12 Angry Men (1957)

Reaction:
The movie 12 Angry Men is about how a 12-member jury from different
backgrounds decided the case of a boy who has been charged with the murder of his
own father. This shows how one juror was able to convince his co-jurors that the
defendant was not guilty through deeper analysis of the evidence presented during the
trial. It started when the deliberation of both parties were done in court and the final
decision rests on the jury. The jurors were placed in extreme circumstances in which
heat and angst drive them to push for a guilty verdict as based on the clear evidence of
reasonable doubt presented through the trial facts. Arguments and disagreements of
the jurors started when the voting of for the verdict resulted to 11 to 1 in favor of guilty.
Henry Fonda who voted for not guilty explained his side that the defendant did not need
to open his mouth to prove his innocence, and presented some points where two of
them are the following:

First, the gathering of evidence by law enforcement officers is important in cases

because it will be that basis for the jury to decide it. This is true because a court or a
jury deciding a case should rely only on evidence offered and accepted by the court. It
is the function of the court or the jury to weigh such evidence. When an officer who
investigate a case follows the necessary procedure and take evidence the way it should
be, the verdict given by the jury based on those evidence may not be questionable.

Second, everything that the prosecution had laid out before them were purely
assumptions. They assumed that the lady across the street could see through a passing
train, an old man could walk in his front door for 15 seconds, the defendant could stab
his father downward using a switch knife and the knife used was only one of a kind.
These assumptions will make a person believe that the defendant is guilty, but if taken
as a whole, the case starts to break down. The testimonies of the witness shall be
weighed considering what is common to real life experience. It shall not be taken
separately from the other or a single evidence or testimony should not be the basis of
judgment. In this case, a juror argued that the testimony of the woman who saw the
defendant stab his father downward is sufficient to say that the defendant is guilty. He
did not think of the possibility that the actor might be other person not the defendant
considering the fact that the witness has eye defect and can only see clearly within 60
feet. Even if it is true that she saw actually what happened she cannot assure that the
actor was the defendant. Also, the statement of the old man who saw the defendant
running down the stairs after the killing seem not to be reliable. The old man was
walking with limp, and impossible for him to walk from his bed to the front door for a
period of 15 seconds. Lapse of time is necessary in this case.

Based on the given points, it is right for the other juror to be convinced that the
defendant is not guilty of the charge.
 A Few Good Man (1992)

Reaction:

The movie A Few Good Man is an American courtroom drama that details the
case of two marines who were charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder and
conduct unbecoming a member of the US Marine Corp that aroused from the death of
one of their fellow marine. Daniel Kaffee, a lawyer who was known for seeking plea
bargains to avoid going to trial, was assigned as the lawyer of the two marines. When
Kaffee interviewed the two, they claimed that they were just following orders and from
that they are not guilty because they are only doing their job. It became crystal clear that
there is some sort of cover-up from higher ranked military officials. The defense shall
convince the jury that the two did not intend to kill the victim and they were acting only
under the order of their superior. They wanted to ensure that the two marines are found
not guilty even going so far as to risk having their careers ruined and court martialed for
smearing a highly decorative officer. The testimony of the physician, treated as an
expert witness by the court was taken. Kaffee was successful when directly examining
Col. Jessup, for the latter to accept that he was the one who order the Code Red.
Considering the evidences and testimonies of the different witnesses, the jury reached
the verdict acquitting the defendants for the crime of murder and conspiracy against
murder and convicting them for conduct unbecoming a member of the US marine Corp.

The decision of the jury in the case is fair and just as based on the testimonies of
the witnesses. The claim of the defendant that they were following orders when they did
the act was given consideration. Chain of command existing in a military base starts
from the commanding officer down to the lowest rank. The commanding officer issues
the order to the subordinates as in this case, Col. Jessup ordered the Code Red to Lt.
Kendrick and the latter ordered the two defendants to do the act. Code Red as
established by the court is the standard at the base as a means of getting sloppy
recruits to follow procedures such as taking proper care of accommodation and
equipment or completing exercises successfully. The victim in the case as describe may
be considered as a sloppy one being the weakest in the platoon. Lt. Kendrick in his
statement accepted that there is the existence of Code Red on their jurisdiction.
Consequently, Col. Jessup accepted also that he was the one who ordered the Code
Red. The statement of the two officers supports the claim of the defendants. However,
Col. Jessup contends that he ordered that the victim shall be untouchable and was
approved to be transferred. Such contention was proven not to be true by the evidence
submitted by the defense. From the foregoing and other relevant facts not stated, the
superior officer should be the one liable. However, the defendants cannot skip liability
so the jury convicted them for conduct unbecoming a member of US Marine Corp
because even saying that they only followed orders, they should have foreseen that
consequences of their act, as one of the defendant said, they should have protected the
victim.
 Abacus: Small Enough to Jail (2017)

Reaction:
Abacus: Small Enough to Jail is a documentation about how the Sungs, owner of
the Abacus Federal Savings Banks, a small institution serving Asian American and
Asian immigrant population defended in court 184-count indictment which includes the
offenses of conspiracy, grand larceny, falsifying business records, and residential
mortgage fraud filed by the District Attorney of Manhattan.

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Reaction:
Anatomy of a Murder is a story about how a brilliant lawyer named Paul Biegler
defended an army lieutenant Frederick Manion who was been accused for the murder
of a bartender Barney Quill. It shows a battle between intelligent lawyers from the
prosecution and from the defense proving by evidence for the conviction or for the
acquittal of the accused. The defense, Paul Biegler wanted to prove to the jury that
Manion was on the state of temporary insanity the time he shot Quill to death basing on
the statement of Manion that he shot Quill because the latter raped his wife Laura. He
cited a precedent which states that, “the right and wrong test, though deemed
unscientific, is adhered to by most states but the fact that one accused of committing a
crime may have been able to comprehend the nature and consequences of this act and
to know that it was wrong. Nevertheless, if he was forced to its execution by an impulse,
by an impulse which he was powerless to control, he will be excused from punishment.”
On the other hand, the prosecution wanted to reverse the story, arguing that Manion
was not on the state of insanity when he shot the victim, and Laura was not raped
because she consented for the sexual activity considering the fact that Laura was a
happy-go-lucky party girl. Biegler agreed to defend Manion and must unravel a case in
which the motivations of the murderer, his wife, and the victim are all in question.

In the trial, evidences were offered by the prosecution for admission and
marking. The defense should be allowed to question such to ensure that evidence be
relevant to the issue of the case notwithstanding that evidence may useful only for the
prosecution or for the defense. However, the prosecution should submit all necessary
pictures taken after the time of the incident for the defense to be given the opportunity to
assess and consider them as evidence.

The statement of expert witness shall be considered by the jury depending on the
circumstances. When the defense presented an expert witness, exactly the psychiatrist
who conducted an examination of Manion after the murder, his statement shall be more
credible as in the case compared to that of the rebuttal witness of the prosecution who
was also an expert witness. The issue was about temporary insanity that even the
prosecution will do the examination of the accused at that time, the result will surely be
different.

Another witness of the prosecution that based on record, was going in and out of
prison for different offenses including perjury was allowed by the court to testify. His
testimony should not be given weight because it could be treated as a hearsay. A
testimonial evidence can be easily manipulated and turned to be true. The record show
that the witness had a case of perjury which is an offense of willfully telling an untruth or
making a misrepresentation under oath. It means that the witness has the possibility to
repeat such act.

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Reaction:

This movie Inherit the Wind is a showcase of a debate in court between

evolutionism and creationism. It started when a biology teacher was arrested for
violating Butler’s Act, a state law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in
Universities and public schools within a Southern state. The issue has blown out and
called the interest of different personalities, the press and lawyers. Mathew Harrison
Brady, a fundamentalist and a preacher, and was treated as celebrity by the people
served as the prosecuting attorney, and Henry Drummond, a one-time colleague of
Brady as the defense attorney. The prosecution was firm that the existence of a law
violating the teaching of evolution shall be observed by every citizen. Brady added that
the only cause of human existence is because of God and any acts against it shall be
punished and corrected. On the other hand, the defense argued on the right if the
person to think and the state prohibiting the defendant to teach the theory of evolution
implicates prohibition to democracy as well. The trial proceeded, the witnesses for the
prosecution were called and their testimonies were taken. Drummond called his
witnesses but all were objected and was not accepted by the court. He resorted of
calling Brady as the witness. After days of proceeding, the jury reached the verdict
convicting the defendant.

There are many things a viewer may want to react on this. One of it is, during the
trial, the prosecution objected when the defense called several expert scientists to
testify on the ground that their testimonies would be irrelevant, immaterial and
inadmissible in which case, the court favored the objection. Court reasoned out that
testimony of the scientists would not relate to the question of law. The possible issues
that may be brought out in the case were whether the biology teacher violated the
Butler’s Act and whether the Butler’s Act is unconstitutional. Defense counsel wanted to
convince the jury that the Butler’s Act is unconstitutional and that his client will be
acquitted. For the jury to declare if such law is constitutional or not, the jurors should
know what the theory of evolution is all about and at the same time they should know
about the Bible. How could a person like the jury decide on something if he is ignorant
about it or assuming that he has an idea but to assure the correctness of such, a person
who is knowledgeable is needed to talk about it. At this instance, the court should have
allowed the expert scientists in the witness stand like allowing the prosecution counsel
to talk of the Bible like an expert about it. The jury should have been provided with
adequate information or evidence to come up with an unbiased decision. However, the
judge has all the power and discretion to decide on any objections raised by any party in
a proceeding. In this case, the issue raised that the judge had mentioned was about a
question of law so that it was right that it should be decided by him.