Movies and Our Jurors
The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far-spread magazine, rules the country.” [1]
Even if it may not rule the country, the movie industry is arguably one of the most persuasive impacts on American society.[2] This American society consists of thousands of citizens who are eligible and do serve on jury duty.[3] However, most people do their best to avoid it even fictional jurors.[4] In the meantime, courtroom dramas have long been a focus of films[5] due to clash of the two opposing sides created by the American legal system.[6] This clash and some drama give the movie producers, the directors, and the talent a vast opportunity to put the glamour of
Millions of Americans choose a night out at the movies as their source of entertainment.[9] They watch these movies for pure enjoyment and not to be educated.[10] Regardless of the intentions of the entertainers or the viewers, movies instruct as well as entertain.[11] For the average person, movies provide a tremendous amount of information, ideas, feelings, and more to the movie watcher.[12] Without movies, there are several members of society who would not have ever seen and remembered any courtroom antics.[13] Even if society does not remember obtaining the information from a particular movie, a response can be based on a scene or dialogue that some how stays with them forever which is called the sleeper effect. [14]
Along with the sleeper effect, movies affect the jury trial system in other fashions.[15] Legal movies have set a standard for the trial format that the jurors bring into the courtroom with them even before one piece of evidence is presented.[16] The impact of movies on the legal system also becomes a factor in regard to how jurors prefer information provided to them.[17] Therefore, movies have influenced lawyers in their trial techniques when there is a jury involved. [18] The influence of movies does not stop outside of the courtroom. In courtrooms across American, films are making their way into the courtroom to be used as evidence[19], in particularly to prove intent in criminal cases.[20] As to the impact of movies, it is irrelevant at times where or when jurors see movies either inside or outside of the courtroom.[21] The influence of movies has changed the jury trial system to what it is today.
THE POWER OF MOVIES
The influence of movies can be everlasting.[22] Since millions of people watch movies each year, the power of movies affects a great deal of society’s members. [23] Most people would agree that movies and the entertainment industry play a powerful role in formation of ideas and values of society.[24] Not only do people remember the funniest scenes from their favorite comedies, movie viewers remember history, remember heroes, and remember hurt from the dialogue and acting seen on the big screen and then again and again in the comforts of home. Movies are powerful. The dialogue of a movie “has more staying power, in part because it's on-screen.”[25] This “staying power” of movie dialogue exists from the fact that after years people will remember the lines from the silver screen.[26] Nevertheless, these same people cannot remember the testimony or legal lectures presented to them thirty-minutes ago.[27] This occurs because movies reflect the defining moments of life.[28] Films give society an opportunity to see pieces of themselves on screen which makes it unforgettable.[29]
Besides the influence and power of movies affecting our memories and feelings, some say the impact of movies sways society’s acts.[30] “With the clear influence of the media on our moods and emotions, it follows that there must be some carry-over to our choices and actions.”[31] The imagery films present assist society in dealing with real-life events and possibly suggest responses. [32] The images can be both positive and negative or lawful and lawless. [33] However, the majority of studies conducted on the power and influence of movies on society and the legal system address the effect of the violent images depicted in movies.[34] Jurors have listened to cases where the legal argument has been presented based on studies as to the movies such as, Natural Born Killers[35],[36] and The Basketball Diaries[37],[38] and others to prove that
Even if there is a possibility that movies are not having an impact of society’s action, most people believe they do.[40] Some of these people will be sitting in jury boxes during trials where the plaintiffs have made allegations against the movie industry for liability for third-party criminal acts and in civil cases.[41] These cases depend upon the concept of foreseeability, which is defined using the negligence doctrine, and the verdict could be controlled by jurors who believe that the movies industry are partially responsible for these acts.[42]
In addition to the power of movies affecting society here in the
THE EFFECTS OF MOVIES OF JURORS
The movie industry has created hundreds of films dealing with the law and courtroom dramas.[52] A simple search on the Internet results with hundreds of movies with the courtroom themes. However in the past, most movies deal with the actual case and the lawyers and not the juries.[53] Now there are some movies that do go into detail about the jurors.[54] Along with the legal movies, any genre of movies can impact and possibly influence actual jurors in courtrooms. [55]
The impact of movies on the viewers is very powerful.[56] First, the scenes and dialogues can be remembered for very long times.[57] Second, movies educate without any books or lectures.[58] Third, some say that the influence of movies even can affect society’s responses and actions.[59] This influence could creep into jury boxes during every trial.[60] Studies have been conducted on mock juries that suggest that jurors can not differentiate the source of information they relay on when deliberating in trial.[61] Jurors are instructed, especially in high profile cases, to disregard what information they posses that they did not obtain in trial.[62] However if the sleeper effect is incorporated, this might be impossible for any juror to do.[63]
The sleeper effect occurs when information that is initially disregarded because it comes from a disreputable source, and yet it is later accepted because the juror forgets the source and only remembers the information.[64] The disreputable source could be a film.[65] Several high-profile criminal cases have had made-for-television movies created about them before the trials commence.[66] When this occurs, it is more than likely that the sleeper effect occurs because the juror may not even remember ever watching the movie.[67] Since there is a thin line between the facts given at trial and the plot in the films, the sleeper effect happens with movies being the source.[68] This could be detrimental to one of the opposing sides during the trial, usually the defendant, since the movie does not always have to be factual and include all the accurate information.[69]
To further support how movies and the sleeper effect potentially influences a juror when deliberating a verdict, research was completed on mock jurors in regard to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.[70] During the study, it addressed the possible influence of the movie JFK.[71] All of the jurors but one had seen the movie prior to being placed on the mock jury and listened to both sides present their evidence.[72] This sole juror voted guilty twice prior to viewing the movie.[73] He was the only one.[74] The evidence of the study suggested a strong relationship and indicated that the movie had a definite effect upon the final verdict.[75]
However, an argument could have made that these same jurors already believed in a conspiracy theory from sources other than the movie.[76] On the other hand, the lone juror who had not seen the movie changed his verdict to “not guilty” after viewing the movie.[77] The mystery comes from why one who is adamant about the guilt of another would change his verdict after seeing a movie.[78] The sleeper effect is a possible answer.[79] Psychological research on the sleeper effect helps explain why this juror would alter his verdict to “not guilty” while he has been expressing the opposite verdict during the entire trial before seeing JFK.[80] Although the juror claims the change occurred due to listening to the two “contradictory explanations” during the closing statements, it is more plausible that the movie had become another piece of the “evidence” that the juror now used to filter inconsistent information presented in the trial.[81]
The sleeper effect not only works with movies about the case, but any movie can become a piece of the evidence for the juror.[82] Jurors bring into the courtroom what they derive from popular culture, like movies.[83] A particular message, either through dialogue or acting can be supplied through a movie as a credible source.[84] After some time, the more memorable messages can be recalled by jurors, but the movie is forgotten but relied upon as if it was a credible source even if it was a
While the sleeper effect addresses the unconscious influences of movies to jurors, known biases formed by movies exist in many fashions that impact the jury trial system.[90] Jurors have preconceived ideas or biases of how a trial should go from movies that includes trial scenes.[91] Movies, like Suspect and Jury Duty, portrayed images of jurors in completely different fashions but both the jurors initially attempted to use excuses to be disqualified from jury duty as if it is a dreadful task.[92] These two movies not only taught jurors how to try to avoid jury duty, but made it exciting and dramatic so much that even fictional characters like Homer Simpson have biases against jury duty from these movies.[93] Besides movies teaching jurors how to escape jury duty, movies provide jurors with expectations of judges and lawyers.[94] Several of John Grisham’s legal novels have been turned into
Consequently, courtroom dramas also place in the minds of jurors ideas of how long trials should take.[99] In the world outside the courtroom, jurors’ ideas are being guided and educated for convenience by movies.[100] Films suggest to jurors that legal arguments should be presented in minutes.[101] Most movies can only provide glimpses of what really happens during a trial.[102] For some jurors, courtroom dramas on the big screen are the only references they depend upon before experiencing the first day of jury duty, so a true timeframe is not known.[103]
Other ideas influenced by movies on jurors that they bring into the jury box are their views and values of life.[104] This influence impacts the jury trial system in the deliberations and damages calculations part of a trial.[105] The research completed on movie influence on the jurors’ views of life is uncertain about how movies affect the juror’s decision making in regard to moral worth, but it is known that it does.[106]
Biases from movies in jurors do exist, and lawyers have a hard time to prove this.[107] If a juror’s bias is created by the broadcasting of a made-for television movie, one party may motion the court to move the trial’s venue or delay the airing.[108] In some jurisdictions, the courts have recognized that movies and publicity may create biases in the jurors when deliberating.[109] In some cases, a ruling of reversal has been required based on the nature of the exposure to the juror for a criminal case, and there most be proof of intensity and accurateness of the exposure.[110]
Movies can have an influence on what the jurors think and assist them with preparation for trials.[111] Movies also have been an influence on the way jurors receive and retain information which has affected the jury trial system.[112] Society now relies on and prefers movies and television for information and entertainment.[113] Therefore, jurors need for the evidence and the testimony to be precise yet entertaining.[114] Studies have shown that jurors retain eighty percent of the information if they are presented with both oral and physical evidence.[115]
Besides movies creating the demand for visual stimulants and reminders for jurors, movies have supported the adage of “seeing is believing.”[116] The magic of movie making has grasped this concept and created images and pictures upon belief.[117] Films like
Although movies have influenced jurors to be almost predominately visual learners, movies have also taught jurors some of the complex matters that lawyers have always believed would confuse juries.[120] Juries have always had a mysterious element to them since the lawyers are always trying to guess what they are thinking or what they know.[121] Hence, mock trials and debriefing many trial juries has revealed that jurors do understand some of the more complex case issues from the influences of movies.[122] In the past, issues ranging from the use of DNA evidence to employment structural reorganization have been considered complex issue if they were to be presented to juries.[123] In today’s courtrooms, jurors now expect to hear about DNA to prove some cases which at times places a strain on prosecutors in some criminal cases.[124] It is because movies have made jurors more knowledgeable about science and other complex matters, and more legal professionals now have to adjust their legal argument for smarter juries.[125]
THE INFLUENCE OF MOVIES ON TRIAL TECHNIQUES
Since the world outside of the courtroom has been impacted by movies and the media, the world of litigation has to change and has to provide information in a fashion similar to what is on the big screen.[126] The litigation process includes several gambles, and a large one is selecting the right jury.[127] Since attorneys know that these risks exist, the influence of movies on trial techniques start at the very beginning of the jury trial process which is voir dire.[128] Most frequently, the questions during voir dire include family matters, demographics, and any direct knowledge of the immediate case.[129] To discover any potential biases, lawyers now have inquired about what recent movies the jurors have seen during jury selection.[130] The jurors recently seated in the reputed Bonanno family head Joe Massino’s racketeering trial were all asked had they seen the movie Donnie Brasco during voir dire.[131] However, the courts have placed some limits on attorneys acquiring about movies in voir dire if it is solely for use of peremptory challenges.[132] Along with asking questions about what movies the seated jurors have seen, attorneys also now in jury selection have to pose movie-like scenarios to the jurors to discover any potential biases.[133]
Once the presentation of evidence begins in a jury trial, the influence of movies continues in regard to how attorneys present their cases to the jury.[134] Since jurors only remember about ten percent of information presented orally, one method that lawyers used to make the evidence memorable is to present it with visuals or demonstrative evidence.[135] At every opportunity trial lawyers should use overheads, charts, pictures, and graphics to enhance, explain, and summarize witnesses’ testimony as well as its argument.[136] In other words, trial lawyers have to take the role of movie producers and show the life of another to be judged upon by the viewers.[137] Trial attorneys are responsible for conveying the “plot” or the facts in a fashion like movies since jurors are more comfortable with this style.[138]
Besides attempting to show the jurors a good movie, lawyers have had to change their trial techniques by becoming as creative as movie directors when presenting the facts of the case.[139] As discussed before, jurors learn the legal process from movies, and therefore place burdens on the attorneys which make them find creative methods to be persuasive to win cases.[140] One creative technique is for lawyers to cram has much legal and persuasive argument into a brief opening statement since legal movies opening statements should only take a few minutes.[141] Another technique borrowed from
Hence, movies are presented in courts under the same rules of evidence like pictures. [145] The movies must be relevant and authenticated to properly be introduced as evidence for the jury to see.[146] Since most movies have no facts of the immediate case in them, they are presented to the jury usually to depict a person, place, or thing of the case which is admissible.[147] Nevertheless, when motion films are used during a jury trial, it possibly is one parties attempt to prove the defendant’s state of mind which is permissible. [148]
In Rushin[149], the prosecutors showed parts of the movie, Menace II Society, to prove that the defendant was guilty of two counts of felony murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault when he was re-acting the scenes from the movies. [150] The court in Rushin like others, instructed the jury that the limited viewing was to determine if there were any bearing of the movie on the defendant’s state of mind.[151] Even if there is no finding of a “bent state of mind” caused by the movie, the courts have recognized that the viewing of the film may leave inferences in the jurors minds that the movies may influence defendants like Rushin.[152] In Beasley v. Georgia, the defendant like in Rushin appealed his conviction of murder due to the prosecution showing the movie, Natural Born Killers, to the jury to prove his state of mind.[153] However, some movies have been used as evidence to show the jury a way of life of the defendant like in Paradis v. Arave. [154] In Paradis, the prosecution use of the movie, Gimme Shelter,[155] as evidence went to show a life-style, and the defendant argued that this was prejudicial.[156] The court ruled that in Paradis’ case the “entire record reflects a fair and impartial jury.”[157]
CONCLUSION
The impact of movies can be felt by society in many facets of life. Since movies leave such impressions that change how people think, feel, and act, it is not difficult to imagine that the influence of movies also touches the American legal system. Especially since, several
[1] The power of the media, including movies, has a great power over the world. A quote from Judge Learned Hand at the memorial service for Justice Brandeis on
[2] The impact of the movie industry grows on a continuous basis through the studios’ use of the Internet, computers, and video games to market movies. Les Brown, Laurie Trotta, & F. Miguel Valenti, More Than a Movie: Ethics in Entertainment, 3 (Westview Press 2000).
[3]
Each state/jurisdiction has its own criteria for those persons who are eligible for jury duty. Some jurisdictions, like
[4] Jurors are anxious to figure out and use excuses that will get them out of jury duty similar to the character played by Dennis Quad in Suspect. Patricia D. Marks, Magic in the Movies- Do Courtrooms Scene Have Real-Life Parallels?, N. Y. B. J. (June 2001).
[6] The American legal system is adversarial where there are at least two opposing sides disputing legal issues in front of a fact finder. The system provides each side with an equal opportunity to present its case (and to point out the weaknesses in its opponent's case) to a neutral judge or jury. American Bar Association, Family Legal Guide, (2000) at http://public.findlaw.com/newcontent/flg/ch2/qa1.html.
[7] The movie A Few Good Men is a perfect example of how the glamour of
[8] The entertainment industry has certainly been fascinated with the courtroom theme in movies. The uniqueness of the character development in Twelve Angry Men is different since it is through the deliberation that the viewers get to know the twelve jurors. The jurors also go beyond the norm and do experiments in the jury room which influence the vote. Applications of everyday experiences were acceptable. Even though the lawyers and the judges wish that movies like Twelve Angry Men did not influence jurors, jurors do watch legal movies to do “homework” and prepare for jury duty. Patricia D. Marks, Magic in the Movies- Do Courtrooms Scene Have Real-Life Parallels?, N. Y. B. J. (June 2001).
[9] The average person now sees five movies in a twelve-month span. People in urban areas are more likely to go to the movies more than those in rural areas. Darren Carlson, Fewer People Went to the Movies in 2003, Gallup Poll News Service (
[10] Society learns about law from movies. The storyline portrayed in movies do not have to be actual and accurate since most people do not go to the movies to acquire information. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[11] “Movies not only entertain, they instruct.” Films help shape people’s interpretations of the significance of several events and suggest appropriate responses. John Denvir, Bush's “Savage War” at http://www.usfca.edu/pj/savage_denvir.htm.
[12] Movies are making viewers more knowledgeable about the world and the law. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[13] “We have all seen movies that include trial scenes in which the lawyers get to stand before the prospective jurors and question them in-depth about their lives, all the while endearing themselves to the panel. That's
[14] The sleeper effect refers to the tendency of people to forget where, when, or how they took in any new information and the credibility of the source. Roy Andes, Resistance and Persistence to Attitude Change, at http://www.as.wvu.edu/~randes/14/14Unit17.htm.
[15] Courtroom films are not just entertaining but also shape how jurors think about other issues. These legal movies affect the way legal issues are shaped in the courtroom. Plus, they provided potential jurors with knowledge of legal procedures. D. Lyn Hunter, The Verdict is in: We Love Trial Movies, U. Berkley Pubic Affairs, 2002 at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2002/10/23_movies.html.
[16] Anthony Chase, supra, Note 12.
[17] People get all sorts of impressions and views of how a trial is conducted from movies, books, and television. But these views and impressions are often distorted, misconstrued, and inaccurate depictions of the actual trial process. There has been no basic source of information written in non-legalese for an ordinary citizen to refer to in order to learn a little bit of what to expect when he/she is selected to serve as a juror. Jury Research Institute, The Juror’s Website, (2003) at http://jctmac.tripod.com/home.html.
[18] Legal movies present the adversarial structure of the American legal system in such a fascinating fashion so that trial attorneys now develop their trial techniques from what they and the jurors see on the big screen. D. Lyn Hunter, The Verdict is in: We Love Trial Movies, U. Berkley Pubic Affairs, 2002 at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2002/10/23_movies.html.
[19] The evidence rules that apply to photographs are the same for motion pictures when used as evidence. Fed. R Evid. 1001(2); 29A Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 929 (2003).
[20] In July 1998 the Georgia Supreme Court faced identical issues in their review of two different murder cases--the admissibility of fictional movies as proof of the defendant's intent. In both instances, the introduction of this evidence was approved by the majority. Walter F. George, Criminal Law, 51 Mercer L.Rev.209 (1999).
[21] The jurors may not remember when or where they have obtain the information or seen the movie because they failed to store the event in memory, or they stored it and are now unable to retrieve it, or the memory has become distorted. Gruder, Cook, Hennigan, Flay, Alessis, & Halamaj, Empirical Tests of the Absolute Sleeper Effect Predicted From the Discounting Cue Hypothesis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (1978).
[22] “No more potent influence on opinion could be devised than the motion picture. Eighty-seven per cent of our ideas come from visual impressions.” Peter Odegard, The American Public Mind, 18 ,
[23] In 2000, cinema attendance in the
[24] The influence of the media is great while it entertains through compelling stories, but it also teaches people about their surrounding culture in both a positive and negative ways. Recently, people have watched movies and then their behaviors mirrors what was seen on the big screen. Jonathan Seiden, Scream-ing for a Solution: Regulating Hollywood Violence; An Analysis of Legal and Legislative Remedies, University of Pennsylvania J. Const. L 2001.
[25] At a professors’ seminar, “Law and Popular Culture,” it was discussed that when great actors and directors are dealing with legal issues, people seem to remember it forever. However when legal issues are discussed in classroom settings or courtrooms, “the whole discussion in half-an-hour” would be forgotten. Chris Klein, Legal Reelism- Is Learning Law and Ethics from Flicks a Farce? Nat’l L. J. (Feb. 17, 1997), at http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/bios/asimow/book/review27.htm.
[26]
[27]
[28] Certain films have definitely left “indelible marks” upon American culture and society. Especially since these film capture moments in life that are universal to all. There are hundreds of great films that include memorable movie quotes and lines of dialogue and great moments or scenes. Tim Dirk, Introduction – The Greatest Films, (1996) at http://filmsite.org/films.html.
[29]
[30] A study that compared age and sex showed that influences from movies does affect society’s self-esteem and actions. Christopher Kilmartin, Wendy Kliewer, Barbara J. Myers & Mary Polce-Lynch, Adolescent Self-Esteem and Gender: Exploring Relations to Sexual Harassment, Body Image, Media Influence, and Emotional Expression, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2001, at 1.
[31] “It’s interesting to note that most Americans believe a link exists between media and actual behavior. That’s why 83 percent of Americans wish the entertainment industry would voluntarily excise some of the sex and violence from television, movies and music lyrics.” Bob Waliszewski & Bob Smithhouser, Exerting Influence Over Your Family's Media Choices, (June 8, 1995) at http://www.troubledwith.com/Web/groups/public/%5C@fotf_troubledwith/documents/articles/twi_016953.cfm?channel=Parenting%20Teens&topic=Media%20Influence&sssct=Life%20Applications.
[32] Movies create different topics and situations through the images that society later draws from when deciding to act. Movies like To Kill A Mockingbird could be used when dealing with social conflict. John Denvir, Bush's _Savage War” at http://www.usfca.edu/pj/savage_denvir.htm.
[33] Movies like To Kill A Mockingbird and Dirty Harry are examples of lawless film which presents a negative view of law. It identifies the law as weak and corrupt.
[34] In Delgado v. American Multi-Cineman, Inc., 85 Cal Rptr. 2d 838 (Ct. App 1999), the court had numerous of studies presented to it linking movie violence to real-life occurrences especially in minors. Bill Petulla, Dead Presidents? The Shortcomings of Delagado v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 85 Cal Rptr 2d 838 (Ct. App 1999) Washburn L.J. (Winter 2000).
[35] The movie depicts two victims of traumatized childhoods who become lovers and psychopathic serial murderers that is irresponsibly glorified by the mass media. Internet Movie Database, Natural Born Killers, 1994 at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110632/.
[36] The showing of Nature Born Killers to a jury in a murder case became an issued appealed in the case Beasley v. State, 269 Ga. 690 (
[37] The film was adapted from Jim Carroll's novel "The Basketball Diaries" which is a autobiographical chronic of the lives of five kids until they become youth. It depicts how the struggles of being a teenager take Jim from the basketball court to the dark streets of
[38] In the case James v. Meow Media, Inc., the parents of students, who were killed when fourteen-year-old Michael Carneal brought a .22-caliber pistol and five shotguns into the lobby of Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, sued companies that produced or maintained video games, movies, and Internet websites which allegedly desensitized classmate to violence and caused his actions, asserting claims for negligence, products liability, and violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act . The jury heard evidence that Michael owned a copy of the movie, The Basketball Diaries. They also heard a description of the violence in the movie. James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F. 3d 683 (Ky.CA 6 2002).
[39] After the school shootings in
[40] The
[41] Only a few cases have actually imposed liability upon the media for similar allegations. These cases are considered by many to be “outliners” since they represent only the most violent media forms which likely cause violence. April M. Perry, Guilt by Saturation: Media Liability for Third -Party Violence and the Availability Heuristic, NW. U. L. Rev. (Winter 2003).
[42] Jurors believe that movies and the media have a power to influence society. Seventy-eight percent of people polled by a national magazine believed and reported that violence seen in movies and television deserve “some or lot of the blame” for the school shootings and violence of today. April M. Perry, Guilt by Saturation: Media Liability for Third -Party Violence and the Availability Heuristic, NW. U. L. Rev. (Winter 2003).
[43] “Congress shall make no law¼ abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.” U.S. Const. amend I. The Free Speech Clause is incorporated to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See De Jonge v.
[44] Allowing these types of cases to proceed, a legal dilemma could occur because an artist’s freedom of speech will be jeopardized if the plaintiffs are able to recover generous damages against the entertainment/movie industry. Jonathan Seiden, Scream-Ing for a Solution: Regulating Hollywood Violence; An Analysis of Legal and Legislative Remedies, U.
[45] There is a possible shift of legal responsibly towards the media and movie industry for the acts of others based on juries exercising their power to find liability under the negligence doctrine. Lawyers would have to attempt to persuade jurors to reach decisions upon “accurate assessments” of the movie industry’s influence on third parties and fact-based probabilities. April M. Perry, Guilt by Saturation: Media Liability for Third -Party Violence and the Availability Heuristic, NW. U. L. Rev. (Winter 2003).
[46] Certainly, there are motion pictures dealing with other aspects of civil law, for examples, property law in the Adams Family and contract law in other films. Law and psychiatry has been the main focus of other motion pictures. Of course, probably 90% of trial films are about criminal law. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[47] Crime films feed our apparently insatiable hunger for stories about crimes, investigations, trials, and punishment. From almost the first moment of moviemaking, film writers and directors realized that nothing pleases audiences more than “deception, mayhem, and underdog characters who refuse to be trampled by institutions and laws.” Nicole Rafter, Shots in the Mirror 15,
[48] Reports from
[49]
[50] There have been articles how the entertainment industry impacted the Italian lawyers and how they began referring to judges simply from what they had seen in American entertainment. “There is no doubt that reality is shaped by fiction.” Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[51] “`A la
[52]
[53] In the beginning of film history, it was easy to define courtroom films: They were dramas in which the main character was a heroic lawyer who solved the mystery and settled other dilemmas in the course of a trial. But this traditional definition has eroded. Nicole Rafter, Shots in the Mirror 93,
[54] Contemporary legal movies now address courtroom battles, sex scandals and whatever else
[55] In Oxbow Incident, the western-style movie depicts to earliest form of juries. In a frontier
[56] Movies along with other forms of media are very powerful tools and are highly influential on society. American Pediatric Association, Joint Statement on the Impact of the Entertainment Violence on Children Congressional Public Health Summit, (July 26, 2000) at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm.
[57] Chris Klein, supra at Note 25.
[58] John Denvir, supra at Note 11.
[59] Bob Waliszewski ET AL., supra at Note 31.
[60] Like in the film, Twelve Angry Men, most jurors are unable to leave their personal biases and ideas outside of the jury box. It is almost impossible for humans to leave life experiences and influences out of their decision- making process. Mark Nunez, Twelve Angry Men, (April 2000) at http://www.usfca.edu/pj/tam-nunez.htm.
[61] Dr. James Lampinen, a psychologist researcher at the
[62] The courts ask the jury to disregard any pre-trial publicity or any other source of information in regard to the trial at hand but most jurors can not do this perfectly. If something is familiar or highly publicized it makes it really difficult for jurors to remember where they received the information.
[63]
[64] The sleeper effect involves sources of information from movie, television, tabloids, and pre-trial publicity and more. Theses sources provide false memories for the jurors. As to a judicial remedy for the sleeper effect, the courts issue continuances to allow the publicity and effect to die down. While this allows some of the intensity to dissipate, the trial will still be subject to errors in regard to the sources of information. John S. Rhodes, Trashy Supermarket Tabloid Memories-An interview with Memory Researcher Dr. James Lampinen,(
[65]As to the sleeper effect, society uses news broadcast, advertisements, Internet pages, and movies as sources of information if they are credible or not. John S. Rhodes, Trashy Supermarket Tabloid Memories-An interview with Memory Researcher Dr. James Lampinen, (
[66] Just recently, there have been made-for-television movies for the criminal cases of Scott Peterson, that aired on
[67] If there are months between the airing of the movie and jury selection, there is a possibility that it would have an effect on the jury pool. There would be no way to distinguish who all watched her heard about the movie. Also some jurors forget they have seen the movie. This can be “particularly dangerous.”
[68] In defense of the “Scott Peterson” movie, John Kelley spokesman for
[69] A juror who has been exposed to memorable movie that might have or seem to have a view about the merits of the case or the virtues could harm of one or more parties. Martha Minow, Stripped Down Like a Runner or Enriched by Experience: Bias and Impartiality of Judges and Jurors, Wm. & Mary L. Rev. (1992).
[70] A mock trial was preformed with Lee Harvey Oswald on trial for the murder of President J.F. Kennedy. Part of the research was to identify if Oliver Stones’ JFK movie had any affect on the jurors’ decisions. This would be a criminal case, and the defense used a conspiracy theory to support the defendant’s case. Donald E. Vinson and Peter B. Freeman, Oswald Trial Illustrates Hazards of Over-Reliance on Surface Traits of Jurors in Voir Dire, Inside Litigation (Dec. 1992).
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74] There were seven jurors total that participated in the mock trial study. Donald E. Vinson and Peter B. Freeman, Oswald Trial Illustrates Hazards of Over-Reliance on Surface Traits of Jurors in Voir Dire, Inside Litigation (Dec. 1992).
[75] There cannot be a definite indication that the movie was a predominate factor in why the jury voted the way it did. The psychological concept of correlation does not prove causation. Therefore, other findings are possible. Nevertheless, a confident finding that the movie did cause the jurors to be more receptive to the defense’s position is allowable.
[76] To support the theory of the study, the jurors could have used the movie to verify a belief in the conspiracy theory.
[77] During the Oswald research, the juror was asked why he went to see the movie, JFK, and he replied it was out of curiosity. After seeing the movie, he commented that the movie did not “do a thing to my view, it didn’t change my mind, we all know Oswald did it, everyone knows he did it.” He was adamant that his verdict changed after closing arguments and had nothing to do with the movie. Donald E. Vinson and Peter B. Freeman, Oswald Trial Illustrates Hazards of Over-Reliance on Surface Traits of Jurors in Voir Dire, Inside Litigation (Dec. 1992).
[78] The lone juror was not presented with any new evidence or testimony prior to him changing his verdict. The only factor that was new was the viewing of the movie.
[79]
[80] When applying the sleeper effect the study at hand, the information acquired through the movie, JFK (the disreputable source) can become a valid source, but the source was forgotten or disregarded. In the meantime, the content of the message from the source was retained and accepted as valid. Donald E. Vinson and Peter B. Freeman, Oswald Trial Illustrates Hazards of Over-Reliance on Surface Traits of Jurors in Voir Dire, Inside Litigation (Dec. 1992).
[81]
[82] The sleeper effect deals with the subconscious state and allows subliminal messages to be remembered. Movies have been sources of subliminal content for years. Jurors could use any type of movie to help make decisions even if they do not know that they are using the movie. Diane Miller Blackwood, Sex and the Single Sociologist- Subliminal go to the Movies, 1990, at ttp://www.blackwood.org/sublim.htm#MOVIES.
[83] The jurors’ perceptions are formed from popular culture and the popular films they see. The effects help shape the jurors list of possible responses to the evidence and testimony given at trial. John Denvir, Bush's _Savage War_at http://www.usfca.edu/pj/savage_denvir.htm.
[84] A study was completed on how information from sources like movies, television, and tabloids become credible to people through the sleeper effect. After four weeks, the study resulted with the message may be cited with confidence even if the source had low-credibility. When jurors receive misleading information, the probability that they will later falsely recognize the information as true increases, especially when the source is highly credible. J. Underwood & K. Pezdek,, Memory suggestibility as an example of the sleeper effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 449-453. (1998).
[85]
[86] The sleeper effect comes to play for jurors since they forget where, when or how they took in any information and the creditability of the source. The problem is that they first accept the information too easily as information and second over time forget how the information was obtained. In the end pop culture and the pure fiction of movies is stored as knowledge. J. Underwood & K. Pezdek,,Memory suggestibility as an example of the sleeper effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 449-453. (1998).
[87] The plots of the movies fall in place like flashcards or examples when the jurors hear the evidence under the sleeper effect or what is called “slotting.” Chris Klein, Legal Reelism- Is Learning Law and Ethics from Flicks a Farce? Nat’l L. J.(Feb. 17, 1997), at http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/bios/asimow/book/review27.htm
[88] The delay increased the impact of a persuasive message. “If the discounting information precedes the message, jurors may be more disposed to counter argue with the message as they receive it, thus increasing the impact of the message.” The Institute for Trial Consulting, Social Psychology, (1999) at http://www.4trialconsulting.com/SocialPsychDirectory/Soc%20Psy%20Perf%209%20and%20Quiz%20final%20copy%20Feb%2001.doc citing to A.R. Pratkanis, M.R. Leippe, A.G. Greenwald,. & M.H Baumgardner, In Search of Reliable Persuasion Effects: III. The Sleeper Effect is Dead. Long Live the Sleeper Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218 (1988).
[89] The impact could changed the verdict either depending on what was presented in trial when compared to what movie source it is being compared.
[90] The unconscious mind sees everything in its “mind’s eye” as though it is real and occurring in the present tense. That is, it cannot distinguish reality from non-reality and only experiences what is going on at the present moment. The fact the unconscious mind absorbs unlimited information and that the conscious mind is very limited in what it can handle greatly influences the manner in which evidence is presented in trial. Howard L. Nations, Overcoming Jury Bias, (1996), at http://www.howardnations.com/overcomingjurybias/overcoming2.html.
[91] Movies can only present portions of what really occurs in the courtroom. These are usually the peaks and very interesting portions of a hearing. These scenes are what jurors as movie watchers see and learn from movies. William B. Smith & Robert J. Waldsmith, The Electronic Trial¼.Seeing is Believing!, Bar News, Washington State Bar Association (August 2002).
[92] Both the main characters in Suspect and Jury Duty (played by Dennis quad and Pauly Shore respectively) were anxious jurors that attempted to use excuses to escape jury duty.
[93] “When I was called for jury duty, I thought it would be fun and exciting, like that
[94] Movie viewers learn the roles of judges and lawyers from the hundreds of legal films that
[95] John Grisham has gone on to be recognized as one of the world's bestselling novelists. In addition to A Time to Kill and The Firm, his titles include The Pelican Brief, The Client, The Chamber, The Gingerbread Man, and The Rainmaker, each of which has been scripted into immensely successful film versions. John B. Padgett, The Mississippi Writer’s Page- John Grisham, (2004), at http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/english/ms-writers/dir/grisham_john/.
[96] The Rainmaker uses the less than perfect images of lawyers and the offensive trial tactics to build suspense and drama. The character played by Jon Voight challenges a juror during jury selection which results in a fistfight. There has never been a report between a lawyer and juror getting into a physical altercation. Patricia D. Marks, Magic in the Movies- Do Courtrooms Scene Have Real-Life Parallels?, N. Y. B. J. (June 2001).
[97]
[98] Movies have had both positive verus negative images of lawyers and the justice system over time is that there are always both positive and negative images. This was as true of the 1930s as it is today. And the reason for that is that Americans have always had a deep sense of ambivalence about lawyers and the justice system. Nevertheless, it is possible to trace the rise and fall of positive and negative images over time and its impact. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[99] A legal drama that is approximately an hour and a half long could possibly include only ten to twenty-five minutes of courtroom scenes. These scenes usually include opening or closing statements, some testimony from key characters or the verdict being announced. Therefore, jurors learn that openings statements should be summarized and completed in less than ten minutes to be entertaining and effective. William B. Smith & Robert J. Waldsmith, The Electronic Trial¼.Seeing is Believing, Bar News, Washington State Bar Association (August 2002).
[100] Jurors get their “news, politics, entertainment, and history from ‘people paid to arrange and rearrange the truth or fiction in its most ¼ convenient pose.’ ” Jurors take this education and are bias when they enter the courtroom and want things presented in quick simple packages. Annemarie Miano, Lights_ Camera_ Action_ Verdict_-A Trial Team's Responsibility to Visually Entertain Using Demonstrative Evidence, (1995) at http://www.animators.com/aal/pressarticles/demonstrative-evidence-pt2.html.
[101]
[102]
[103] Jurors learn the law from movies. See Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor, Nova Southeastern Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Feb. 7, 2003) at http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0207chase.html.
[104] Jury behavior research has concluded that movies along with widespread reporting of high salaries, celebrity lifestyles, and other things may affect the juror’s views of life and what they focus on when calculating damages for tort claims. Deborah R. Hensler, Money Talks: Searching for Justice Through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death, DePaul L. Rev. (Winter 2003).
[105]
[106]
[107] Juror bias from experience and exposure to movies is difficult to prove since there is the question of how do you test for juror bias. Also when questions are given to a possible biased juror, the juror may miscalculate or not fully understand impartiality. Martha Minow, Stripped Down Like a Runner or Enriched by Experience: Bias and Impartiality of Judges and Jurors, Wm. & Mary L. Rev. (1992).
[108] In regard to the Scott Peterson movie that aired on
[109] The law will presume that the jury’s deliberations were affected by adverse publicity in the media and movies. The exposure should be pervasive, intense, and prejudicial. 75B Am. Jur. 2d Trial §1547,
[110] In most times this applies to jurors reading publicity in headlines or articles, but the language in the cases could include movies on the based on the criminal activity of the alleged defendant. 75B Am. Jur. 2d Trial §1547; Sollars v.
[111] Annemarie Miano, supra Note at 100.
[112] From the influence of movies and television, society now demands information and entertainment in quick and convenient forms. They prefer visual displays. When information is submitted in this fashion, jurors are more likely to pay attention and remember more of what is being presented. Fred Misko Jr., Picture This_ Demonstrative Evidence, (Oct. 13, 1995), at http://www.misko.com/library/trial2000.PDF.
[113] Studies have been conducted on how people no longer read for entertainment but seek enjoyment and information through televisions and movies rather than other mediums. It has been determined that people prefer visual and colorful stimulus when being informed and entertained. Newspapers, like USA Today, use a heavy amount of color photographs and graphics for those who do still read newspapers. Annemarie Miano, J.D., Lights_ Camera_ Action_ Verdict_-A Trial Team's Responsibility to Visually Entertain Using Demonstrative Evidence, (1995) at http://www.animators.com/aal/pressarticles/demonstrative-evidence-pt2.html.
[114] Smith & Waldsmith, supra Note at 99.
[115] If jurors are presented with only oral testimony it is likely that the jurors will remember twenty percentage of the testimony. However, the influence of movies have jurors remembering eighty percent of the testimony if it was accompanied by some type of illustrative demonstrative evidence, such as graphs, pictures, motion pictures, etc. Fred Misko Jr., Picture This_ Demonstrative Evidence, (Oct. 13, 1995), at http://www.misko.com/library/trial2000.PDF.
[116] From early childhood, people and jurors have learned that they need to see evidence of what someone is trying to prove. Therefore, movies use this concept in movies and the viewers wait for the proof in the movies and in trial. Fred Misko Jr., Picture This_ Demonstrative Evidence, (Oct. 13, 1995), at http://www.misko.com/library/trial2000.PDF.
[117] “Seeing is believing and actions speak louder than words, are concepts that
[118] One of the most powerful and effective techniques used in both movies and trials is the suspension of belief. The directors and actors in Hollywood make viewers believe that there actually dinosaurs present to make the
[119]
[120] Some trial consulting work has been done for the past twenty-five years has been built on social-science research in regard to juries. There have been many misunderstandings about juries by legal professionals. Most believe that juries could not understand complex legal issues. However, jurors have been exposed to many issues and legal circumstances through movies which helps jurors to understand issues when they are presented in court. Joyce E. Tsongas & Arthur D. Mason, The Powerful and Mysterious American Jury: Common Misunderstanding by Attorneys, Judges, and the Public Bar News, Washington State Bar Association (August 2002).
[121] Trial lawyers and trial consultants spend hours planning strategies on what the jury will return as the verdict due to the mystery of juries. The mysterious jury has always been the element that the parties have always had to guess about.
[122]
[123]
[124] Recently, it has been learned that prosecutors have complained that jurors now routinely expect them to produce DNA evidence and that creates a considerable burden that they have not previously experienced. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[125] There are programs like the Innocence Project that endorses the idea that prosecutors as well as defense attorneys should rely more heavily on DNA evidence. The more knowledgeable jurors are, whether they get the information from television, movies, novels, or news programs, the better. Television Interview with Anthony Chase, Law Professor,
[126] Jurors’ ideas are being guided by movies and television, so consequently lawyers now have to make arguments and be persuasive in a familiar style that is seen in movies so that the jurors find it credible. Annemarie Miano, Lights_ Camera_ Action_ Verdict_-A Trial Team's Responsibility to Visually Entertain Using Demonstrative Evidence, (1995) at http://www.animators.com/aal/pressarticles/demonstrative-evidence-pt2.html.
[127] Litigation always involves risks. Jury profiling can help when worried about the risks of a jury or bench trial or unsure if you should settle or take your case to the jury or need a realistic appraisal of damages. Abika, Psychological Profiling can help select favorable juries and win trails and lawsuits, at http://www.abika.com/Reports/LawyersusePsychologicalprofiling.htm.
[128] Once the prospective jurors are seated, but before they are sworn, the court questions the panel. This process is known as voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to provide both counsel and the court the opportunity to assess the juror’s demeanor and to discover any bias, prejudice or other basis for dismissal. New Jersey v. Biegenwald, 126 N.J. 1, 39 (1991); New Jersey v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 280 (1969) (the fundamental basis for preliminary questioning by the court is the expedient selection of a fair and impartial jury_) cited in Lauren E. Handler & Morna L. Sweeney, Jury Selection: A Primer, New Jersey Lawyer, the Magazine (Dec. 1998).
[129] Voir dire may properly be limited to questions reasonably designed to uncover bias or prejudice harbored by individual members of the venire. Lauren E. Handler & Morna L. Sweeney, Jury Selection: A Primer,
[130] The impact of movies on jurors should be more of a concern to lawyers than any other type of publicity. Questions of recent movies should be include in voir dire but still may not be helpful since jurors may not remember what movies they have seen. Susan Young, Could movie sway jury for Peterson?, The Argus,
[131] Donnie Brasco is a motion picture retelling the steps of former FBI-agent Joe Pistone and how he went undercover as Donnie Brasco and infiltrated the Bonanno mob family from 1972 to 1981.Larry McShane, Trial shines the spotlight on last of 'real gangsters', The Seattle Times Newspaper (May 10, 2004) at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001924303_mobtrial10.html.
[132] The defense, in a rape case asked the jurors as a group on voir dire as to whether they, or their friends, or relatives they had viewed any movies or other media presentations relating to incest. A party does not have a right to voir dire on matters addressed solely to tactical use of peremptory challenges.
[133] In situations were an attorney is prosecuting a medical negligence case, it can assumed that most jurors believe that doctors do not make mistakes from what they see in movies. If the attorney simply proves that the defendant made a mistake, they will still tend to believe the stereotypes. Instead an attorney must present a synopsis to the jury in voir dire to determine if the juror can look beyond any potential bias and be impartial. Howard L. Nations, Overcoming Jury Bias, (1996), at http://www.howardnations.com/overcomingjurybias/overcoming2.html.
[134] Attorneys now use the similar movie techniques to make persuasive arguments and make jurors believe them. Annemarie Miano, J.D., Lights,Camera,Action,Verdict-A Trial Team's Responsibility to Visually Entertain Using Demonstrative Evidence, (1995) at http://www.animators.com/aal/pressarticles/demonstrative-evidence-pt2.html.
[135] In a study designed to evaluate information retention achieved by groups of people, the groups were presented with information, tested on it after three hours and then again after seventy-two hours. Those who received the information orally (telling) remembered about seventy percent after three hours and only ten percent after seventy-two hours. Those who received the information visually (showing) remembered about seventy-two percent after three hours and twenty percent after seventy-two hours. The group that received the information both orally and visually (telling and showing) remembered much better: they recalled eighty percent after three hours and sixty-five percent after seventy-two hours. Lawyers now use demonstrative evidence to be more like movies and television so that the testimony is remembered. Fred Misko Jr., Picture This_ Demonstrative Evidence, (Oct. 13, 1995), at http://www.misko.com/library/trial2000.PDF.
[136] To ensure that the jurors remember the argument by the time they begin deliberating, trial attorneys use visual demonstrative evidence to support the oral argument. Jurors have become accustomed to being entertained when informed from the influence of movies and news broadcast. Therefore, the same should occur in the courtroom. Annemarie Miano, Lights, Camera, Action, Verdict-A Trial Team's Responsibility to Visually Entertain Using Demonstrative Evidence, (1995) at http://www.animators.com/aal/pressarticles/demonstrative-evidence-pt2.html.
[137] “Many similarities exist between producing a successful movie and winning a trial. A good lawyer is like a good movie producer in that they are both good storytellers. The recipe for a good story includes themes, suspense, emotion, a few hooks and a good ending.”
[138] The “plot” details (who did what, when, where in the context of the facts that led to parties’ litigating), cast of “characters” (what part does each litigant and witness play), the sequence of events are given to the jurors by techniques of the lawyer. Jurors are comfortable accepting information and remain more attentive and interested when given information via a movie-like medium. Armed with this knowledge, an attorney should present a case in the most digestible way.
[139] “One of the most powerful and effective techniques for trial presentation and long held beliefs is to use the same technique which Steven Spielberg uses in his brilliant movie making which is suspension of belief.” Howard L. Nations, Overcoming Jury Bias, (1996), at http://www.howardnations.com/overcomingjurybias/overcoming2.html.
[140] Fred Misko, supra Note 112.
[141] Jurors are faced an extremely difficult challenge. Also, modern movies have taught jurors that opening statements should be completed in a few minutes. Therefore, lawyers have carefully crafted their opening statements that every idea and nuance can be expressed in less than twenty sentences. David W. Allen Goodell, Preparation and Trial of Tort Claims -The 2002 Practice Manual for the
[142] The important point here is that Spielberg did not try to change the public’s belief that there are no dinosaurs but only asked them to suspend the belief for two hours. The same approach can be a powerful tool in coping with jury bias. The use of suspension of belief attempts to persuade jurors from what they believe outside the courtroom from movies and news, to only think about they hear and see for the hours of the trial.
[143] Most lawyers make the mistake of talking about what occurred to their client in the past tense. However, some are using a technique that creates a situation where the unconscious mind feels as though the event is occurring immediately. Howard L. Nations, Powerful Persuasion , (1996), at http://www.howardnations.com/persuasivejuryarguments/i-a-b.html.
[144] After studies were conducted, Dr. Malandro and Lawrence J. Smith, created this flashback technique where trial attorneys can use movies and stills to create a situation where the event is simultaneously experienced by both the conscious and unconscious mind as though it is reoccurring at the moment it is being discussed.
[145] Photographs are defined for the purposes of the article of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to the contents of writings, recordings, and photographs, as including motion pictures and videotapes. Thus it is well established that motion pictures when properly authenticated and relevant to the issues in the case, are admissible in evidence, within the discretion of the trial court. Fed. R. Evid. 1001(2); Haas v Abrahamson (ED Wis) 705 F Supp 1370, affd (CA7 Wis) 910 F2d 384 (Wis ED 1989); United States v Pritchett (CA11 Ala) 908 F2d 816, 90-2 USTC 50444, 66 AFTR 2d 90-5609 (Ala 1990); United States v Cole,755 F2d 748 (SD Fla 1985).
[146] Generally speaking, the law governing the admissibility of photographs applies to motion pictures. They must be relevant to the issues and be properly authenticated before they may be introduced. Lanford v Colorado, 159 Colo 36, 409 P2d 829 (
[147] Motion pictures that illustrate any fact, shed light upon any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, place, or thing depicted are generally admissible, provided their probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.
[148] The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Rushin v. State, 502 S.E.2d 454 (Ga.1998), that the state showing an excerpt of videotape was admissible to show defendant's state of mind, despite the fact that it could place defendant's character incidentally into question.
[149] Gerald Nathaniel Rushin was found guilty by a jury of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault in connection with the fatal shooting of convenience store employee Cindy Ray Pierce. The crimes were committed on
[150] The State presented additional evidence that Rushin owned a videotape of the movie, Menace II Society and had viewed it on at least half a dozen occasions; Rushin particularly liked a character in the film named O- dog and often mentioned him; Rushin talked about how O-dog was bad and how O-dog mixed it up. A videotape of Menace II Society was admitted into evidence, and the trial court allowed the jury to view a portion of the film which included a scene depicting O-dog and his companions brutally shooting store clerks during a convenience store robbery and taking the store's surveillance videotape. The acts of “O-dog” were similar to what Rushin did. Rushin v. State, 502 S.E.2d 454 (Ga.1998).
[151] The trial court instructed the jury that its consideration of the film was for the limited purpose of any bearing on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident on trial. After viewing the movie scene, it was determined that the film had no such bearing, the jury was to totally and completely disregard it.
[152] The excerpt shown to the jury was relevant on the questions of Rushin's bent of mind as well as his “modus operandi.” Indeed, the jury may have made the inference that viewing the movie in some manner influenced Rushin to commit the brutal acts against the victim. See Rushin, citing Beasley v. State, 269
[153] The defendant, Ronnie Jack Beasley, Jr., was convicted of malice murder, armed robbery and theft by taking a motor vehicle in connection with the death of Olin Miller. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in permitting a movie, Natural Born Killers, to be admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. The movie which depicted a violent murder was introduced into evidence because defendant viewed the movie at least nineteen times, claimed that he wanted to be like the movie characters, and referred to himself as a character in the movie. Defendant argued that the movie was irrelevant and should not have been admitted. The court ruled that the movie was relevant to show defendant’s state of mind. Beasley v. State, 269
[154] Donald M. Paradis was convicted of the murder of Kimberly Palmer in
[155] Gimme Shelter (1970) is a documentary of the Rolling Stones musical group. The documentary of the Stones' 1969 tour focuses on the tragic concert at
[156] The defendant file two habeas corpus petition included in his allegations was that the jury was impartial and bias based on the viewing of the movie Gimme Shelter.
[157] The court held that allegations that a juror may have been biased against bikers and then the showing of Gimme Shelter did not impede due process. Therefore the record was correct and the jury was impartial. Paradis v. Arave, 667 F.Supp. 1361( D.
[158] In fact, as the Motion Picture Code of 1930 put it, "So long as motion pictures [are] produced, there will always be a considerable number which will deal with lawyers and courtroom scenes." Patrick M. Verrone, The Twelve Best Trial Movies, ABA Journal (Nov. 1989) at http://court.nol.org/students/movies.htm.
[159] In Search for Atticus Finch is a motivational book for trial attorneys based on the character from the movie, To Kill A Mockingbird. The book is to inspire all attorneys to be like Finch as lawyers and people. In Morris Dee’s review of the book he wrote "On a warm June night in 1966, I saw To Kill a Mockingbird. When Atticus Finch walked from the courtroom and the gallery rose in his honor, tears streamed down my face. I wanted to be that lawyer. Morris Dees, Mike Papantonio’s In Search of Atticus Finch, Seville Publishing 2000, at http://www.sevillepublishing.com/seville/pages/atticus.html
Recent News from RLF
On May 21, 2009, Attorney Danialle Riggins was a guest presenter at the Dunnellon Public Library in Dunnellon, FL. Ms. Riggins spoke on Identity Theft. She explained what it is, how to prevent it, and steps to takes it you become a victim.
On May 27, 2009, Riggins Law Firm, PA will be celebrating its First Anniversary. Thanks to all who have supported us in this adventure.
June 2009- Riggins Law Firm is proud to announce the publication of its first monthly newsletter.
On June 15, 2009, Attorney Danialle Riggins was elected to the office of Secretary for the Marion County Chapeter of Florida Association of Women Lawyers.
