The mystery, “Witness for the Prosecution”, was produced in 1957 by Arthur Hornblow, Jr. and directed by Billy Wilder. The two lead male actors were Tyrone Power as Leonard Vole and Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfrid Robarts. The lead female actor was Marlene Dietrich as Christine Helm. “Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom. The plot of “Witness for the Prosecution” takes the viewer on a rollercoaster ride as the mystery of Emily French’s, a wealthy widow, murder unfolds in the courtroom. Leonard Vole visits the office of Sir Wilfrid for legal advice because he suspects that he will be arrested and charged with Mrs. French’s murder. Consequently, Vole’s suspicion came to fruition when he was arrested minutes are voicing his concerns. Sir Wilfrid accepted Vole’s case after he consults with a fellow barrister (attorney). Christine Helm, Vole’s wife and a former actress, graces Sir Wilfrid’s office with her presence to corroborate Vole’s story confirming his alibi. During the trial, Christine is not called as a witness for the defense; however, she is called as a witness for the prosecution. The mysterious death of Emily French resulted ... ... middle of paper ... ...en of proof falling on his shoulders, Mr. Myers presented a solid case with seemingly creditable witnesses against Vole (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). Much to Mr. Myers chagrin, Sir Wildrid argued for the defense of his client and provided insight or evidence to discredit all three witnesses for the prosecution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). While “Witness for the Prosecution” was fictional, the movie yielded “whether you were lying then or are you lying now”, which is an expression frequently used in courtrooms today (Hornblow & Wilder, 1957). Works Cited Hornblow, Jr., Arthur. (Producer), & Wilder, Billy. (Director). (1957) “Witness for the Prosecution” [Motion Picture]. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. Neubauer, D. & Fradella, H. (2014). America’s Court and the Criminal Justice System (11th e.d.) Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
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...
The opening scene is a re-enactment of R v Liam Cooley. Cooley is the suspect in an armed robbery. He pleads ignorance but investigators have found the accused’s fingerprints on a pair of sunglasses in the getaway car. The prosecution’s witness is a member of the NSW Forensics Squad. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor strategically confirmed the forensics officer’s extensive expertise and the scientific validity of the methodology used. This is permissible under s 29(1) which allows parties to proceed in any manner they see fit. Here the prosecutor used the credibility gap to his advantage, as the police officer’s technical statements, “rich in detail”, were seen as legitimate.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
Lawyers should be expected to vouch for the true evidence they present in court; as long as it is legitimate and reliable. Personal connections and investments made during a trial will create an obvious bias, but intentionally seeking unreliable and tenuous evidence is immoral to the case, and is where the boundary should be drawn. In "Witness for the Prosecution", Mr. Mayherne did not do enough to support Mr. Vole's actual case, but the one he wanted to believe; going out of his way to find evidence that supported Mr. Vole's claims without actually investigating his statements in a credible manner. Mr. Mayherne should not have worked mostly on developing the evidence of the letter he rooted out of a fictitious source, but rather the evidence
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
The documentary gathered witness statements and interviews to show re-enactments throughout the film. These re-enactments changed based on what the interviewee could remember from the case. These different re-enactments showed the viewer not just verbally, but visually that the stories conflicted or were open to interpretation. Viewers being able to better conceptualize the inconsistencies in the case caused an impact on their opinions. In this way Errol Morris creates a higher definition depictive image for the visual working memory than what was being built from the propositional code viewers had of the case. With more information on the case, viewers with prior memories or knowledge of the case had a reason to question if justice was met.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly commit such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
When they pick the jury the Marshal and Samuel have a difficult time picking the jury in which that two people The Jew and Black and one is in the same cities as the victim. By the point the court start the beginning went go that the jury see a chance that Joseph might be innocent. When the other lawyer Loren Wills make a deal that can give Joseph a twenty-year sentence instead a life sentence. The Marshal believe that he shouldn’t if he innocent. Because they Joseph one witness the Police officer when he
Witness for the Prosecution has been a critically-acclaimed film ever since its release, and it could be argued much of its success comes from the stellar performance of Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts, a lawyer with a high success rate and an even higher level of ego. Audience members laughed at his jokes, no matter how demeaning they might have been to their targets, and they also held their breath in anticipation for him to discover the truth about his client's case. The acting style of Charles Laughton and the development of the character himself added to the crowd's desire to see if the lawyer would uncover the right evidence to win his trial. Aristotle himself would have been invested in Sir Robarts' case and how he handles it
Jain, M. (2001). Mitigating the Dangers of Capital Convictions Based on Eyewitness Testimony Through Treason's Two-Witness Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 761-790.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
then listening to the girlfriend trying to get the victim to “stay with her” as the victim was gasping and gurgling. It was horrifying, but very interesting to me as well. The defendant ran off and was later caught in a high-speed chase in Savannah. His defense is trying to say it was self-defense because she came after him, honestly I can’t believe they are going with this because on the audio recording she was telling him to leave for about 15 minutes, then she said “what are you doing, what do you have in your pocket?” Then screams, there was no tussling or physical sounds heard, just voices. After opening statements there were many witnesses called, the director of the Victim Witness program in Fulton County, the Chief Medical Examiner
(P2) In the short story “Witness for the Prosecution”, Mr. Mayherne, a lawyer defending a man accused of first degree murder (Leonard Vole), gets a guilty man off free. Mr. Mayherne is persuaded by Leonard and convinces himself that he IS innocent. He seems to become completely blind to the actual facts.
In the present times when a criminal trial is marked by hostile witnesses and protracted trials thereby defeating the ends of justice, it becomes necessary to reconsider the laws regarding witness protection in our country. The witness in a criminal trial is intimidated by the criminals resulting in ever increasing trend of witnesses turning hostile. The great thinker Bentham said that witnesses are the eyes and ear of justice. It is for this reason that when a witness is called in for deposing before the court, it is expected that he/she would depose without any fear. However, in the present times of politicization of crime and frequent in intimidation of the witnesses, the witnesses do not feel safe. It is for this reason that they would either turn hostile in the middle of a trial or may not even come forward to depose before the court. This situation is alarming for the reason that it frustrated the very purpose of a criminal trial as a criminal trial is to find out whether the charge imposed upon the accused by the prosecution is true or not, which in the absence of a true witness is compromised. In such a case the end result of the trial may be something which may not be