Laura Linney's line in the movie. I get that this is done for effect, but isn't that, oh, just a little extremely inappropriate for a prosecutor to say to a defendant, and on the record no less? I mean, she is prosecuting him for something she says SHE WOULD DO. How is that ok?
It's done a lot on the cop shows, too.
Un día después de la tormenta, cuando menos piensas, sale el sol...
...no, it's not inappropriate. It's 'done a lot on the cop shows' because it's done a lot in real life. Why?
Because then the perpetrator thinks the cop/prosecutor agrees with them and will confess.
like most courtroom dramas, this one has plenty of holes in the processes - but pinpoint accuracy there would detract from the story. Anyone who's ever been in a real court setting would be likely to acknowledge that it's one big boring slow yawn with very few juicy bits.
good on the movies for livening it up a little ..... and good on me for not spoiling the movie for others by electing not to list all the script blunders in the court scenes.
great movie though
It would have been immediately objected to (and the objection most likely granted) as it is a statement, not a question.
shareExactly. There is absolutely no way that would happen in a real courtroom. First, as the above poster already mentioned, she was making a statement and not asking a question. Lawyers aren't allowed to testify, only witnesses. Second, it was a totally inappropriate "question" that would never have been allowed in court. But, hey, its a movie.
"Ewwww...bad meat"
Normally the defense attorney would object, yes. But Vail WANTED her to badger Aaron until Roy came out. She that's why it wasn't stopped.
shareshe was making a statement and not asking a question. Lawyers aren't allowed to testify, only witnesses. Second, it was a totally inappropriate "question" that would never have been allowed in court.
As others have pointed out, it's very unlikely that she would make such a statement as she is essentially saying that ANY reasonable person would have killed the bishop in this circumstance. She's handing the defense a "temporary insanity" or perhaps manslaughter defense. One thinks back to the case of Gary Plauche who shot a man who had abducted and raped his son while the man was being brought to trial. Gary Plauche entered a plea of "no contest" and was given only five years probation because his defense essentially said that anyone would do the same had it been their child.
shareAs others have pointed out, it's very unlikely that she would make such a statement as she is essentially saying that ANY reasonable person would have killed the bishop in this circumstance. She's handing the defense a "temporary insanity" or perhaps manslaughter defense.
One thinks back to the case of Gary Plauche who shot a man who had abducted and raped his son while the man was being brought to trial. Gary Plauche entered a plea of "no contest" and was given only five years probation because his defense essentially said that anyone would do the same had it been their child.
I was on jury duty five years ago, and when the prosecutor was describing how the suspect had gone to his girlfriend's apartment for a quickie right after he allegedly committed rape, and he referenced his own 'retractors period'! The judge didn't say anything, but that got my attention. TMI. Whoa.
I concur. She was literally pounding on him verbally at that point and kept provoking him. In real life there would be objection as the prosecutor cannot behave so aggressively and rudely with the defendant or any witness for that matter. But as I understand it was done in the movie for the sake of advancing the story as they needed to bring Roy out of his shell.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
This isn't a nitpick on the movie's accuracy (as you pointed out, sometimes they're necessary to advance a particular story); I just want to better understand the process in real life:
Would the judge at some point have stepped in when the defense apparently was not doing its job, to ensure the guy was getting a fair trial? Especially when the defendant was clearly about to snap there on the stand?
Again, no expectation in this story, but I would think in real life the judge would have at least called a brief sidebar; even if he's convinced a defendant is guilty he would want to avoid potential mistrials or endless expensive appeals, either of which could make him look bad come re-election time.
And with an attorney of Vail's reputation (you know we all have them in our areas and can probably name the most notorious ones just from the many headlines), it seems the judge would want to stop any tricks, ambushes, questionable ethics that would taint the jury.
I think a judge has every right to intervene in circumstances where things heat up in court and tempers flare. Usually the defense attorney will object right away and the judge will sustain his objection. The prosecution can ask only relevant questions and its up to the judge to decide if a question is relevant if objection is raised. Either way the prosecution cannot start threatening the defendant or corner him with verbal abuse during trial.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Why would he have objected to it, as she was doing just what he wanted her to do?
shareAgreed with the second post. It was a tactic, to attempt to trick him, by hoping he'd agree with her, and thus, trick a confession out of him.
shareDo you really think any prosecutor would be stupid enough to think a defendant's thought process would be, "Oh, I'm on trial for my life, but the prosecutor agreed with what I allegedly did so I'll just confess to it in a packed courtroom"? I doubt it.
shareIt wasn't an attempt to trick him. She was speaking for the benefit of the jury, to make them believe that this man killed the bishop because he was put through a horrible situation.
shareSometimes a movie will have a really weak script and/or director, but an awesome cast and I think that's what happened here. Seriously, every single actor in this movie is a powerhouse and are able to deliver badly-written dialogue, convincingly.
Apparently there was a lot of ad-libbing in this movie and maybe the director let Laura improv that line (I wonder if it's in the book ?).
"Sometimes a movie will have a really weak script and/or director, but an awesome cast and I think that's what happened here. Seriously, every single actor in this movie is a powerhouse and are able to deliver badly-written dialogue, convincingly. "
Yes very true that all the performances were great (with the exception of Laura Linney's) and that's what made the movie for me.
I agree. That part is ridiculous.
sharei dont really care what shes saying, i just hate her voice!
shareShe stated that she was extremely frustrated with the case and wanted to end it. All the anger and frustration that had built up was expressed, I doubt at that point she could really contain herself.
shareSee, that was the other thing: she's a prosecutor. This was her job. Day in, day out, she's seen the worst of the worst, the most heinous crimes, the most evil of murderers, she's probably seen photos of dead children. What about this case made her so tired and wanting to "wash her hands?" After a while, prosecutors become almost desensitized to what they see. I didn't buy that at all, either.
And she's not allowed to express anything while questioning a witness. The court is not a place to vent and a judge is no her psychologist o confess all her problems to. It was highly inappropriate and would probably have resulted in a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct.
One flew east, one flew west. One flew over the cuckoo's nest.
Well, she had just been fired, that might have POed her enough to say "enough".
share[deleted]
If Norton´s courtroom strangulation show got him declared insane, Linney´s hysterics should have probably gotten her temporarily into a strait jacket as well. By that time, the movie was getting quite hopelessly ridiculous.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Do you know what I would do if someone did that to me? I would kill him, I wouldn't hesitate. I would stab him 78 times. I would chop off his fingers, slash his throat open, carve numbers in his chest, gouge out his eyes, I swear to God!... But that's me.