|
Judges in Film
by Judge J. Howard Sundermann,
Jr.
The change in portrayal of
lawyers since the early 1970's from generally positive to generally
negative has been demonstrated by Professor Asimow (Bad Lawyers
in the Movies, 24 NOVA L.R. 533 (2000)). Judges have not
escaped the change to more negative depictions. But, unlike lawyers
in the pre-1970 era, judges in films were usually faceless people
sitting behind the bench who occasionally nodded sagely when
an attorney would ask to approach a witness or introduce a piece
of evidence. Attorney Lawrence Welch does a wonderful job as
the judge in Anatomy of a Murder, but he is not really
a part of the story. The judge in Miracle on 34th Street
plays a kindly bumbling character, but he is not central to the
main story line.
 An
exception to this, in my opinion, is the best film ever made
about judges, Judgment at Nuremberg. This film deals with
one of the later Nuremberg trials that had only American judges
presiding. It is particularly interesting because the defendants
are four German judges who presided over German courts during
the Nazi regime. Three of the defendants were considered Nazi
hacks, but one, played by Burt Lancaster, was a brilliant jurist
who detested Hitler but nonetheless went along with the regime
in power. Of course, there is overwhelming evidence of atrocities
and crimes against humanity presented against the defendants,
but the American judges are confronted with the theories of the
defense as well as a changing political situation in post-war
Europe. For instance, counsel for the defendants were enforcing
laws passed by the Nazis, who were the legitimate government
in power at the time, and argues that they they should not be
held responsible for enforcing these laws. The defendants also
claim that the public was better served by them staying at their
jobs as judges because they were able to mitigate the application
of the Nazi laws. If they had resigned, worse people would have
been put in their place. In addition to legal arguments, there
is outside pressure on the American judges to go easy on the
defendants, as America needs the help of the German people against
a growing Russian threat in the new cold war. The film intelligently
explores serious legal and moral questions about responsibility,
and how they weigh on the judges who must decide them. The final
opinion, delivered by Spencer Tracy as the presiding American
judge, is excellent.
There have been two major changes
in the treatment of judges in film since the 1970s. First, we
are now part of the main story line to a far greater degree,
if not the main character in the film. Second, unfortunately,
the changes have not been to our advantage, for the most part.
Judges often now seem to be portrayed as lazy, corrupt, biased
and arrogant. Of course there are some judges who are like this,
but not to the extent that the movies would suggest. In Presumed
Innocent, the judge plays a prominent role in the film and
his past corruption and sexual misconduct are an important part
of the case and the defense. In Suspicion, the judge himself
is actually the murderer in the trial that he is presiding over.
Perhaps the worst depiction is And Justice for All, a
major motion picture staring Al Pacino (not as a judge). Two
judges are main characters in the film. One is presented as suicidal
and crazy. The other is portrayed as uncaring, nasty, arrogant,
and guilty of rape in a concluding trial scene. They are the
only judges presented in the film.
The judge in The Verdict
is portrayed throughout the film as lazy and incompetent. For
reasons unexplained in the film, he is heavily biased against
the plaintiff both in pretrial rulings and during the trial itself.
Justice is done in spite of the judge.
 Rainmaker has two judges featured, on good and
one bad. We meet the bad one first; in court he is impatient
and rude. In a scene in his chambers, he is presented as being
in collusion with an insurance company lawyer to settle a case
for far less that its value. In choreographed trips to the bathroom,
the judge indicates that he will dismiss the suit and then the
lawyer offers a modest settlement. The second judge appears as
the trial judge who is aware of defense counsel tricks and gives
the plaintiff a prompt and fair trial.
My choice for the funniest
legal film of all time, My Cousin Vinny, has a judge featured
who is a stickler for procedure and decorum. He is a foil for
the more "relaxed" style of the main character, the
defense lawyer. Even though the judge is sometimes harsh when
enforcing courtroom discipline and a little hard to live with,
the judge is presented as well versed in the law and interested
in giving fair trials to those in his court.
Placing judges into moral dilemmas
is a common device used in modern films. Sometimes the dilemma
is the primary plot of the film and sometimes it is a secondary
issue, although the resolution of the dilemma could change the
conclusion of the film. An example of a moral dilemma as a secondary
issues occurs in the film Night Falls on Manhattan. A
prosecutor, the main character, has made his reputation from
the trial and conviction of a brutal cop killer and drug dealer.
As it turns out, the arresting officer later discovers that the
arrest warrant used to enter the killer's premises to affect
his arrest had expired by one day. The prosecutor becomes aware
of this discrepancy. The officer tells the trial judge. The judge
knows that if he acknowledges the improper warrant, a vicious
killer will be released and a brave policeman will be in trouble.
The camera shows the judge at his desk, sitting across from the
policeman, writing a new warrant and dating it the day of the
arrest as he tells the prosecutor on the phone that there must
be some confusion, he remember very clearly making out the warrant
on the day of the arrest and the original warrant is right in
front of him. The judge is shown in the film as making a choice
of the lesser two evils, and I suspect the public would agree
with his choice.
In Judge Horton and the
Scottsboro Boys, the judge is the central character in the
film and he is shown dealing with the famous case where a group
of young black boys are falsely accused of raping two white women
in Alabama in the 1930's. It is widely believed in that community
that the defendants are guilty; Judge Horton probably shares
this belief as the trial begins. During the State's case, a doctor
gives medical testimony barely consistent with the theory of
rape. The prosecutor then tells the court that another doctor
examined the girls but his testimony would be substantially the
same as the first doctor, so he asks to excuse the second doctor
from testifying. With no objection from the defense, the court
grants the request. The second doctor approaches Judge Horton
in the hallway and asks to speak to him. After some reluctance,
Judge Horton agrees to speak with the doctor and they step into
the men's room to talk. The doctor explains that based on his
examination, there is no question in his mind that the girls
were not raped. Judge Horton tells the doctor that he must testify
to this at the trial, but the young doctor says he cannot so
testify. The doctor explains that he could never go back to his
practice or live in his hometown if he testified for the defense.
The doctor tells the judge that he will deny everything he just
said if he is forced to testify. This is Judge Horton's dilemma.
He can call the doctor to the stand, declare a mis-trial, or
proceed with the trial. Judge Horton chooses to proceed with
the trial without mentioning the incident, because he believes
that as the trial unfolds, the evidence against the defendant
will be so thoroughly discredited that the jury will acquit.
But when the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, the judge
is faced with a new dilemma. A motion for a new trial is filed.
Horton could easily overrule the motion on the ground the there
was conflicting testimony and the jury believed that of the State's
witnesses. Granting the motion would likely end his career and
ostracize him with many of his neighbors and friends. But the
judge grants the motion and orders a new trial. A new judge is
appointed, and he presides over the subsequent conviction with
a heavy hand, and Judge Horton is handily defeated in the next
election.
Michael Douglas plays a young
judge in Star Chamber. The judge has presided over a series
of difficult Fourth Amendment issues where, in following the
law, he must release defendants whose guilt seems apparent. When
one of the defendants is charged with the torture and murder
of another young boy after his release, the judge goes to see
his friend and mentor, an older judge, who has hinted at a solution
to these problems. The older judge tells the Douglas character
that many of the judges have shared in his frustration and have
come to the conclusion that the judges are the "law,"
and that they have an obligation to solve this conflict between
the law and justice. He explains that the judges have formed
a secret court to consider the cases where the law seems to have
perverted the system. This court hears the facts, renders a verdict,
and most importantly carries out sentences. Douglas is asked
to join. The next scene shows the judges meeting at night and
hearing a case where a guilty violent defendant had to be released
due to a procedural issue. The judges in turn vote guilty, including
Douglas, who has joined them.
It appears there is no turning back from the judge's new role
in film as an important if not leading character. There is a
new television show in development where the United States Supreme
Court is the setting for a West Wing type drama with fictional
justices as the main characters.
Posted March 13, 2002
|
