Legal Techniques Movie Review 04 PDF

Preview

Summary

and justice for all...

Description

LEGAL TECHNIQUES: “…And Justice for All” (Movie Review)

Submitted to: Atty. Danilo Roleda

Submitted by: Carolyne L. Areola LI.B. 1-2 (April 30, 2020)

Movie Review: And Justice for All

“ … And Justice for All” is a comedy, drama, mystery and suspense legal movie of 1979 (September 15, 1979). This said movie is directed by Norman Jewison and written by Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson. It was nominated in Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (1980). Produced on a modest budget of $4 million, it grossed over $33.3 million in North America, making it the 24th highest-grossing film of 1979. The award winning movie revolves around in a criminal justice system where criminals go free, lawyers and judges makes deals as a matter of routine and the innocent sometimes go unprotected , Atty. Arthur Kirkland begins to wonder where justice has gone Arthur is an honest, idealistic lawyer who is suddenly under pressure to defend a distinguished judge ( Judge John Forsythe) accused of raping and battering a young girl and Arthur has a suspicion that the judge is guilty. Here are some memorable and worthy scenes for me: This courtroom drama starts when a 12 years lawyer Arthur Kirkland ( played by Al Pacino a brilliant 1979 best Actor Oscar nominated role) , a defense attorney in Baltimore, is in jail on a contempt of court charge after punching Judge Henry T. Fleming while arguing the case of Jeff McCullaugh. Arthur starts a new case, defending transgender Ralph Agee, arrested for a small crime and becoming a victim of the legal system. (20:21) Arthur pays regular visits to his grandfather Sam in a nursing home, who is progressively becoming senile. It is revealed that Arthur was abandoned by his parents at a young age, and it was Sam who raised him and put him through law school. Grandfather Sam: “Are you a good lawyer? Are you honest?” Arthur: “Well I don’t know, being honest doesn’t have much to with being a lawyer grandpa.” In my point of view this is the part where the movie truly starts. In this scene Arthur have somewhat a hard time answering the question of his grandfather. Being a lawyer is a tough job where it stakes your time, mental and physical energy in dealing with your clients and in work place as well. We can be able to foreshadow the movie events that will take place later and that is Arthur’s dilemma between his moral character as a normal person and his professional conduct as a lawyer. (40:05) One day, Arthur is unexpectedly requested to defend Judge Fleming, who has been accused of brutally assaulting and raping a young woman. Jay Porter: “I will tell you the punch line. You gonna love this, his people just call the office and Mr. Fleming would like you to represent him.” Arthur: (speechless and cannot believe he just heard) “Me…why me!”

In this scenario the big moral question facing Arthur is whether or not he should defend the rapist-judge. Because the judge has political connections, Arthur is threatened with disbarment if he stands by his principles and refuses. To make it worst base on what I learned in Legal Ethics you cannot choose your client whether the person is innocent or not without a valid reason. (1:21:25) Jay is taken to a hospital. Before leaving in the ambulance, Arthur asks Warren Fresnell, another partner, to handle Ralph Agee's court hearing in his absence. Arthur gives Warren a corrected version of Ralph's probation report and stresses that it must be shown to the judge so that Ralph will get probation rather than jail time. (Ralph Agee a transgender who’s arrested for a small crime) When Arthur giving the documents/evidence to Warren I literally say “No! don’t do that.” and somehow want to smack him in the head. I know it’s kinda brutal and given the situation he’s on but as a lawyer you cannot left your client hanging in the middle of his battle to the court or giving the any evidence to the person who does not know his client’s needs at the moment even if it’s his colleague. Resulting of devastated Ralph’s suicide. I think in this time Arthur violated a lot on code of ethics. (1:46:30) As the trial opens, Fleming makes a casual remark to Arthur about wanting to rape the victim again, which pushes an already disgusted Arthur to a breaking point. In his opening statement … unexpectedly, he bursts out that the prosecution is not going to get Fleming, because he is going to get him and declares that his client is guilty. As twisted and disgusting as Mr. Fleming I would also do what Arthur did if I was in his shoes that time in the movie and maybe the one to bring Fleming in jail, BUT in reality if someone does that, they might as well say ‘bye bye’ to their license. As a student that have a little knowledge about laws and ethics of being a lawyer. Once you agreed to become a lawyer of someone you must do what you can to defend your client in a clean way regardless if he or she is guilty or not. Professionalism also is lacking in this scene (Arthur part) as a lawyer composed emotion and collective mindset in dealing things in the court. What my opinion about the whole movie? The movie is not about case of Mr. Fleming, it’s all about Arthur’s life being a lawyer. How he handles every problem around him. . Director make Arthur’s character like he is in the end of the rope to the point the only option is to give up being a lawyer and choose his moral conscience to disclose the truth. The film has an open ending, there are questions that comes after Arthur is out of the court. “What will happen to him?” “What is the result Judge Fleming

case?”. There are parts of the movie that is somewhat cliché and for me not necessary to be there to make the movie enjoyable to watch. The movie has no direction and some parts that I cannot understand maybe because there are some scene that are deleted base on what I’ve researched. Well in the end all I know is "…The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!"...