00;00;03;12 -00;00;38;28

Jonathan Hafetz

Welcome to Law On film. I'm Jonathan Hafetz and in this podcast we're going to explore the rich connections between law and film. Law is critical to many films, even to those that aren't obviously about the law. And film, in turn, tells us a lot about the law, and especially how it's understood and perceived by society. Each episode, we'll examine a film that's noteworthy from a legal perspective.

00;00;39;00 - 00;01;01;09

Jonathan Hafetz

In addition to being noteworthy in their own right is films. What legal concepts does the film explore? What does the film get right about the law and what does it get wrong? Why is the law important to understanding the film, and what does the film teach us about the law and the broader society and culture in which the law is embedded, both when it was made and today?

00;01;01;11 - 00;01;27;12

Jonathan Hafetz

This episode, we're going to be discussing another great film, anatomy of a murder from 1959. It's directed by Otto Preminger, with a script by Wendell Karen Mayes and it's based on the novel of the same name by a Michigan or former Michigan Supreme Court justice, John Voelker, who was writing under the pen name Robert Trevor. It's based on a true Story, also has a fantastic score by Duke Ellington.

00;01;27;14 - 00;01;51;22

Jonathan Hafetz

It's a courtroom drama set in Michigan's Upper Peninsula near Thunder Bay. And Paul Bigler, played by Jimmy Stewart, is a small town attorney and former D.A. who's coming off the heels of a lost bid for reelection is asked by Laura mannion, played by Lee Remick, to defend her husband, a U.S. Army lieutenant named Frederick Mannion, played by young Ben Gazzara.

00;01;51;24 - 00;02;22;21

Jonathan Hafetz

To defend Gazzara or Mannion, who's been arrested for the murder of a local innkeeper, Barney Quill. The film traces Beagle's defense of Mannion and the trial. There's no dispute in the film that Mannion committed the crime. The only question is whether he has a valid defense, and there's a cast of other great characters we're going to talk about, because assistant play by Everett in his, co-counsel and an older attorney, Parnell McCarthy, played by Arthur O'Connell.

00;02;22;23 - 00;02;50;18

Jonathan Hafetz

And the two prosecutors, George C Scott, as Claude Dancer, and, Brooks West as Mitch Ludwick, both who are prosecuting the case, and then Kath Grant as Mary pilot, who is, another important person in the, in the trial. And then finally, we have a appearance by the real time lawyer Joseph Welch, who, represented the U.S. Army in the Army McCarthy hearings plays the judge in the case.

00;02;50;20 - 00;03;12;10

Jonathan Hafetz

Very important figure historically, largely credited with with, discrediting McCarthy at the hearing. So he plays the judge. So it's a great film on many levels, but joined today by Josh Britell. So I'm going to introduce Josh, and then we'll, dive in. Josh Drayton is a partner and founder at the firm of Dre Talon Lewis.

00;03;12;12 - 00;03;39;06

Jonathan Hafetz

Josh has been practicing for criminal law for over 30 years, and he's tried numerous cases in federal and state courts, around the country involving some of the most complex issues. He's a phenomenal courtroom lawyer. He's represented a range of different clients, and he's widely recognized for his work. He's been a super lawyer in New York for, over 15 years.

00;03;39;08 - 00;04;06;18

Jonathan Hafetz

He's widely published in, books and, other articles writing on criminal law. And his work has been recognized. He's received numerous awards from the New York Criminal Bar Association, and other organizations. And he's also been the head of prominent criminal defense organizations like the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

00;04;06;25 - 00;04;19;19

Jonathan Hafetz

So he's had a prominent role in all these organizations and is, just a great person to have on the show to discuss this film. So, without further ado, Josh, welcome.

00;04;19;21 - 00;04;22;17

Joshua Dratel

Thanks for having me, John. It's great to be here.

00;04;22;19 - 00;04;42;07

Jonathan Hafetz

Okay, so anatomy of a murder. It's a great film. And I'm looking forward to talking with you about it. But let's start with just a question. When when did you first see the film and what were your impressions, Dan. And and and when you saw it more recently? The daily strike striking differently.

00;04;42;10 - 00;05;05;04

Joshua Dratel

I first saw it probably as a adolescent, 12 or 13 years old, in the late 60s. And it impressed me then as a very morally ambiguous drama. Even then, it does that very effectively. I've probably seen it 2 or 3 times since, and it's always.

00;05;05;06 - 00;05;34;29

Joshua Dratel

Augmented its place. As for me, the best courtroom drama, among films. And I was very happy that you suggested that one, because it turns out that's the one I like the most in that regard. And when I watched it again in preparation here, what struck me was how accurate some of it was, both in the macro, but also in the nuances, and also how it foreshadowed some other changes that we're still going through in the law and society as a whole.

00;05;35;06 - 00;05;52;15

Jonathan Hafetz

I agree, it is a great courtroom drama. I think one of the best, courtroom dramas ever made. Why is it so hard? I mean, there's so many movies that are, about, you know, the law and and the court tends to be the main focus that drama built into it. What makes it so hard to make a courtroom drama?

00;05;52;15 - 00;05;55;27

Jonathan Hafetz

And what makes this movie so successful that it.

00;05;55;29 - 00;06;27;17

Joshua Dratel

I think the hard part is that the, the points of drama in a trial are not as many as you see on television and movies, and to compress the fullness of a trial and its pace and the tension into a two hour feature is very difficult. And as a result, you get a lot of exposition, you get a lot of speechifying, and you get a lot of contrived drama in many of the portrayals, and this somehow avoids it.

00;06;27;17 - 00;06;59;02

Joshua Dratel

It's a little long. It's a long movie. It's about 2.5 hours, but at the same time, it's one of the few movies that I don't think skips a single witness at the trial, which is amazing. When I was watching it this time, I noticed that too. And yet it it somehow keeps the tension taut and in and building towards what you know is going to be the climax, which is the testimony of the defendant, Ben Gazzara, testifying as Mannion and his wife, Lee Remick, playing Laura.

00;06;59;05 - 00;07;28;17

Joshua Dratel

So you're constantly waiting for the main event while all these smaller pieces of the case are presented, through the prosecution case, mostly. And then when you get to the defense case, I mean, look, the acting is superior in almost every respect, which helps tremendously. But I think the somehow capturing the completeness of a trial without becoming too mundane, as trials tend to be, if you sit through all of them.

00;07;28;20 - 00;07;33;17

Joshua Dratel

And that's that's the hardest part for for me as a observer.

00;07;33;20 - 00;07;59;24

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, I think it's a great point. I mean, the way the film is able to be, you know, to build in drama, to be incredibly entertaining and keep you on the edge of your seat and yet not lose the realism, or at least some of the realism and some of the granularity of an actual criminal trial where you'll have your maybe you'll have your dramatic moments, but there's a lot of, other things that are in between that may be, you know, less entertaining.

00;07;59;24 - 00;08;25;05

Jonathan Hafetz

So its ability to kind of bridge that gap is amazing. So and one of the and here, you know, another interesting thing is we don't unlike other courtroom drama movies or some other courtroom drama movies, there's no mystery about what happened. Really. Right. I mean, it's very clear. It's established in the beginning. There's no question that Lieutenant Mannion character, played by Ben Gazzara, killed Barney Quell.

00;08;25;09 - 00;08;59;10

Jonathan Hafetz

Right now, there's some question. These are two questions, right? One is regarding his motive and whether the relationship between, Laura mannion, his wife, and Barney Quell. Was it a kind of a flirtation, or was it a rape? The legal question is, will you get off? Is this is his defense going to be valid? And so there's early on, Jimmy Stewart plays Paul Bigelow, the man his lawyer goes and, talks to, a man to try to figure out the defense.

00;08;59;14 - 00;09;14;19

Jonathan Hafetz

So I'm going to play the clip for you. Now, this interview between, Jimmy Stewart and Ben Gazzara. Right. The defense lawyer and the client. And then we'll talk about kind of what Jimmy Stewart is doing here and, and, and what you make of it.

00;09;14;21 - 00;09;33;20

There are four ways I can affirm murder. Number one, that wasn't murder suicide. And, you know, number two, you didn't, number three or legally justified, like the protection of your home or self-defense number for the killing was excusable.

00;09;33;23 - 00;09;56;16

You know, you know, certainly in the first three alive, I would not be legally justified in killing the man of rape. My wife time. Now. If you caught him on the act, the shooting might have a justified. But you didn't catch on the act. And you have time to bring in the police. You didn't do that either. You're guilty of murder, premeditated first degree murder in any court of law.

00;09;56;16 - 00;10;17;19

But you told me to plead guilty pleasure. The court, you know about, plead guilty in a promotion. But if you're not telling me to cop out, what are you telling me to do? I'm not telling you to do anything. I just want you to understand the letter of the law. Go on. Go with one. Whatever it is you don't want.

00;10;17;22 - 00;10;44;06

You know, you. You're very bright. The public. Let's see how really bright you can be working. Not because your wife was raped. You will have a favorable outcome for the public sympathy open with you before the final curtain. What you need is a legal pay so that the jury can hang up. There's something on your behalf you want.

00;10;44;08 - 00;11;03;06

What's your legal excuse? What's your legal excuse for killing Monica? Well, no justification for the, excuse. Just excuse.

00;11;03;09 - 00;11;07;17

How should I know? You don't want to put.

00;11;07;19 - 00;11;24;19

Was that the murder or the. Woman or that number listed on your lazy. I'm a lawyer.

00;11;24;21 - 00;11;39;25

Jonathan Hafetz

It's a great scene. So, yeah, there's a lot more drama when it's on the screen. A lot of great pregnant pauses. But just help break down here. What's going on in the scene? What Jimmy Stewart's approach is, and some of the ramifications.

00;11;39;27 - 00;12;18;20

Joshua Dratel

Yes. This is one of the nuances that's appreciated by practitioners like myself, because defenses in crimes, particularly crimes that require intent, is very often internal rather than external, meaning that they come from the client in large respect that have to be corroborated by other evidence. But here Jimmy Stewart does something that is, I think, very typical among lawyers and particularly lawyers who are doing the job correctly, which is explaining the elements of an offense to a client.

00;12;18;27 - 00;12;50;07

Joshua Dratel

In other words, what does the government have to prove or what are the possible defenses, things like that. Avoid the the problem of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with a client. The client has to essentially provide the information and provide the impetus for that kind of defense. And Jimmy Stewart is very expertly leading him in that direction by first excluding things that the evidence will never support.

00;12;50;10 - 00;13;16;28

Joshua Dratel

But then essentially prompting him without giving him the answer, to find on his own a particular avenue that they can pursue. Now. The second part is is part of the rest of the movie, which is doesn't really match a legal defense. And and that's also part of the process of developing a defense, which is it has to have it has to have two elements.

00;13;16;28 - 00;13;27;05

Joshua Dratel

It has to have factual support, and it has to have some legal precedent to which you can find that factual support to get to the jury with that defense.

00;13;27;07 - 00;13;47;20

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. And on the factual part here is well, on both, I guess, is, I mean, is Jimmy Stewart is he is he aided here by the fact that his client's, you know, fairly intuitive, fairly bright? I mean, he's kind of leads them, but the client gets it right and follows the, trail of breadcrumbs.

00;13;47;22 - 00;14;12;22

Joshua Dratel

Correct. And and obviously, you want a client who's ability to pay attention to what you're telling them is, is that they can, that they can generate it on their own because that's much more effective as well than something that's fed, that's never really owned by the client in a, in an intellectual or emotional way. Those defenses often fail.

00;14;12;24 - 00;14;19;19

Joshua Dratel

So this was a much more effective way of developing a defense.

00;14;19;21 - 00;14;43;04

Jonathan Hafetz

And what and what Mannion thinks it's his defense of his moral defense that Quill raped his wife. You know, Jimmy Stewart says that's not that's not a legal defense. That's not going to get you off. Although, as we'll see later on, that does become kind of a backdrop of the drama at trial and the subtext, because even if it's not legal issue, it does make a difference in how they perceive the case.

00;14;43;04 - 00;15;02;04

Jonathan Hafetz

So we see a lot of the trial is going to actually be about whether law a man in was, you know, flirting with and soliciting, being solicitous up on equal or with a rape charge, so. Right that it's, it's an interesting so in some sense man is kind of right even if he's not, even if he's not right legally.

00;15;02;06 - 00;15;30;17

Joshua Dratel

Right. And, you know, Jimmy Stewart says the jury will possibly be in your favor because of the motivations. But at the same time, we know that most of the time, predominantly an unsympathetic defendant does not benefit from a technical defense, no matter how ironclad it would be. And by the same token, a sympathetic defense can get the benefit of the doubt from a marginal legal defense.

00;15;30;17 - 00;15;53;19

Joshua Dratel

And so the the context of the entire offense conduct is very important, and the jury may be sympathetic and latch on to something in a jury instruction or something that the defense attorney has presented as a viable legal defense to manifest that sympathy for the client.

00;15;53;22 - 00;16;15;09

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, that's it's really interesting how that how that plays out and the scene and when they when we talk about the legal defense, the actual defense, it's Jimmy Stewart doesn't have to figure it out quite yet. Right. And so we get to the defense, which is well, there will be a defense of temporary insanity. That's one possible defense.

00;16;15;11 - 00;16;38;01

Jonathan Hafetz

But for that, the defendant would have to not know the difference between right or wrong. So instead, they they stumble upon this defense by looking through the old law books. And I love this film. You know, it dates the film, but it's charming, right? They're actually doing their research out of the law books. They look at the alpr, the old reporter that carries the case from the jurisdictions.

00;16;38;03 - 00;16;46;29

Jonathan Hafetz

And so they come upon this defense. And so what's the defense they ultimately, stumble upon or, realize?

00;16;47;01 - 00;17;13;18

Joshua Dratel

Yes, it's called irresistible impulse, which is essentially this dissociative reaction is the psycho psychiatric, I guess, term for it. But the more colloquial term is irresistible impulse that for a period of time he lost the ability to control himself and acted on this impulse without really knowing what he did. And and in a sort of a, a state of a trance like state, almost.

00;17;13;18 - 00;17;24;17

Joshua Dratel

And it's funny. Would you talk about the, the reporters in it, going through the, the actual books is that I was I was struck by when they showed the Supreme Court reporters, they said in 1959, if you on a single shelf.

00;17;24;18 - 00;17;26;23

Now yet it.

00;17;26;26 - 00;17;33;27

Joshua Dratel

You know, we're now we're 50s. What do we what do we six years down the road. You can't fit him in the house.

00;17;34;00 - 00;17;49;01

Jonathan Hafetz

Can't fit him in yet. You know law firms, they have them I mean, I think I mean largely, I guess maybe for, partners or lawyers from a several generations ago, but largely because it, you know, the it looks good. Like, how can you have a law firm without, like, a law library? You have the books and back.

00;17;49;01 - 00;18;10;19

Jonathan Hafetz

But back then they were actually, using it and, probably it actually made it, more, you know, that they were able to find the case, but the prosecution didn't. Right. So there's that scene where, the prosecution, I think it's George Scott as dance, a real act thinks he's got, you know, he's got the, you know, the the defense to admit that he could you know, he was able to tell the difference in right.

00;18;10;19 - 00;18;22;00

Jonathan Hafetz

Wrong. So he's got no defense right. There's no temporary insanity defense. But then they're back in chambers. Right. And Jimmy Stewart basically skewers him and says, well, you know, take a look at this case.

00;18;22;02 - 00;18;45;12

Joshua Dratel

Yes. And if you can do that, that's really an advantage, because if the prosecution knew of that avenue for a defense starting out, they could tailor their case in a very different way to try to cut them off at the past, through a lot of different witness testimony. So, the element of surprise there is extraordinarily valuable and very effective in the case.

00;18;45;14 - 00;19;06;07

Jonathan Hafetz

One of the other things the film does is, very well, I think is show how cross-examination is used to trial. So, and this is a critical feature of, American trials, jury trials. So can you say a little bit about the role of cross-examination, and then maybe we can hear a little bit more from the film?

00;19;06;09 - 00;19;32;27

Joshua Dratel

Sure. And this is also actually one of the problems with making movies about courtroom dramas, which is cross-examination, is rarely, if ever, a narrative. The director's the narrative. What happened, what happened next, what happened next. Cross-examination is a mosaic of trying to do a variety of different things. One, perhaps, is to impeach the witness to, to to prove them to be not credible.

00;19;32;27 - 00;19;55;01

Joshua Dratel

The 2nd May be to get from them specific facts that fit into a theory that doesn't depend on the bad stuff that the person has testified about. And the third might be to set up another witness or to set up another, aspect of the case down the road in a way that gives you something in the record.

00;19;55;01 - 00;20;15;10

Joshua Dratel

So for cross-examination, you're trying to create a record, but you're also but but at the same time, you have to score points in front of the jury to keep the jury from thinking that this is a slam dunk for the prosecution. So you could be making all sorts of points on cross-examination that are very effective in making the record.

00;20;15;15 - 00;20;35;00

Joshua Dratel

But the jury doesn't get it until you sum up. By then they made up their mind. You have to you have to make gains against the government's story, the prosecution story against the witnesses credibility in real time so that the jury keeps an open mind like, oh, well, maybe the guy's not telling the truth, maybe we shouldn't believe him.

00;20;35;00 - 00;21;03;04

Joshua Dratel

Or this inconsistency is rather dramatic. And what you find in the movie that I think is very effective and it's not quite as tolerated as it used to be. And so there have been attempts by judges to cut people off, which is when you make an objection, when you ask a question, you load it with your theory so that the jury hears a little bit more of a narrative of what you want to convey, rather than simply a question that gets a yes or no answer.

00;21;03;07 - 00;21;29;15

Joshua Dratel

And that's another part of cross-examination that's hard and takes a lot of preparation and a lot of even despite the amount of preparation you put into it, it takes a lot of thinking on your feet when you're up doing it, because it never goes to scripted, and you will have to make adjustments as you go along. And how to communicate something coherent to a jury when you're not in control of the witness and all the witnesses fighting you every step of the way.

00;21;29;17 - 00;22;00;10

Joshua Dratel

And in the movie, by the way, as they're saying, so the interplay, you know, Jimmy Stewart goes through these, objections that try to convey his defense. And the prosecutor is constantly trying to stop him from doing it. And the judge admonishes him, but it's effective in in getting that out in front of the jury. And that's actually a very effective part of the movie, is the interplay between both sets of lawyers during the trial, which is a very important part of a case.

00;22;00;13 - 00;22;14;09

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. Let's play a clip of when I think one moment where Jimmy Stewart does that and gets chastised by, the judge, played by Joseph Welch.

00;22;14;12 - 00;22;38;28

Did you see him on the night of the booking? The night on acquittal was built for so when you tell the court about how and when and when you saw the kind of man about 1 a.m. and knock on my door, wake me up. I went to the door and ten man was standing. He said, you better take me, Mr. Long, because I just got burning quilt.

00;22;39;01 - 00;22;56;03

I told him to go back to his trailer and then I would call the state police. How did Lieutenant Manion appear to you when he asked you to take him? He said what he had to say to when I told him there wasn't any question for you to be, as far as you could tell him, complete possession of his faculties.

00;22;56;06 - 00;23;23;19

As far as I could tell, yes. The witness. Well, did you go to the man in his trailer? Yes. If you see him as his man in the trailer. Yes, sir. What was her appearance? She was a man. Yes. And no evidence has been introduced to make Mrs.. My name's appearance relevant to this case. Oh, well, no evidence had been introduced to make Barnett Quill's appearance relevant.

00;23;23;22 - 00;23;39;25

You didn't object to the question then? Did that? Because, you know the party quilt late and changed and cooled off after the rape. And he fell out of this courtroom every rebuttal in this court is being charged. It's a public moment. I must.

00;23;39;27 - 00;24;03;11

Go by. What to you want to try to do? You just put my point, Mr. Baker, you are an experienced attorney, and you know better than to make such an offer. I will not tolerate intemperance of this sort. If you once again try the patience of this court, I shall hold you in contempt. Your honor, it will happen again.

00;24;03;14 - 00;24;08;04

The witness answer will be straight and the jury will disadvantage.

00;24;08;07 - 00;24;13;13

Jonathan Hafetz

How calculated was what Jimmy Stewart did? How effective was it?

00;24;13;15 - 00;24;45;25

Joshua Dratel

It's calculated in the sense that he's trying to set up the need to get Laura manning's condition into the record. Also to foreshadow that this is going to be about what happened to her at the hands of Barney Quill and the the prosecution is trying to keep everything very narrow. This is another challenge in defending cases, which is the prosecution's efforts are to keep everything very narrow to what it wants to present.

00;24;45;25 - 00;25;17;06

Joshua Dratel

And any time the defense on cross-examination tries to get beyond the scope of the direct exam, you hear a lot of relevance objections, and a judge who doesn't want the defense or is not really paying attention enough to understand what the defense is getting at, will reflexively say, hey, yeah, it's not part of that. It's very hard to get your defense in through cross-examination and this, this, this particular, passage is a good demonstration of that.

00;25;17;11 - 00;25;51;11

Joshua Dratel

The judge obviously was had at a certain style. That was what I would call avuncular. But he still obviously exercises the authority. The other advantages is that over time, Jimmy Stewart kind of wears down the resistance of the judge by his emotional commitment to the process. So he goes even further later on in terms of his emotional investment in getting his defense in.

00;25;51;11 - 00;26;01;12

Joshua Dratel

And I think it has an effect on the judge, and it does have effect on judges when advocates have passion for their position.

00;26;01;15 - 00;26;22;11

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, that's a great that's a great point. And it's done so effectively here. He loses this battle and he makes his point. And the jury certainly hears it. And that's the other audience. But there's a critical moment, I think, in terms of the getting the this, this, defense in for another cross-examination and this is one where, Jimmy Stewart wins.

00;26;22;11 - 00;26;47;07

Jonathan Hafetz

It seems like in the silence that we'll hear as the judge is deliberating, he's going to playing with his watch. There's a sense that the, you know, the defense is almost hanging on on how the judge is going to rule. Is he going to allow, this line of questioning or not? So let's take a look at this other, or listen, I should say, let's take a listen to this other cross-examination.

00;26;47;10 - 00;27;12;11

Chandler testified that Lieutenant Mannion told you that he shot Bernard Quail after he learned that his wife had had some trouble with quail. Now, well, these are the words retirement money. And you some other not of those were my words. Not if. Unless if your notion of come here was real work. Mr.. It was not, not as a suggestion because of the trouble made by somebody here in this courtroom.

00;27;12;13 - 00;27;33;08

Yes, there was. Oh, Sergeant, now, would you tell the court what words Lieutenant Martin actually used to describe the trouble his wife had had? Objection. Your honor, we've been over this before. This information would not be relevant to any issues before the court. A statement concerning some trouble was brought out during the direct examination of Sergeant Dunbar.

00;27;33;11 - 00;27;56;21

Up to now, you've adroitly restricted all testimony as far as law is concerned. All right, the cat's out of the bag. Detergent for me to trace it. This is a sore point. Mr. DeGuerin is getting sooner. I like the prosecution. The burden is on the defense to prove temporary insanity. At the time of the shooting. No, the reason for the alleged insanity is important to this case.

00;27;56;24 - 00;28;21;04

Then that is a matter for a competent witness, an expert on the subject to the human mind. What the defense is trying to do is introduce some sensational material for the purposes of obscuring the real issues. Your honor, how can the jury accurately estimate the testimony they give up here, unless they first know the reason behind this whole trial?

00;28;21;06 - 00;28;44;12

Why Lieutenant Mannion shot for any clue. Now, the prosecution would like to separate the motive from the, Well, well, that's that's like trying to take the car from an apple without breaking the stem. Well, now, the claw defense is that the defendant's temporary insanity was triggered by the so-called trouble with Quill. And I think the court I.

00;28;44;14 - 00;28;54;13

I think the court. So let me cut into the appellate. Our objection still stands, Your Honor.

00;28;54;16 - 00;28;58;13

I can overrule you.

00;28;58;15 - 00;29;03;22

Jonathan Hafetz

When he says you know the motive and the act. What are what are they talking about here?

00;29;03;25 - 00;29;28;07

Joshua Dratel

The why someone did it as opposed to the thing that the person did. The why is actually not an element of many offenses. It doesn't matter why someone's, you know, someone steals, a package of diapers because their kid is in need and they don't have money. That's actually not a defense. So motive is not as important. It can be important in punishment.

00;29;28;09 - 00;29;47;27

Joshua Dratel

But but in many respects, it's not important if you intend to do something. But it's important for defendants with respect to certain defenses that have to do with and with, you know, the the irresistible impulse, defense here. Another defense is motive. But the government, you know, the prosecution is looking to keep motive out because they know the motive.

00;29;47;27 - 00;30;11;10

Joshua Dratel

Here is one that is sympathetic to the defendant. There are these times of trials where you're trying through one witness, through another witness, through another witness to get something in, to get something in. And you're stymied and you're stymied. And then finally, you feel the tide begin to turn and the judge is going to permit it. And you walk back to the podium and you take a deep breath there.

00;30;11;10 - 00;30;28;09

Joshua Dratel

And I gotta really capitalize on this. Unfortunately, this is a movie. And he was able to do so. But, you know, the these situations do occur when you feel a certain tide turning with respect to the ability to put this information in front of the jury.

00;30;28;11 - 00;30;51;10

Jonathan Hafetz

And I guess with for the prosecution, they would they want to keep out the motive. They want to keep out, you know, the the idea that he, killed Bonnie Quill, too, because she was raped by he raped his wife, Laura mannion. And their view that I guess the focus would just be on even if taking the defense of whether there was an irresistible impulse.

00;30;51;10 - 00;31;00;19

Jonathan Hafetz

And that's a question for a psychiatrist. Right. And or a mental health expert and take the motive out. But was he just actually unable to control himself?

00;31;00;21 - 00;31;41;27

Joshua Dratel

Right. And and, you know, in terms of, for example, there are certain defenses of state of mind, let's say justification, which wasn't an issue here, but it depends on there certain things that are relevant, such as what the defendant knew. And then there's things that aren't relevant as to what the defendant didn't know. So, for example, if the defendant knew that someone he was in an argument with had killed two people in arguments, that might support a justification defense, as to why he struck first if he didn't know that the the person, the person he ends up killing had killed two people, an argument that would not be something that would come in

00;31;41;27 - 00;32;15;26

Joshua Dratel

because it wouldn't have affected the defendant's state of mind. There are middle ground, real gray areas in these types of cases as to what and objective fact that might be useful, such as that someone was very large or was menacing or something. These are really the tough parts of cases, when you get into how you can corroborated defense with other evidence because you just don't want it to be a psychiatrist with a psychiatric diagnosis, which some people just don't trust.

00;32;15;26 - 00;32;39;03

Joshua Dratel

You want to fill it. You want to flesh it out with actual facts that could put you, a juror in a position to say, oh, I understand why that diagnosis makes sense here. If there's no reason for Mannion to be upset to the extent that he would have this irresistible impulse, then your resistible impulse sounds totally contrived.

00;32;39;05 - 00;32;49;00

Joshua Dratel

If you know why the underlying facts led him to that, you may have it, you may lend it more credibility.

00;32;49;03 - 00;33;00;04

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. And the delay is right. The time gap between, like, when he does it, when he learns and when he goes and kills Barney quell is, you know, it's an hour plus. It's a lot of time. And that hurts, right? That makes.

00;33;00;05 - 00;33;26;19

Joshua Dratel

Oh, no, no question, no, no question. That's that that, that that eliminates a certain defense. And also, you know, when you asked about the prosecution, what they're trying to do is it gets back to the conversation that you played earlier where Bigler develops the defense with Mannion, which is the the prosecution's trying to keep it to those aspects for which there is no defense, you know, that that aren't available.

00;33;26;22 - 00;33;27;29

All right.

00;33;28;02 - 00;33;48;25

Jonathan Hafetz

So let's talk about Laura mann in a little bit. I mean, she's, it's a great performance by Lee Remick. I mean, she's a, you know, key character. In the case it's kind of a complex character, and a very important role in the film, and I think a number of dimensions. I mean, there's, you know, I think we have the Laura mann as, the tenant man's wife.

00;33;48;27 - 00;34;08;18

Jonathan Hafetz

And then we have Laura mannion as the, well, the witness. Right. And her interaction with Bigler. And then we have her on the stand. But let's talk about Laura mannion and being. Or how does Bigler, work with Laura mannion? What are some of the challenges that he faces?

00;34;08;20 - 00;34;36;21

Joshua Dratel

Clients and their families are always looking to have the lawyer have an emotional investment in the case. They think that that will make the lawyer work harder and care more about the outcome. That's not necessarily true. Sometimes in an emotional investment can cloud judgment. Not having an emotional investment is actually better, and clients would do well to recognize that.

00;34;36;21 - 00;35;08;05

Joshua Dratel

But they don't because naturally they think that if someone's invested emotionally, they'll do a better job. So that to me was very much the first part of their interaction, which is her trying to get him interested in the case in a way that was. More than just professional, but emotional. The rest of it, you know, she has a I think part of it is developing her personality as someone who was flirtatious on a certain level.

00;35;08;07 - 00;35;47;18

Joshua Dratel

And the question being, is he going to try to take advantage of that? He's a bachelor. That complicates the situation. These relationships can cross lines, and obviously it's important not to cross those lines. And he's careful not to, which is important for him professionally and also his ability to defend Mannion. But it does it does help in terms of the drama of the story to have the audience, the viewer can wonder about the relationship between Mannion and Quill in a way that the prosecution is promoting.

00;35;47;18 - 00;36;15;09

Joshua Dratel

By the end of the movie, and so that it accomplishes a lot of things in the movie in terms of the professional part, is you always have to be wary of clients and others involved looking to exploit some emotional connection that, for reasons of number one, line crossing, but to be doing a competent job, you just don't want that to be a complication.

00;36;15;11 - 00;36;33;26

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, and there are a lot of complications. I mean, Laura is also she's I mean, I think that there's a strong suggestion that she, you know, the first time we see her, she's got a black eye being beaten up. I think the implication it was done by, you know, Mannion, he was. He was pissed off about her, being with quel, and and he hit her and doesn't seem to treat her.

00;36;33;26 - 00;36;39;25

Jonathan Hafetz

That was you know, kind of, locked in with him, but not in a great relationship.

00;36;39;27 - 00;37;06;08

Joshua Dratel

Right. And that's the ambiguity that doesn't get resolved, I think, by the end of the movie, in many respects. But they are in it together in many respects, and they sort of commit to that for the trial. And that's also part of the family dynamic. In many of these cases, not so much domestic violence type cases, but any cases where people are very disappointed in the conduct of others.

00;37;06;11 - 00;37;32;28

Joshua Dratel

But you know, there are a lot of other factors that require people to circle the wagons and those who can marshal that with family and friends. Have a much better shot at success than those who are isolated and ostracized. And that's another problem of trying to, you know, for example, what if she what if she was upset enough with him that she didn't want to testify on his behalf?

00;37;33;01 - 00;37;35;03

Joshua Dratel

You can imagine the outcome.

00;37;35;06 - 00;37;59;07

Jonathan Hafetz

Exactly. Yeah. Like that phrase circle the wagons. And there's an interesting moment at the end. And, you know, we. Well, spoiler alert man acquitted. We'll talk about and they, and we'll get to that a little bit more after. But where there's a comment that I think she said that, that they, when they, Jimmy Stewart, Parnell the that the co-counsel in the case, they go over to try to after his release to go pay a visit.

00;37;59;07 - 00;38;12;15

Jonathan Hafetz

Jimmy she wants to get the IOU sign because he never I never paid them upfront. Didn't give no retainer. And they they found out they left. And but more money in the come as more money was crying. I think there's a disconnect between her and and and her husband.

00;38;12;18 - 00;38;44;23

Joshua Dratel

We don't see a lot of them together except at the very end, because he's in jail and she's outside. So that's another factor in the relationship that is cloudy for the first. You know, for the 91st, 99% of the movie, which is also, by the way, something that happens in real life too, which is that you if you if you're the first time you meet a client is in jail and you know they have a life outside of it, it's it's it's hard to place them back in it in your mind necessarily is different.

00;38;44;23 - 00;39;09;29

Joshua Dratel

Is it different presentation for someone who's in detention than there is for someone who's out on bail, comes into your office, to the conference room, as opposed to shuffling down in a jumpsuit if from whatever floor they're on to the visiting room, it creates a it's a hard it's a hard thing to project. Beyond that environment. And it's, again, something that doesn't project well in the courtroom either.

00;39;10;06 - 00;39;28;08

Joshua Dratel

He had the advantage of wearing his uniform, his Army uniform, which obviated the need to do so. What what do we what did this guy wear? You know, you know, the the whole thing in trials with people who were in custody. What are they? Where does a someone who never wore a sport jacket in their life should they were a sport jacket in front of the jury.

00;39;28;08 - 00;39;56;17

Joshua Dratel

Is that so? They're all these these little things that can have implications that go beyond just the the specific isolated thing they are, but their relationship, the fact that she sat behind counsel table was very good. Something backfired. You know, she she tried to hide her hair and look it look less alluring than she does outside. And the prosecution called her on that effectively.

00;39;56;20 - 00;40;02;25

Joshua Dratel

So there are certain strategies that are double edged swords, and it's hard to know when they're going to help and when they're not.

00;40;02;28 - 00;40;22;05

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. And the film is great on those little points, right? I mean, that man in in his uniform, you know, obviously you and you know, that's mentioned earlier, you'll have some, some sympathy as a, a veteran and yeah, as you as you mentioned. Right. Laura mannion, you have initially she's going to show up wearing, the more revealing outfits that she tended to wear.

00;40;22;05 - 00;40;39;09

Jonathan Hafetz

And Jimmy Stewart says, no, no, no, you got to look like you're in the church choir. And then they do. The prosecution does call on that. And, you know, suggests that she was you dressed up for court. That's a but it does. It hits all those like, little things really. Well, and there's the Laura. Well, then there's Laura manning.

00;40;39;09 - 00;40;55;21

Jonathan Hafetz

How the prosecution tries to paint her. What do you make of that and how the film treats the way they try to characterize Laura manning? Is that what that happened today? Was that, something that was normal for the time?

00;40;55;24 - 00;41;24;15

Joshua Dratel

Well, certainly normal for the time of having seen it a number of times before, but not for probably a decade. Watching it again now, I was struck by how the attacking the victim on both sides really flip flopped in a dramatic way, so that in the old days, you know, in a in a sex offense, the defense would attack the promiscuity of a, of a victim if available.

00;41;24;15 - 00;41;55;27

Joshua Dratel

And then laws came in to the rape shield laws and all of that which changed, the, the permissible limits of what you could do. And, the flip side is also Barney Quill, you know, his womanizing then becomes an issue at the same time. So but I thought what was really striking to me was that I got the impression two thirds through the movie, and I want to say the impression just sort of the, the visceral feeling that she was the defendant, that she was on trial.

00;41;56;02 - 00;42;22;25

Joshua Dratel

It was her conduct that was on trial. Nobody really blamed him for doing it. Morally blamed Mannion for killing the Barney Quill morally, legally was going to be decided by the jury. But as a moral issue, it wasn't that as as as blameworthy as her conduct. That's the way it seemed in the movie. And I think the move and I'm not saying the movie tried to do this.

00;42;22;25 - 00;42;49;23

Joshua Dratel

I'm saying the drama played this out. And in fact, her testimony took up a lot more time in the movie than Ben Gazzara testimony, which is usually not the case when a defendant testifies. And I thought that was very interesting and and highlighted the asymmetry of the way the system used to operate. It's not completely cured of that, but it's certainly very different now.

00;42;49;25 - 00;42;56;11

Jonathan Hafetz

And then we can play a little bit of The Cross of Laura mannion by, Georgie Scott.

00;42;56;13 - 00;43;22;29

Who's mother, what was your occupation for? You know, housewife or in the neighborhood? Yes. Once. I suppose your first husband died? No. Did you divorce your first husband to marry? Your honor, I know the rules for this marriage. Divorcement. And I asked her question. What about the gospel, which was not mental cruelty? Natural. And how long after your divorce was it that you married?

00;43;23;02 - 00;43;53;19

I'm not sure, but I refresh the witnesses memory for a moment. I believe she told me that they were married three days after the divorce. That. Yes. And unless there was a whirlwind of courtship, you must have known that before you first did it. Yes. Was the. What is your religious affiliation? I'm a Catholic stand. Well? No divorce.

00;43;53;21 - 00;44;18;21

You mean you were? Because of the divorce and remarriage used. How many would you say to the Catholic who can rightly ignore the kind of rules of our church could also easily have not taken on one of its. Unfortunately. And I was taking the rosary. You don't think it's true? Wouldn't you think there'd be some doubt about the integrity of such person?

00;44;18;23 - 00;44;27;29

I don't know, all I know is the rosary means something to me. Is it also something else?

00;44;28;01 - 00;44;50;15

Jonathan Hafetz

So, here he's George. He's got he's clearly trying to undermine both. Undermine the man's credibility and paint her, or suggest that she is, overly flirtatious, and try to challenge the narrative that Barney Quill raped her and that it was something else.

00;44;50;17 - 00;45;14;00

Joshua Dratel

Right? I mean, he's I think, connecting the dots of his cross-examination is your first marriage ended in infidelity with Mannion, and you're on the same course in this marriage. And it was consensual. And the reason that your husband was so upset was not really about Barney Quell. It was really with you. And he took it out on Barney.

00;45;14;00 - 00;45;18;26

Joshua Dratel

Quote. And so that, I think, is the message in that cross.

00;45;18;29 - 00;45;28;08

Jonathan Hafetz

Which goes to your point about Laura, you know, that this is really the trial of Laura mannion, at least as much it is of, Lieutenant Matt and her husband.

00;45;28;11 - 00;45;33;23

Joshua Dratel

Her, you know, her background in her past is explored much more than his.

00;45;33;26 - 00;45;51;12

Jonathan Hafetz

Exactly, exactly. They they, there's there's a scene where they try to go. They show the scene in the jailhouse where the man in threatens, this guy, they get into a fight, and he has to be back. I'm just going to kill him. They think it gets broken up. The prison guard comes along, and they try to bring the guy in as an informant to testify against him.

00;45;51;12 - 00;45;57;03

Jonathan Hafetz

But, that's a little glimpse. We get a man, and it's not. And he doesn't. He's not very appealing, right?

00;45;57;05 - 00;46;27;13

Joshua Dratel

It looks like his his temper is something that he's conscious of, even though, obviously, that's a provocation. That's a lot less than a rape would be. The real problem is that he doesn't tell Jimmy Stewart about this. And even when the guys on the witness stand, he doesn't tell Jimmy Stewart about it. And as a result, the lawyer can't make a positive out of what looks like a negative.

00;46;27;13 - 00;46;52;01

Joshua Dratel

And what I mean by that is Jimmy Stewart. Once the guy's on the stand, Jimmy Stewart can cross-examine him and say, you have a bias against Mannion because he he he smacked your head against the bars and he smacked your head against the bars because you made incredibly coarse comments about his wife. And you could argue that those coarse comments raised manchins temperature.

00;46;52;02 - 00;47;15;02

Joshua Dratel

You could imagine what a rape would do, and how that would set him over the edge into irresistible impulse. So you can make a positive out of a negative. But you have to. I always tell clients if I'm the last to know, particularly in the courtroom at trial, I can't do much for you. And you can see Jimmy Stewart had very few options at that point because of the and because of the failure to disclose.

00;47;15;04 - 00;47;29;25

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, it's a great point. You mention that in practice when, you know, clients just don't tell you what you need to know, he he does. He catches a break or a case he knew before. He thinks on his feet. He gets the guy's rap sheet. The witness lies about how many convictions he has. So he gets this really set up.

00;47;30;01 - 00;47;46;02

Jonathan Hafetz

And then, you know, he gets hammered when Jimmy Stewart introduces the rap sheet. He's got multiple convictions. But you're right. Like it could have been really turned more to the defense's advantage if he had been, you know, explained what had happened. But so be it.

00;47;46;05 - 00;47;53;04

Joshua Dratel

By the way, they're much better prepared now. Prosecution witnesses with long records. They bring it out on direct.

00;47;53;07 - 00;47;57;09

Jonathan Hafetz

Write. Get it out there and try to realize the. Yeah, take the sting out.

00;47;57;12 - 00;48;01;28

Joshua Dratel

You have to go falling on the grenade, you know, and tries to blunt cross-examination.

00;48;02;01 - 00;48;25;00

Jonathan Hafetz

And I'm sure you've seen that in many of your trials, especially your, well, your narcotics, your more organized crime trials. Right. It's it's the witnesses are often not the most savory, stand up people, right? Right. Yeah, yeah. And just a back. Just the law of a man. I mean, it's interesting to the the, you know, how she's done, how she's depicted and the way some of it seems dated and problematic.

00;48;25;03 - 00;48;46;20

Jonathan Hafetz

Because at the time, this film was a little bit more on the kind of cutting edge, you know, at least in terms of how it was dealing with, issues around, interest, rape and consent. And so it was kind of a frank exploration of subjects that in 1959 were not, explored in such a way in a Hollywood film.

00;48;46;22 - 00;49;14;29

Joshua Dratel

Yes. And the language, you know, the, the references to panties over and over again, spermatogenesis, things like that. I don't recall, I don't recall hearing them in, in movies, I think. And, To Kill a mockingbird is, I think three years later, when rape is a factor in the trials, I'm not sure that. And I'm not even sure in, in, in To Kill a mockingbird, it's it's discussed.

00;49;14;29 - 00;49;37;05

Joshua Dratel

It's not discussed in detail. It's really more about the aftermath of that. And so, yeah, I, I can't think of a movie that was so mainstream, you know, someone like Jimmy Stewart, Otto Preminger, Lee Remick, the big stars that, that confronted these issues in as candid a way as this movie.

00;49;37;07 - 00;49;59;03

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. There's that one scene where they have the prosecution, Jimmy Stewart, as a sidebar at the bench, with the judge, and they're just, you know, they're stumbling over what words to use. And the judge ultimately kind of settles on panties, but I so it's, you know, it's not it's a very male scene. I mean, the, the gender dynamics or courtroom have changed a lot, but it's, you know, Frank at the time.

00;49;59;03 - 00;50;06;09

Jonathan Hafetz

So it's both kind of was ahead of its time in some way. But scene, you know, also seems a little bit dated now. But it's an interesting aspect.

00;50;06;11 - 00;50;27;07

Joshua Dratel

Even even more than 20 years later when I started practicing, there was a reticence for frank language, and there was a lot of euphemism in all types of cases, both in language and in description. So that was a major hurdle to overcome. And this movie was ahead of its time in that regard.

00;50;27;10 - 00;50;50;28

Jonathan Hafetz

And so the and the case kind of comes down at the end. I mean, what ends up burying the prosecution, right? I mean, the prosecution is there cross-examining version of, Mary, plot, who worked in the well, who worked in the inn with Bonnie Quill and was a suit. Well, most people thought she was his, you know, lover, right?

00;50;51;01 - 00;51;20;16

Jonathan Hafetz

And it turns out, thanks to the defense investigation, they find out, they go up, they go to Canada where she's from, and they look up records. It turns out to be, that was his daughter. And so the prosecution kind of stumbles into that. In the end, what they did towards got is trying to hammer Mary Pilon to admit, that she had, you know, had something going on with Barney Quill and then, you know, it's pressing on the relationship and and Barney Quill.

00;51;20;18 - 00;51;36;20

Jonathan Hafetz

Sorry, Mary Pilon and says I, you know. No, I was, I was, I was just on in the courtroom stunned and that's actually that's the end of the trial scenes they just caught. The next thing is the verdict. So one of the Carter rules of cross-examination is don't ask a question. You don't know the answer to it.

00;51;36;20 - 00;51;44;22

Jonathan Hafetz

Right? So is that was that a illustration of that rule or was or should. Yeah. Can we not blame the prosecutor?

00;51;44;24 - 00;52;11;08

Joshua Dratel

I think that that's generally the rule on your feet. Sometimes you have, a belief that you can gamble based on what you know or don't know or I mean, what you know. In other words, if you can eliminate all sorts of negative possibilities. And I think, again, this is somewhat gender related, is that I don't think he felt much of a threat from a woman to challenge him.

00;52;11;11 - 00;52;32;14

Joshua Dratel

And so he was able to go at her as hard as you possibly could, whereas if so, for example, I would never, you know, do that with a law enforcement agent, you know, ask a question that I didn't have a yes or no answer built into the question and give them a chance to go beyond that. That's very dangerous.

00;52;32;14 - 00;52;55;21

Joshua Dratel

There are certain other witnesses during the course of the examination. If you feel you've established control, you can take those gambles. In this instance, he didn't have the right to do that because he had not established control. And it was clear that they had interviewed her, had never gone into this. And so as a result, he was really in uncharted waters and a little and it was somewhat arrogant of him to try.

00;52;55;21 - 00;53;10;12

Joshua Dratel

But I do know that look that he had on his face when he when she answered, which is like, oh, I shouldn't have gone there. It happened. So lawyers, if you try enough cases and, you know, have have enough situations where it doesn't go as planned.

00;53;10;14 - 00;53;29;12

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. One question too many. As you said, I think, you know, very well he, he didn't do himself any favors by being kind of so aggressive and kind of painting into a corner and had the assumption that she was this kind of loose woman who was, you know, and then, having this affair and it turns out she's the daughter, dutiful daughter.

00;53;29;14 - 00;53;55;19

Joshua Dratel

Yeah. And also, by the way, one of the things in his defense, I will say that there are points in cases which and witness is so devastating, which is what she was with her testimony to the prosecution and unanticipated that you feel like you have to go for broke. You have no alternative if you just let this witness get off the stand on unharmed by the cross-examination.

00;53;55;19 - 00;54;02;19

Joshua Dratel

You've lost the case. So he may have felt that this was his only opportunity. And obviously he walked into a buzzsaw.

00;54;02;21 - 00;54;27;10

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah, exactly. So let's turn for a minute to just compare. This, film to other some other courtroom dramas in this sense, is justice served. That's kind of one question to explore. And also, I mean, is it different in the sense that it's the law portrayed as noble? The portrayal of the defense lawyer, the defendant?

00;54;27;10 - 00;54;45;12

Jonathan Hafetz

I mean, one thing that strikes me here is as opposed to say, a newer contemporary film like 12 Angry Men, where you've got an innocent person kind of being railroaded. And then the system saves him. How does the system look here? And the law look.

00;54;45;14 - 00;55;09;23

Joshua Dratel

You know, there's a lot of different ways to look at it. I'll try to address some of them. One of them is that it's a moral outcome in the sense that if Barney Quill raped her and Manning killed him for it, the public is okay with that. And the jury was okay with that. As long as there was some legal rationale that was presented.

00;55;09;23 - 00;55;35;19

Joshua Dratel

And that's what happened in the case of the second one, you could look at it to say, well, it's really a matter of which side's lawyers perform better at the trial. It could, because Jimmy Stewart in many respects was more effective at communicating the equity of the defense, so to speak, than the prosecution was in trying to say, well, look, he killed this guy.

00;55;35;19 - 00;56;05;09

Joshua Dratel

He's guilty. That's it. Nothing else matters. That obviously didn't prevail, because ultimately the judge lets the case get wider than that. So and also, one could look at it as gamesmanship. This is something in which a skilled lawyer and his, you know, his partner in this, the Parnell character, the Arthur O'Connell character is someone who feels like he's he's he's never lived up to his potential, but clearly, intellectually, had a lot going for him.

00;56;05;14 - 00;56;33;14

Joshua Dratel

So their ability to, to to find a precedent and to apply it to this case, it looks like it's, sort of winning the lottery in some respects. But ultimately, what I take from it, of all of these is another, which is this which is if you have a reasonable doubt about whether the person is guilty of the charged offense or not, then he's not guilty, and then justice is done.

00;56;33;14 - 00;57;02;13

Joshua Dratel

And that's how the system was designed to to perform. So if the irresistible impulse defense, which is valid, creates, in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the proper intent, when he killed Bonnie Quill, then he should be acquitted. And to me, all the rest is the dynamic. That's really hard to evaluate, because there are all these elements in every case that could go in a lot of those directions.

00;57;02;13 - 00;57;12;01

Joshua Dratel

You know, sometimes it's a lottery to what judge you get. So all these things are are factors. But ultimately I think this is like sort of a classic reasonable doubt case.

00;57;12;03 - 00;57;30;15

Jonathan Hafetz

Classic reasonable doubt case. Yeah. And actually it's about narratives I think because as you said in constructing narratives and who, who can do that better. And that may be kind of implicit in what the title is. There's a kind of a cynical line at the end where, you know, go back, we were talking about, Jimmy Stewart and Parnell, the co-counsel who assisted him.

00;57;30;17 - 00;57;50;03

Jonathan Hafetz

They go to, after, Mannion is acquitted. They go to where Manning and, the Mannings were staying to try to get Manning to sign the IOU. Right. Because he didn't have any money to pay Jimmy Stewart up front. And it's Jimmy Stewart's, assistant. Right. Martin was telling him, you know, you're, you know, we're basically running.

00;57;50;03 - 00;58;13;28

Jonathan Hafetz

You don't have enough money to pay me enough money to run your practice. And so they go, they try to get money and is split, right? There's, a line at the end where Bigler says, well, he's been retained to do the estate of Mary plot. Right? Partner equals daughter. And that's kind of poetic justice. So there's a little bit, I don't know, I read that as a little bit cynical.

00;58;14;00 - 00;58;19;04

Jonathan Hafetz

Or or not, but it certainly ends on. Yeah. That's kind of one of the last lines of the film.

00;58;19;07 - 00;58;44;16

Joshua Dratel

Yeah. It's cynical, I think, because it it reduces it and not necessarily wrongly, it reduces it to a business proposition, which is, hey, look, you know, I didn't get paid, but I performed really well in the case that someone watching thought, hey, this guy's a good lawyer, and he hired me or she hired me. And as a result, I made back what I would have lost from the case because he was only charging $3,000.

00;58;44;16 - 00;59;07;00

Joshua Dratel

And I guess the estate was going to be worth at least that much, in terms of his fees. So in that regard, ultimately, it there's a little convergence there because it's the beginning of the movie. Even his his assistant and O'Connell, the Parnell character are trying to motivate Jimmy Stewart to take an interest in his own law practice.

00;59;07;00 - 00;59;35;00

Joshua Dratel

He's out fishing all the time. So the movie begins with this notion that he really has gotten over losing the D.A. election and is kind of adrift professionally. And there's and and she says, you know, he one point he tries to fire Everton and she says, you can't fire me until you pay me my salary. So to end it with this convergence that the which is that this is essentially we're moving on to the next case because this is a business.

00;59;35;02 - 00;59;44;11

Joshua Dratel

It's not it's not a it's a pretty accurate reflection of how you have to go about some of this as a, as a, as a, as a business proposition.

00;59;44;13 - 01;00;02;12

Jonathan Hafetz

Yeah. And you know, it's, you know, you're right. And there's a there's kind of a redemption or like for the, for the firm. Right. Because as you said, Jimmy Stewart is D.A., he lost and he's kind of retreated from law practice. He basically spends his days fishing. He's got like, a, refrigerator full of fish and playing jazz on the piano.

01;00;02;12 - 01;00;20;26

Jonathan Hafetz

Right. But he's not that interested until he's kind of hauled in from his, like, semi-retirement for this case. And Parnell, who assist him is, you know, I it sounds like was in his day a good lawyer, but is an alcoholic. Admitted alcoholic. Right. Kind of washed up. And he's kind of redeemed through this. And, evolved and.

01;00;20;26 - 01;00;37;03

Jonathan Hafetz

Right. Is is the one who's kind of trying to keep everything together, but they need some money. So in a sense, like the firm is kind of back up and running. Thanks to thanks to that, you know, thanks to this case, there is that aspect of the justice which is a little bit more of a positive spin.

01;00;37;05 - 01;00;55;29

Joshua Dratel

Yes, it's definitely true that the adrenaline from a positive result in the criminal defense business, because there are very many and the intervals between them can be long, is that one can sustain you for a longer period of time than you would think rational, but it does it.

01;00;56;02 - 01;01;23;10

Jonathan Hafetz

In talking about the realism of films, before we, wrap up, I it's, you know, it's interesting. It's there's a lot of talent, but a lot of legal experience. And I wonder how essential you think that is. I mean, the book was written by a, a Michigan Supreme Court judge ordered Preminger, not a lawyer himself, prominent director, European director in the United States, but his father was a, a significant lawyer in prewar period.

01;01;23;12 - 01;01;49;16

Jonathan Hafetz

Right. So the of that and Wendell Curran Mayes wrote the screenplay was also was connected. And then finally, you have Joseph Welch, right. Who's like, you know, the embodies the law, the legal establishment, former prominent Helen Dorr partner who represents the army and the Army. McCarthy hearings and nails. Finally nails like Joe McCarthy with the, you know, great line of, have, you know, sense of decency so long at last kind of here playing the avuncular judge.

01;01;49;16 - 01;02;00;06

Jonathan Hafetz

So there's a lot of law talent around the movie. I wonder if you think that's important in terms of kind of making such a kind of, you know, realistic but entertaining film?

01;02;00;08 - 01;02;43;02

Joshua Dratel

I do think it's important because I think that the tendency of people who have only a popular notion of the courtroom and trials and the legal profession are much more likely to extend the narrative into places where you're constantly saying that would never happen, that would never happen. I mean, the best for me, the best courtroom dramas are ones where you don't say that more than once or twice, and you understand why it has to be done in the course of a drama, because you know, the way shots are done and the way movies are, compressed into periods of time, like the book would be much longer and probably much more detailed.

01;02;43;05 - 01;03;19;28

Joshua Dratel

But the, the, the presence of people who know that I think their, their, their tendency is not to go into the into the hyperbole, into the zone where they would say that would never happen because they have the experience to know what happens. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to stay to actual realism. I think the mark of good fiction or good adaptation, which is what this is of, of a true story, is that, none of it happened, but it's all true.

01;03;20;00 - 01;03;25;14

Joshua Dratel

And I think when you get that feeling from a movie, you're satisfied.

01;03;25;16 - 01;03;39;04

Jonathan Hafetz

And so, would this be a movie you'd recommend for lawyers, law students, non lawyers to see? It's 60 plus years old. As we said, it's dated in some respects. What do you say would you recommend people go out and see this?

01;03;39;06 - 01;04;06;19

Joshua Dratel

It's still the number one movie that I recommend for people who say, what do you think is the most realistic and instructive courtroom drama about a criminal trial in a criminal case that would give the widest bit of of of information to someone? I, I always this is the one I recommend. And of course, when you tell people as black and white, sometimes they give you a funny look, but, it's still it's still the number one for me.

01;04;06;21 - 01;04;23;20

Jonathan Hafetz

And the cast is impeccable. The script, the music, everything, and it's available for streaming, at least on Amazon. And I probably some other, outlets as well. Well, Josh, it's been so great talking about the movie. Thanks so much for joining us. And law and film and, look forward to seeing you in around the courtroom.

01;04;23;20 - 01;04;25;27

Jonathan Hafetz

But although we're always on the same side, so.

01;04;26;00 - 01;04;33;19

Joshua Dratel

Yes, that's good sign. Yes. Thank you. Jonathan. And I was a pleasure. So, happy to do it.