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...
[deleted]
Improper for two reasons. One, a lawyer may not express his or her personal opinions about the case to the jury. Two, and more importantly, she is giving the defense this kind of argument: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The Deputy DA who is prosecuting this case is one of the finest people in this city. Let's look at a transcript of what she said during her cross examination of Aaron. [Read transcript]. As you see, even the Deputy DA admits that if Aaron had killed the Arch Bishop, he would have been fully justified in doing that." But this was a good movie, so who cares.
share[deleted]
that did a Dr Jekyll here and there
______________________________________
Do you mean "did a Mr Hyde"?
It was a bit overdone as a whole i think
Do guys like "the thing"?
They like it better than no thing.
The defense would normally object to such an outburst, but in this case, the prosecution was doing exactly what the defense had hoped for
Short Cut, Draw Blood
was doing exactly what the defense had hoped for
---
or rather what Vail THOUGHT he hoped for ie the words to "release Roy from Aaron"
but right up to final scene Vail did not KNOW there was no Aaron and Roy was in total control and was going to morph at his own chosen time.
but I suppose her outburst made it easy to choose that time
but nothing to do with Vail
and she [and The Beak] was never to know as Vail's ego would never let him tell her how the smarty pants attorney got fooled by the boy Roy
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
As I said, the defense did not object (as it had every right to do) because the defense was getting what it wanted.
As I reflect on the scene, the prosecutor should have been somewhat surprised that the defense didn't object.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
As I reflect on the scene, the prosecutor should have been somewhat surprised that the defense didn't object.
---
yes, and I think she chastises him for that later in judges room, and he just gives a smug Vail smile to say yes my "timing" was back, despite what she said at the Hungry Elephant [or was it the Mad Frog pub?].
the irony is all the harder crash his ego had to take once Roy explained it to him in simple terms that even a lawyer could understand.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
She was literally listing what was actually done to the archbishop, thus pointing out to the jury how ridiculous it was for Aaron to claim that he had no I'll will towards the man, and illustrating a very plausible motive.
Can you hear me?....They did this
She was literally listing what was actually done to the archbishop, thus pointing out to the jury how ridiculous it was for Aaron to claim that he had no I'll will towards the man, and illustrating a very plausible motive.
---
of course that was her motive but question is did she do it in a manner that passed The Rules of Evidence and Rules of Court, and one would have to say no.
ironically in a way her ulterior motive WAS to "release this Roy thing" and she got it with spades
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
Heidi, it's called Gestalt psychology... On cross examination an Attorney can automatically threat the witness has a hostile witness to psychological trip the witness up, and try to get him to confess... This is why in many cases it is not a good idea to place the defendant on the stand in it's on defense. It happens in just about every case that's litigated.... The Judge can not say anything, and is partial during litigation, and could only respond if Richard would have Objected. But he actually set her up to become combative to get Roy to be revealed to the jury...
Before you start criticizing, I am welsh, and I use a translator to communicate with baboons
Here is the defense lawyer's response (in short form), in closing argument, to what the Laura Linney character said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we have all come to know Ms. Prosecutor. And while I disagree with many of the positions she has taken in this case, I know her to be a calm person. The kind of person who is steady as a rock. She is a rock solid person, and we have all seen that. Yet during this trial she said that, if what happened to Aaron had happened to her, she would have absolutely murdered the Archbishop herself. Let me read to you from the transcript. She said, 'Blah, blah, blah.'
Ladies and gentlemen, the Assistant Prosecutor herself has admitted, in open court and on the record, that what Aaron did was what a reasonable person, such as the Assistant Prosecutor herself, would do under these highly unusual and stressful circumstances. Blah, blah, blah. So the point here, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is -- at the very least -- reasonable doubt as to whether Aaron did anything improper under these very unusual circumstances. And that means one thing: Aaron is not guilty."
I think you get the point.
It was unethical for her to make the comments she made, but the defense would not object to her making them. They helped the defense, and the defense wanted her to make them (so that Aaron would go bat* * * * on the witness stand).
I used this example in one of the legal ethics seminar I teach. To my great shock and surprise, a few of the lawyers at the seminar said this was a really good way to cross examine Aaron. They must not have been litigators. This was one of the most terrible (admittedly fake) cross examinations in history (right up there with the Prosecutors telling OJ to put on the glove, oh, wait, that was for real!) -- but it did help advance a heck of an entertaining movie.
[deleted]
...is it really necessary for her to get a confession out of him? He was seen running away from the crime scene with the bishop's blood all over him. The knife found probably had his fingerprints and DNA on it. His shoes covered in blood left traces all over the appartment. He knew the bishop personally and entered the appartment on occasion.There is plenty of evidence to convince every single one of the jurors that it is Aaron who did it, and no evidence to any other scenario. What does it matter what the defendant says?
shareLOL did you watch the movie? The entire defense was built upon the Aaron's mental illness. They never claimed that he didn't do it.
shareIt is not her job to prove that Aaron is insane. And the whole defense is built around the plea that Aaron is innocent. There was a third person in the room, that was the story. Once Martin Vail realized the Multiple Personality Disorder, he couldn't even use it because he cannot change the direction once he's chosen his defense. The movie builds towards a sense of hopelessness for Mr. Vail because Janet Vebnable has a rock-solid case. So the question I was trying to asking in my last message was -- does Ms. Venalble really need a confession in order to win the case?
shareIt is not her job to prove that Aaron is insane.
---
the insanity thing had crept in UNofficially which made it a "Blue Horse" in legal terminology for the jury [ie how does one IGNORE a blue horse].
so what she was trying to do was to show the jury that the whole thing re Roy was a fabrication, so she started by discrediting the shrink as not being qualified to give expert evidence.
she then tried to show jury that even under intense provocation Aaron could not be made to flip to this "Roy was it?"
she is convinced she has done that and says no more questions but Roy pounces. So her ploy totally backfires on her as that was what Vail was trying to do himself but never realised Roy was ALWAYS in complete control and calling him pussy was just stupid [as Vail later regrets when he realizes he was being out-gunned from the first meeting he had with Roy (as Aaron)]
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/