Presumed Innocent is a 1990 film adaptation of the novel written by Scott Turow. Presumed Innocent depicts a courtroom drama where the courtroom is the focus point of the plot. Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford) is the main character of the film who is a prosecutor that is charged with the murder of his co-worker and ex lover. As the film unfolds, the viewer sees courtroom participants acting in an unethical matter and how this hurts them in the end. Rusty Sabich has to prove his innocence while trying to solve the murder of the woman he had a romantic history with. Rusty Sabich is a prosecuting attorney who works for Raymond Horgan (Brian Dennehy), also a prosecuting attorney in the same law firm. Before Rusty Sabich is accused of the murder of …show more content…
According to Schmalleger, these responsibilities entail “...represent the accused at trial, to present evidence in the defendant’s favor, to cross examine witnesses...” (2013). Sandy Stern during the trial cross examines Raymond Horgan and Dr. Kumagai (Sab Shimono). When cross-examining, Sandy Stern receives information that is going to help prove Rusty Sabich is innocent and there is unlawful actions taking place by certain courtroom participants. Sandy Stern discusses the disappearance of the glass and if it really did exist. He also states that the phone calls that took place between Rusty Sabich and Carolyn Polhemus could have been strictly for work. Sandy Stern questions multiple statements of the prosecution’s case. Sandy Stern gathers the information he needs from his cross examinations. Cross examining allows him to ask witnesses question that help his case. He fulfills his job of trying to prove his clients innocent and refute statements made against Rusty …show more content…
According to an article on TheScriptLab, it states, “Courtroom drama film uses the justice system as a main component of the plot. The story usually unfolds inside a courtroom with the prosecutor, judge, jury, and the defense” (Drama, n.d.). It being a drama and a movie, the directors main priority is to keep viewers interested. By making it interesting, specifics pertaining to how a trial takes place, may not be accurate. The author states that “Courtroom drama buffs will recognize the familiar elements and characters - overmatched prosecutors, dramatic last-minute confessions, trusty investigators...” (Thompson, 1990.). Courtroom drama is a genre that truly tests the idea of reality versus media. This portrayal of how an incident would play out in reality versus media is seen in Presumed
He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
In this case, Vinny had to learn as he goes because he had never been in a real trial hearing before. Vinny was a personal injury lawyer in New York. During this case there were three eye witness saying that Bill and Stan were the criminals, who murdered
Imagine a murderer walking down the road beside you and you don’t even know it. The average person will walk by a murderer and not even know it 36 times in their lifetime (Qin). Serial is a 12 episode podcast given by Sarah Koenig. Sarahs purpose is to give evidence to prove Adnan Syed innocent in the murder of Hae Min Lee. Hae was one of the people murdered in 1999. 14,196 people are murdered each year in the United States alone. Adnan Syed is the murder and currently serving his time in jail, for life.
...r as if they were in the courtroom of a murder trial. In some ways, the use of advanced diction could cause problems for the reader to comprehend it, however the author has worked in small descriptions of what some of the more advanced judiciary terms are. Finally, the author uses a very advanced characterization of virtually all the characters mentioned within the story, from the mature and well-respected Theodore Boone to the every-so opinionated office secretary Elsa. Without a doubt, Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer entices the reader into the mystery that is will Mr. Duffy be proved innocent or guilty? John Grisham does a great job into hooking the reader into wanting more of this eye-opening crime and drama novel.
Morris opens the film by juxtaposing the narratives by the participants in the interviews in order to show Adams’ innocent and Harris’ guilt. The beginning of the film introduces two people that one was believably wrongly convicted and the other was suspiciously a real murderer. Adams who was criminally convicted is interviewed with a white shirt. He narrates his life all the way from Ohio to end up getting a job in Dallas. By showing Adams on the white shirt, Morris tells us Adams’ innocence and proposes our...
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the play, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to a be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City.
This conveyed the central messages better than the play because in the play you had to envision in your mind (with a bit of imagination) the scene and the juror. In the movie, you could clearly see the situation and actors laid out for you. The actors were able to pack a punch and help you really experience the situation first-hand. People in their everyday lives, face peer pressure and often follow the crowd. It just takes one person to make a difference. It’s easier to stand along side one person rather than alone. By demonstrating the courage to do so you will also earn the respect of others around you. Its important to respect people for who they are in the present, and not who they were in the
At first, Juror 3 appears to be a successful businessman who owns a messenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and unhappy man. He wants to base the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial. Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all other evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the others. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
Steve Harmon was accused of felony murder of Alguinado Nesbitt, a drugstore owner that was killed on December 22 of last year. After the murder, Steve kept telling himself that he was a monster and that he doesn’t know who he is anymore. The nickname monster came from the prosecutor of the state Ms.Petrocelli. To help him cope with the situation that he is in, he starts to write a screenplay about what is going on in the trial. In the trial the jury is already accusing him for the murder of Nesbitt.
Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecuting lawyer and is good. She is pushing for the death penalty. She states that everyone involved in the crime is equally guilty including the one who wrestled for the gun, the robber and the two lookouts. She is trying to prove that Steve knew and associated with the two robbers who are bad characters.
Throughout time the weak and innocent are often picked on for many reasons this is best explained by Atticus, “It is a sin to kill a mocking bird.”. The central idea of this book is not to prey on the innocent and harmless because they are often misunderstood. This idea is illustrated, and developed through many different characters such as Boo Radley, Scout, and Tom Robison all harmless characters, but misunderstood like the mockingbird.
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and now can better understand and relate.
He is a stubborn man and furious most of the time unlike jury number eight who is calm. He has a relationship problem with his son and wreaks his anger and feeling toward his son to the defendant. He fight furiously that the defendant is guilty from the start, even until everyone else already think that the boy is not guilty. In the end he realizes that he only insists that the boy is guilty because of his own anger and disappointment toward his son. He is stuck in his own prejudice. In the end he changes his verdict to not
The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror