Runaway Jury Critique - Movie Review Example

I chose the movie Runaway Jury to demonstrate how public perception of the legal profession could be affected by movies. This movie was based on a book by John Grisham and the plot revolves around the jury trial of a major gun manufacturer. A lawsuit has been brought against the firm by the widow of a man killed by a gunshot in his place of work. Gene Hackman portrays the defense attorney, and Dustin Hoffman idealistically represents the widow in her claim. John Cusack plays one of the jurors, with an agenda of his own. Hackman's character is an attorney in this film, more specifically a "jury consultant". These individuals conduct a selection of jury-centered research programs designed to gather opinions, value-beliefs, and terminology that must be addressed during litigation. To do so they are not above using "reverse engineering" to assure the desired outcome. (Jury Research DOAR) The process is one used in trials, frequently high profile ones. The idea is to choose a jury that favors your party in the litigation. While it is illegal to tamper with a jury, the process of jury selection is designed (supposedly) to provide both sides a fair and equal decision and to deny some jurors the right to serve on a jury based on bias. Reverse engineering takes this a step or two further. In the initial process prospective jurors are investigated, and decisions made as to which would most likely give a favorable verdict. Included in that analysis is an evaluation as to which jurors the other party might reject. From there the trial is "engineered" still more. Witnesses are interviewed and their answers to anticipated question are rehearsed until they become rote. Even emotional responses are practiced until the testimony becomes almost an act, as opposed to an honest and open response to questions. This is legal. It's also more likely to be seen on the side of a case that has more money to begin with, because this type of consulting is not cheap. Public defenders and district attorney offices are unlikely to have either the manpower or the money to utilize jury consultants to a widespread degree. Jury consulting is real, and a lucrative practice in conjunction with the practice of law. Consulting came into its own during the O.J. Simpson trial, when a consultant named Jo-Ellan Dimitrius picked the jury that found him not guilty. (Roberts) What does she do In her own words, "I almost act as a 13th juror I hear a case for the first time. I wanna know what the good is. I wanna know what the bad is, so that we can figure out a way to desensitize or neutralize the negative components." (Roberts) And her resume states: Dr. Dimitrius has not just conducted pre-trail research and picked juries, she has advised many Fortune 100 companies about how regular people - like those who would be on their juries - would respond to their witnesses, claims and defenses. She has addressed the credibility, motivation and general appearance of hundreds of witnesses. She has worked with hundreds of other witnesses - including actors, lawyers, CEO's and people from almost every walk of life - - to help prepare them for trial. (Dimitrius) And she is successful, very successful! As it states in her resume "Dr. Dimitrius has amassed an unparalleled track record in civil and criminal cases, including the selection of the jury which recently awarded $80 million to her client Frances Ford Coppola, in his lawsuit against Warner Bros., and just weeks later, picking the jury which awarded $223,400,000 in damages to her client in the Piscitelli v. Friedenberg, et al. case." (Dimitrius) The movie Runaway Jury does take this process of engineering to an extreme, and Hackman bends and even breaks the law at some points in an effort to achieve the desired outcome. He uses all the technology available to monitor possible jurors and expose their weaknesses, which he then exploits as the trial progresses. At the other end of the spectrum in this movie is the idealistic and honest attorney representing the plaintiff who is constantly on the defensive because of the way the odds are stacked against him. The only thing that makes the battle fair is Cusack, who has a long standing grudge against gun manufacturers and he is manipulating the jury from the inside. Hackman discovers this too late to make a difference and justice prevails. Or does it And what view is the public left of the judicial system in this portrayal This movie is fiction, and the circumstances are taken to an extreme. But the public sees a system in which the odds are stacked in favor of the litigant with more money (and this really doesn't surprise them.) What is a surprise is the extent which a litigant or defense might go to achieve a desired outcome. It leaves the public wondering how this can be fair, if not all parties have equal access to the same tools. As this movie shows there is a very fine line between legal and illegal activities, and they can easily become blurred. The public is left supporting the juror who clearly bent the rules but was fighting an attorney who was making his own. In large part due to the cast this was a great movie, but it had a dangerous message. From fiction let's go to fact, and choose a movie that is based on a real life case. Erin Brockovich relates the story of a down-and-out single mother who maneuvers her way into the employ of a law firm. While there she discovers something suspicious about health problems in Hinkley, California. Her boss gives her permission to investigate further and she finds evidence of chemical contamination by a utility company that spanned a period of approximately twenty years. Erin (played by Julia Roberts) doesn't quite fit the preconceived image of a corporate law firm with her unconventional dress, and often colorful language, but her hard-headed determination does not let the matter drop. Eventually this case went to trial and "In 1996, as a result of the largest direct action lawsuit of its kind, spearheaded by Erin Brockovich and Ed Masry, the giant utility paid the largest toxic tort injury settlement in U.S. history: $333 million in damages to more than 600 Hinkley residents." (Masry) Erin in a sense glamorized attorneys who will fight for their clients. But at the same time, on the other side of the table were the corporate attorneys for the utility company, who did everything in their power to prevent the case from ever appearing in a courtroom. This case wasn't just based on the fact that the utility company contaminated the ground water but that they knew the effects of the contamination could be dangerous and encouraged the residents to ignore the dangers and ensuing health problems. When the case came to litigation, they denied knowledge of the matter, but evidence proved otherwise. In real life Erin went on and successfully investigated another case against the same company, and is still listed as the Director of Research with the firm who first hired her. (Masry) Her idealism turned into a real career for her. And it is interesting to note that the firm is not above mentioning her name and the film when they mention their pursuit of the rights of individuals. (Masry) What is the public perception of all of this It is that attorneys for large corporations will ignore guilt or innocence in order to protect their clients. In this case the attorneys did not bend or break the law, but they used every loophole in the law they could find to try and prevent the case from continuing. They did their job. The average citizen comes away from this movie with a distrust of corporate law, and the suspicion that money can buy the manipulation necessary to control a lawsuit or even a criminal matter. Granted that even the accused has the right to legal representation to protect their rights during a trial, but does that make it right to manipulate a case simply for a favorable outcome The public is left wondering how easily justice can be lost when money is concerned. It's nice for the average person to see an Erin Brockovich working for a law firm; it makes them seem a little more human. It's also probably unlikely that they will ever meet anyone quite like the character played by Julia Roberts in that film. It's also unlikely that the average person will ever meet someone in the legal profession that is quite that devoted to justice for the underdog. At the same time, when an individual needs legal representation for whatever issue, they hire an attorney. They have to. If they can't afford their own attorney in a criminal matter they are assigned one by the court, and not always one with expertise in criminal court. If they have the resources they will hire the most successful attorney they can find in that given field. Some attorneys just by name and reputation strike fear into the hearts of the opposition. If you want to win a case, you have to have good representation. At least that is the presumption. One other movie that actually pays tribute to the power of justice and the legal profession at its best is Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks. In this movie Hanks plays a young upward moving attorney who is fired for incompetence, when members of his law firm realize that he has AIDS and is homosexual. He finds it impossible to find an attorney to represent him, until the character played by Denzel Washington (an ambulance chaser) takes the job. It's an interesting portrayal, because initially Washington discriminates against Hanks for his sexual orientation, before recognizing and triumphing over his own bigotry. It is no coincidence that this moving takes place in Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love" and is so titled. In this particular movie the law firm that employs Hanks is guilty of discrimination, but in this portrayal it shows the firm as no better or worse in this attitude than much of society. In making that common bond viewers don't like the discrimination, but they can recognize part of themselves in the portrayal. It shows the legal profession perhaps at its most human, capable of the same mistakes as all the rest of us, and capable of being recognized and found guilty. One reviewer states about this movie "Some will argue that a film, being essentially a means of entertainment, can do little to change a national consciousness. Others, citing the power of the medium, will claim that motion pictures possess this rare and extraordinary ability." (Berardinelli) This movie does indeed show the power of film in making a serious statement. While it dealt primarily with AIDS and the way it is portrayed by the straight community, it gave a fairly factual representation of the legal process. In doing it emphasizes the point of this paper: whether or not cinema can affect public opinion of the legal profession. When we have a vast array of imagery to choose from, what influences our opinions We have both the visual and print media, which we look to for facts and details about news stories. Many people realize that the opinions of those are skewed by the ownership of those forms of media and even their political affiliations. In a sense much of the media is a form of propaganda and we are only told the facts which it is hoped we will believe. Many people take information they hear once on television, or read in a newspaper as an absolute statement of fact, and never question the information they are provided. While most movies are fictitious there are enough elements of reality to make them believable, and people put themselves in the place of the actors or actresses in their imaginations. They picture themselves in those situations and "relate" to the characters and the injustices they might see upon those screens in a larger than life image. Of all of the forms of media available to the public, the cinema or film is considered entertainment, and because it's not forced upon people the ideas presented in that genre seem to offer more choice to individuals, but at the same time certain attitudes or opinions are represented. And individual opinions can be shaped based upon those presentations. So portrayal of the legal system in a bad light casts a suspicion upon the reality as viewed by the public. And when a member of the public gets a quote from an attorney with a rate of $150/per hour, and that individual is only making minimum wage, it does cast the attorney as greedy and out for their share of the money as opposed to justice. It doesn't help at all that criminal cases are often followed in the real world by civil suits for incredibly large amounts of money, and that the public knows that attorneys take these cases for a percentage of the winnings. Most members of the public seek the services of an attorney for civil matters such as divorce, child custody, tax assistance, wills, and lawsuits, none of which have particularly pleasant connotations. Members of the public don't have the necessary education or training to put these matters in the proper format to stand up to legal inspection, and require professional assistance. Other individuals will, of course; require legal representation for criminal matters, and since no one wants to go to prison or jail, they seek the best they can afford. Attorneys and judges for the most part live in a separate world from the majority of the public. Their days are spent in law offices or libraries or courtrooms, and their clothing is frequently a suit and tie, or the corresponding dress for a female. They write their briefs in language that is difficult for the average person to interpret. People tend not to trust people they feel disconnected to, or people that possess power to so drastically affect their lives. Attorneys and members of the legal profession have that power. When movies show a defendant in a courtroom accused of a crime, and losing the case and being handcuffed and led off to jail it forms an indelible impression upon the viewing public. When a movie portrays an injustice occurring within that legal system the impressions become negative, and doubt is cast on the integrity of the entire system. It's not fair, but it's typical. In a sense the public expects more from members of the legal system because they represent justice. The public resents the imperfections of the system even while acknowledging that members of that profession share their common humanity. And yet most people and businesses appreciate people who save them or make them money. The same is true of people's and businesses' perception of legal representation. No one is going to hire an attorney that loses the majority of his cases, no matter how moral, ethical or honest he is. They might, and probably will respect him/her as an individual, but they sure won't be hiring them to represent them in court. People can and will continue to hire legal representation to win their cases. While they might criticize an attorney for his/her apparent greed in theory, when it comes down to their individual welfare most people put that criticism aside in their own self interest. Works Cited Berardinelli, James. Philadelphia. 1994. 26 July 2005. http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/p/philadelphia.html, Bos, Carole D. J.D. Law Buzz. Erin Brockovich. 26 July 2005. http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich_ch1.htm Dimitrius & Associates, L.L.C. 2004. Resume of Dr. Jo-Ellan Dimitrius. 26 July 2005. http://www.dimita.com/resume.html Doar. 2004. Jury Research. 26 July 2005. http://www.doar.com/trial/jury/index.asp IMDb. Erin Brockovich. 2005. 26 July 2005. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195685/ IMDb. Philadelphia. 2005. 26 July 2005. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107818/ IMDb. Runaway Jury. 2005. 26 July 2005. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/ Masry & Vititoe. Erin Brockovich-Ellis. 2005. 26 July 2005. http://www.masryvititoe.com/erin_brockovich.shtml Roberts, Troy. CBS News. 48 Hours Mystery. The Jury Consultants. 2004. 26 July 2005. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/48hours/main620794.shtml Read More