weak and innocent are often picked on for many reasons this is best explained by Atticus, “It is a sin to kill a mocking bird.”. The central idea of this book is not to prey on the innocent and harmless because they are often misunderstood. This idea is illustrated, and developed through many different characters such as Boo Radley, Scout, and Tom Robison all harmless characters, but misunderstood like the mockingbird.
Morris opens the film by juxtaposing the narratives by the participants in the interviews in order to show Adams’ innocent and Harris’ guilt. The beginning of the film introduces two people that one was believably wrongly convicted and the other was suspiciously a real murderer. Adams who was criminally convicted is interviewed with a white shirt. He narrates his life all the way from Ohio to end up getting a job in Dallas. By showing Adams on the white shirt, Morris tells us Adams’ innocence and proposes our...
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
As the prosecutor creates a strong argument that makes it sound like he is guilty of this murder. With the strong argument toward Steve the attorneys also have a stronger argument towards the state. As Steve takes the witness stand he gives a look toward the jury that looks suspicious. Other criminals were to take the witness stand but they only did it because it meant that they could get a shorter sentence time. After the trial Steve was found not guilty to the jury and he could go
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and now can better understand and relate.
Criminal courtroom visit The courtroom is a place where cases are heard and deliberated as evidence is produced to prove whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. The courtroom varies depending on the hierarchy and the type of cases, they deliberate upon in the courtroom. In the United States, the courts are closely interlinked through a hierarchical system at either the state or the federal level. Therefore, the court must have jurisdiction before it takes upon a case, deliberates, and comes up with a judgment on it. The criminal case is different from the civil case, especially when it comes to the court layout.
He is a stubborn man and furious most of the time unlike jury number eight who is calm. He has a relationship problem with his son and wreaks his anger and feeling toward his son to the defendant. He fight furiously that the defendant is guilty from the start, even until everyone else already think that the boy is not guilty. In the end he realizes that he only insists that the boy is guilty because of his own anger and disappointment toward his son. He is stuck in his own prejudice. In the end he changes his verdict to not
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