Galvin's entire summation was essentially a wink-wink instruction to the jury to ignore the law and the judge's ruling on the nurse's evidence. Of course, we as the viewers know the jury was right in the end, but in reality the guilty doctor would've had a very good case for appeal. This film would've been better if the final, happy verdict didn't rely on the jury ignoring the law. That can work in the unrighteous direction too.
---
I loved The Verdict when I saw it in 1982. And the audience sure did. The applause and cheers at crucial points in the final trial(particularly when nurse Caitlin Costello Price arrived to rout the villains and save the day) made for a great night at the movies. Paul Newman's performance was one of his greatest -- he LIVED that role, start to finish.
I was with it all the way and I waited eagerly for Newman's summation and closing argument. And as he said it all , I was rather stunned -- that's it? That's all? He didn't discuss the facts of the case or try to make his case one final time. He just made this long, impassioned, somewhat haunted and DEFINITELY "Oscar bait monologue" kind of speech about justice and God and prayer and the jury's powerful role in the process(hey this was directed by Sidney Lumet, who directed 12 Angry Men, too).
In any event, the happy ending arrives anyway. The plaintiffs win and -- in a great touch -- the jury foreman asks if MORE money can be awarded than asked for the ruination of a pregnant woman.
With regard to the summation, I suppose Galvin knew this: the testimony of nurse Caitlin had been ruled inadmissible, he couldn't use it or refer to it (as his buddy murmured during the judge's ruling, "legally, he's right.") So he pretty much had nothing to talk about except maybe hitting hard in GENERAL on negligence. So he pulled out a righteous speech based on his OWN coming to Jesus moment -- his redemption, his hope that - after years of being betrayed by crooks and oppressed by bigger adversaries -- justice would prevail.
It was a nice sentiment.
Its been written elsewhere here that in a re-trial, nurse Caitlin could be brought in not as a surprise and testimony about an original document might not have been thrown out if placed in "argument context." But that's if a re-trial were granted. On appeal, they'd be looking at the judge's actions during the case. He probably screwed up more earlier(when he asked the expert doctor a question and declared no negligence) and the appeal might have failed.
Who knows? The case was won for the day. And likely would have been remanded on appeal even if the defendants prevailed.
reply
share