My Cousin Vinny

I. Synopsis:

Bill and Stanley are two friends from New York University who just received
scholarships to UCLA. They decided to drive to the South. When they
arrived in Alabama, they stopped in a local grocery store to pick up a few
snacks. But, no sooner than they leave the store, they are arrested. They
thought they were arrested for shoplifting, but they were arrested for
murder and robbery. They were facing execution of these crimes. They do
not have enough money for a lawyer so they opted to get Bill's cousin,
Vinny. Vinny is an inexperienced lawyer who has never been to trial. Vinny
defended Bill and Stanley before the court of Alabama, which was presided
by Judge Chamberlain. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses to
prove their case but Vinny was able to discredit the witnesses’ testimonies.
The prosecution upon showing that they were not the real offenders
withdrew the case of murder against Bill and Stanley.

Court Scene:
At the Judge Chamberlain’s chamber, the Judge asked Vinny few questions
to determine Vinny’s competence to try murder case before his court and
Vinny was conditionally approved while Judge Chamberlain verifies Vinny’s
records.

At the arraignment, Judge Chamberlain asked the accused of their plea but
Vinny kept on explaining that the two students did not commit the murder
until he was cited of contempt of court. Judge Chamberlain also castigated
Vinny for being ignorant of the proper decorum of the court and for not
wearing the proper court attire.

At the pre-trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses and their
testimonies as follow:
Witness 1: She heard two loud bangs like firecrackers and when she
looked up, she saw two young men running out from the convenience store
and rode their convertible car and drove away in a hurry. She also identified
a picture showing the car and identified the two accused inside the
courtroom.

Witness 2: He was making a breakfast when he heard gunshots and saw

two boys running out, got into the car and drove off. He also identified a
picture showing the car.

Witness 3: He saw two boys ran out of the Sac-O-Suds, jumped in the car
and took off. He also identified a picture showing the car.

Witness 4: He took the confession of Bill, which says, “I shot the clerk”, “I
shot the clerk”.
Judge Chamberlain found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial and cited
Vinny of contempt for not wearing proper court attire.

At the courtroom, the jurors were selected. And at the Judge chamber,
Judge Chamberlain told Vinny that he has no records at all and Vinny said
that he was known as Jerry Gallo.

At the trial, Vinny was late and wearing a red coat. The prosecutor made
his opening statement which states that the State will prove that the two
boys, Bill and Stanley, robbed the convenience store, shot to death the
clerk and ran off with their convertible car. Vinny made his opening
statement which states that the prosecution’s opening statement was
bullshit and which was later on stricken out of the record. The public
defender made his opening statement, in a very nervous fashion, which
states that Stanley did go to the convenience store but Stanley did not kill
anyone.

The prosecution presented the same four (4) witnesses during the pre-trial
at the trial and testified about the same facts. Vinny cross examined the
four (4) witnesses as follow:

Vinny: Is it possible that you saw two different persons, who went to the
convenience store, robbed it and shot the clerk?
Witness 1: No, they had not enough time.
Vinny: You said you were making your breakfast when you heard
gunshots? So how could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it
takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?
Witness 1: I am a fast cook, I guess.
Vinny: Are you sure about that five (5) minutes?
Witness 1: I may have been mistaken.

Vinny: Showed pictures of the witness’ dirty window, crud-covered screen,

trees with leaves and bushes to the latter. Is it possible that you only saw
two guys in a green convertible car and not necessarily Bill and Stanley?
Witness 2: I suppose.

Vinny: Are you wearing your eyeglasses?

Witness 3: Yes, I was.
Vinny: How far the defendants from you when you saw them entered the
convenience store?
Witness 3: A hundred feet.
Vinny: Rolled a measurement equipment measuring fifty (50) feet from the
witness. How many fingers am I holding up?
Witness 3: Four.

Witness 5: I’m a special automotive instructor of forensic studies for the

Federal Bureau of Investigation for eighteen (18) years.
Vinny asked Judge Chamberlain to approach and said that the defense
was not given notice about the witness and asked that the witness be not to
let to testify. Judge Chamberlain overruled Vinny’s objection.

Witness 5: The tires, which left marks in the crime scene are identical with
the tires of the car of the defendants.

The court took a recess and Judge Chamberlain asked Vinny to his
chamber and said to Vinny that you’re a dead man. Vinny explained that his
name is not Jerry Gallo but Jerry Callo and Judge Chamberlain tried to
verify it immediately but the clerk of court will call back until three (3) in that
afternoon.

Vinny: What are the most popular tire and the most popular size sold in the
United States?
Witness 5: The Michelin XGV and 75-R14, which are the same in the
defendant’s car.

Vinny asked for a recess, which was granted. Vinny then asked the sheriff
to verify something. Vinny asked Mona Lisa as a rebuttal witness. The
prosecution voir dire Ms. Mona Lisa and was approved as an expert
witness about cars.

Mona Lisa: She said that tire marks were not made by a ’64 Buick Skylark
but made by 1963 Pontiac Tempest instead. And further explained that the
equal-length tire marks had positraction, which was not available on the ’64
Buick Skylark and which makes one tire spins but the other tire does
nothing.

Vinny called again the FBI to testify about the correctness of the testimony
of Mona Lisa and he conceded. And Vinny also called the chief of police
and made testify that the suspects of the murder were caught together with
the murder weapon, which led to the prosecution to withdraw the charges.

Lessons Learned:

Kramer v. Kramer

Synopsis:
The movie is about the a case filed by Joanna against Ted for the custody
of the their child, Billy. Joanna left Ted and Billy for personal reasons such
as achieving her dreams because since she got married all she did was to
take care of Ted and their son, Billy at home. Meanwhile, Ted was given a
large account for advertising to handle and he was being pressured by his
superior not to mess it up. The day started between Ted and Billy by
making a breakfast together. Ted brought Billy to the school and entered
work. At first, everything seemed not to be right without Joanna in the
house but later on, Ted and Billy became more close to each other. One
time, Ted saw Joanna across the school of Billy. Joanna saw Billy
accidentally fell while playing in the playground. And so Ted and Joanna
met up and Joanna told to Ted that she missed Billy and wanted the
custody of the child so Ted got furious. Ted got a lawyer to retain his
custody over Billy. And in order to win the custody case, Ted must have
sufficient financial capability and must show that he can take care of Ted
more than Joanna. However, Ted was fired from work because his work
was being adversely affected by his family affairs. So Ted tried to find a
work immediately and accepted a job despite the drastically decrease in
pay. Trials ensued and Ted lost the custody case but Joanna conceded and
gave back Billy to Ted.

Court Scene:
At the trial, the first plaintiff’s witness was Joanna and she testified that she
was unhappy during the marriage. She became inferior to herself and so
she left. She undergone a therapy and found her self-confidence again.
The plaintiff’s counsel formally offered the report of Joanna’s doctor and it
was objected for being irrelevant but it was overruled. Joanna added that
Billy for being a seven-year-old boy needed her more and that she had
performed her role for more than five years as a parent. On cross-
examination, Joanna testified that Ted did not lack anything as a husband.
Defense counsel also asked if how long Joanna intend to live in New York
and she answered permanently. Defense counsel added how many
boyfriends Joanna had permanently and it was objected for being vague
but it was overruled. The defense counsel has showed that Joanna never
done anything that was stable.

The defense presented Mrs. Phelps and she testified how responsible Ted
is. On cross-examination, the she testified that Joanna was unhappy with
Ted and Ted lacked the capability to take care of his son that caused injury
to Billy.

Ted took the witness stand and testified how his relationship with his son,
Billy, had gone far better now. On cross-examination, Ted testified that he
got fired and had accepted a job with a lesser pay. Ted testified also that he
was negligent when Billy got injured. The judge ordered the custody of Billy
in favor of Joanna.

Lessons Learned:

12 Angry Men

Synopsis:

The movie focuses on a jury's deliberation in a capital murder case. A 12-

man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first degree murder trial of an
18 year old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, were a guilty
verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be an
open-and-shut: the defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have
lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard the
screaming; saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors
immediately voted guilty, only one juror no. 8 (Mr. Davis) cast a not guilty
vote.
The movie is about the trial of a kid charged with murder in the first degree
or premeditated murder with a mandatory penalty of death. Now the trial
just concluded and it was up to the jurors to come up with a verdict. The
juror had deliberation until everyone was convinced that the guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Scene:
At the jurors' room, the jurors decided to make a preliminary vote and the
result was 11 guilty and 1 not guilty, which was voted by juror no. 8. All
others got disappointed and asked what to do next and juror no. 8 told
them, here's where discussion of the case must be ensued.

Juror no. 8 started discussing the facts of the case and stating that the kid
was just 18 years old and born from a poor family and place, who
experienced pure hardships from his father.

The other jurors then started stating their reasons why they voted guilty and
to convince juror no. 8 to change his mind. Juror no.1 stated that the kid
was guilty because no evidence showing his innocence and Juror no. 8
rebutted it by stating that the burden of proof was on the prosecution.

Juror no. 2 stated his reason based on the facts that the old man residing
below the apartment of the kid and his father has heard the kid yelled that
the kid is going to kill his father then later on, the latter fell into the floor and
died. And the old man ran to the door which was 43 feet away from his
bedroom and saw the kid ran from the apartment but it was later on again
refuted as they re-enact how fast the old man can walk.

Juror no. 3 stated that the alibi of the kid was weak for lack of substantial
evidence. Meanwhile, Juror no. 10 gave his opinion and stated that the
woman across the apartment testified that he saw the kid and his father at
the time of killing but it was later on refuted because at that time it was
dark, there was a passing train and the woman had a mark showing she
wore eyeglass, which gave the other Jurors reasonable doubt in their mind.
Juror no. 5 passed.

Juror no. 6 based his decision on motive to kill the father. Juror no. 8
intervened and stated that most of the testimonial evidence was
circumstantial. Juror no. 7 stated that the boy's record was full of criminal
record at young age but Juror no. 8 stated that the child experienced abuse
from his father at young age.
One juror then recalled everyone about the facts, that his father provoked
the kid by punching him and later on the kid bought a swift knife, which was
identified as the murder weapon then Juror no. 8 showed the same swift
knife he bought.

After all that commotion, the jurors made another votes and it resulted to 1
not guilty, 10 guilty and 1 abstain. So the discussion started again.
Everyone now participated to the discussion and reenactment of the facts.
So the votes went to even, 6 guilty and 6 not guilty.

Now one Juror mentioned about the downward slope of the stab wound.
And another juror showed how a swift knife is used and everyone was
having now a doubt. Now the votes are 9 not guilty and 3 guilty.

One Juror stood up and made a statement about how dangerous people
born from slum and everyone showed protest by leaving the table and
showed disinterest to listen. Juror no. 8 made a statement about
reasonable doubt. So one of three Jurors who voted guilty stated that the
girl's testimony was unshakable but it was refuted after all. Then, the votes
become 11 not guilty and 1 guilty. Philadelphia

Synopsis:
Andrew was an employee of Wyant and Wheeler Law Firm. The firm will be
representing a big time company and Andrew was chosen to represent the
said company but an unfortunate incident happened, the complaint
prepared by Andrew was lost. Andrew’s ill also was getting worse. One day,
Andrew went to Miller’s office to ask the latter to represent him in a case
against his former employer, Wyant and Wheeler Law Firm, for a wrongful
termination. The two came up with the idea that Andrew was fired because
the partners found out that Andrew has Aids instead. And they found a
decision of the Federal Supreme Court to support their case stating that
Aids is one of the handicapped that tried to be protected by the State
against discrimination regarding employment because Aids makes one
individual’s social status dead. The jurors decided in favor of Andrew by 11-
1 votes out of the 12 jurors and awarded damages such as backpay,
mental anguish and humiliation, and punitive damages. Meanwhile, Andrew
was confined at the hospital because he’s condition got worst. Mr. Miller
went to visit and tell Andrew about the good news and on that very same
night, Andrew died.

Court Scene:
At the pre-trial, Miller made his opening statement, which states that
Andrew was fired because his employer, despite Andrew’s concealment of
his ill, discovered his ill and as most of the people would do, they would
want to get rid of it as soon as possible. While the defense's counsel
claimed that Andrew was fired because of his flagrantly incompetent at
work and the firm had no knowledge of Andrew’s ill.
At the trial, Miller called a former client of Andrew to establish the
competence of Andrew regarding his work but the witness changed his
answer at the witness stand as when he was deposed.

Ms. Benedict, who is an employee of the firm and has aids, testified how
she is being treated in the firm and she added that, one partner always
says, “Oh god, here’s come again the girl with Aids.” When she was cross
examined, she testified that she got infected by blood transfusion.

Ms. Burton, testified that she noticed that there’s something wrong with
Andrew like he’s ill and Mr. Wheeler, sometimes, makes statements of
discrimination about her. When she was cross examined, she testified that
she got promoted in the firm.

Ms. O’hara testified regarding the missing complaint and how Andrew kept
on screaming that day like a freak. Then later Jamey came in with the
complaint in his hand and said it was in the central files. When she was
cross examined, she testified that Andrew was a good boss and that there
was never been a problem with the quality of work of Andrew.

Mr. Collin, a colleague of Andrew at the firm, testified that they had lawyers
in the firm with different kind of illness and they were not fired for those
causes and that he has nothing to do with the file being misplaced. Mr.
Miller also asked if Mr. Collin is a homosexual and explained to the court
that the case is not just about aids but also about homosexual.

Mr. Walter Kenton, a senior partner, testified that they had one homosexual
like that and taught him a lesson. He also testified that he was not avoiding
people with aids who contracted it through no fault on their own but he only
have sympathy.

Andrew took the witness stand and testified that the firm aggressively
recruited him and his dream is to be one of the great lawyers of the firm like
its current partners. Then one day, the firm’s partners were making a joke
about homosexual, Andrew felt relieved for not telling them that he was a
gay. Andrew added that he loves to practice law and to see to it that justice
is being served. On cross examination, Andrew testified that he cheated to
his partner. In addition, the defense showed the absence of lesion on
Andrew’s face. On re-direct cross examination, Miller showed to everybody
what the lesion looked like located at the torso of Andrew.

The defense called Mr. Wheeler to testify. Mr. Wheeler testified that the firm
recruited Andrew because of his promising potentials; however, it never
became a reality so the firm had no choice but to let go of him and not
because Andrew had Aids. On cross examination, Mr. Wheeler testified that
he’s not a gay and that Andrew violated rules and he works only when he
wanted to.

Andrew’s condition got worst and blacked out. Andrew was brought to the
hospital.

Then the next witness, Mr. Seidman, another senior partner from the firm,
testified that he had suspected Andrew had aids and on cross examination,
he testified that he did not share such suspicion with other senior partners.

At the jury room, the jurors discussed whether or not Andrew Beckett was a
good lawyer that the firm would give Andrew an important case? So the jury
answered in affirmative and decided in favor of Andrew.

Lessons Learned:

2 voted guilty and he kept on repeating the facts he wrote and every kept
on listening and staring at him until Juror no. 2 changed his vote to not
guilty. And so the kid was acquitted.

Lessons Learned:

Rule of Engagement

Synopsis:
The movie is about the trial of Col. Terry Childers for murder and violation
of rules of engagement in Yemen. Col. Childers was assigned to a mission
to check the situation of the embassy in Yemen and was given an order
that if the situation permits, he shall evacuate the Ambassador and engage
in combat if necessary. So because of the crowd hostility, Col. Childers
ordered to engage. The news, however, reported that the US military killed
innocent civilians who were unarmed. Col. Hayes Hodges was asked by
Col. Childers to handle his case and he did. Trials ensued and the jury
found Col. Childers not guilty of the crimes charged.

Court Scene:
At the pre-trial, the prosecution presented a picture of the people that were
killed which allegedly unarmed. And Col. Hodges, representing the
defense, stated that Col. Childers did what he had to do to save the lives of
the marines under his command.

At the trial, the prosecution called Ambassador Mourain and he testified

that when Col. Childers arrived in the premise, the latter prevented him
from pursuing a peaceful solution with the people who was assembled in
front of the embassy. Upon cross-examination, Col. Hodges showed a
picture, which was identified by the Ambassador as an accurate
representation of what it depicts. Col. Hodges asked if the camera was
operational and if it was recorded and where’s the tape but the
Ambassador answered if there was an undamaged tape he would have
brought it to the US State Department. Col. Hodges also asked if the
Ambassador brought home the American flag and if it were shot to shreds
and the Ambassador answered in affirmative.
Captain Lee, who were in command of the TRAP team in Yemen, testified
that Col. Childers ordered him to engage when Sergeant Krasevitch, who
was in charge of scouting, was shot dead. The prosecution asked if they
engaged to open fire to the wrong people who were unarmed but it was
objected for being speculative which was sustained. Upon cross-
examination, Col. Hodges asked the witness if Captain Lee believed that
the order was lawful and he answered in affirmative, otherwise, Captain
Lee may properly disobey. Captain Lee also added that after they open fire,
the snipers across the way also went off. Col. Hodges asked if Col.
Childers retrieved the American flag under heavy fire and Captain Lee
answered in affirmative. On redirect, the prosecution asked if Captain Lee
could see if the crowd was firing and if there’s no doubt that the snipers
were firing and Captain Lee answered yes.

Dr. Ahmar testified that his clinic was near where the incident occurred and
that he found no guns anywhere near the body of any people in the crowd
who were shot dead. He added that Yemen was not a training ground for
terrorist. On cross-examination, Col. Hodges asked Dr. Ahmar to identify a
cassette tape he found under the floor of his clinic, which was properly
identified. Then Col. Hodges asked Dr. Ahmar to translate what the voice
was saying from the cassette tape and Dr. Ahmar stated that their duty was
to kill all Americans.

The next witness, the National Security Advisor Bill Sokal, identified and
read the contents of a letter sent to him by Ambassador Mourain regarding
the severity of the situation in Yemen. Col. Hodges asked if there were
cameras mounted at the top of the embassy to monitor the activities of the
crowd in front the embassy and where’s the tape and in support, Col.
Hodges presented a shipping manifest or document that there’s a tape sent
to the US State Department but Sokal denied receiving anything. Col.
Hodges asked again if where’s the tape but it was objected because it was
already answered.

Col. Childers took the witness stand and he testified that the people in the
crowd were armed and firing at them, however, he was the only person
who can see that because Krasevitch was killed in action who was also in
the observation post. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked if Col.
Childers killed an unarmed person and he answered in negative. Then the
prosecution was able to show that Col. Childers violated the rules of
engagement and that he had to repeat his orders to Captain Lee to
engage.

The prosecution called Colonel Bin Le Cao, who was then a prisoner of
war, who Col. Childers released at the battle of Ca Lu, as a rebuttal
witness. Col. Cao testified that Col. Childers killed one of his men who was
unarmed in exchange for his release for calling off his men ambushing Col.
Hodges’ team. On cross-examination, however, Col. Cao testified that he
would have done the same thing if the situation has been reversed.
The prosecution made its closing statement, which states that the facts
have showed that Col. Childers was capable of killing an unarmed person
as well as to order his men to slaughter an unarmed crowd. Col. Hodges on
the other hand stated that Col. Childers returned fire to save the lives of the
marines under his command and he was just following the orders to him.
He added that without presenting the tape showing what was the crowd
were doing; Col. Childers couldn’t be proven guilty of the crime beyond
reasonable doubt. The jury found Col. Childers not guilty.

Lessons Learned:

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Synopsis:

Erin Brockovich, a former beauty queen, is a single mother of three.

The film begins with her sitting in a job interview with a doctor. She does
not have actual medical training so she fails to qualify for the post. After the
failed interview, she smokes a cigarette, gets in her car and speeds off and
gets hit by a black jaguar. For a personal injury case, she is represented by
Ed Masry of the Masry and Vititoe Law Firm. Hoping that she will be
indemnified, her case lost. Down on her luck, Erin looks for a job to be able
to at least pay her bills but nothing comes up. She then coerces her way
into an employment in Ed Masry’s firm.
A pro bono case in real estate arrives in Masry’s firm. Erin realizes
that various medical information are included in these real estate files and
decides to investigate as to the reason of the inclusion. As her investigation
progresses, Erin uncovers that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are offering to
buy the properties of the folks living near its plant in Hinkley, California. Erin
drives to Hinkley and interviews the people whom PG&E had offered to
purchase their houses with. The Jensens, one of the families living in
Hinkley, disclosed that the reason behind PG&E’s offer might be the
presence of chromium 6 in their water which may be the reason behind
their diseases. Later, Erin learns from a UCLA professor that chromium 6 is
added to water as an anti-corrosive and that certain levels of chromium 6
contamination can cause all kinds of diseases which may even be fatal. On
the professor's recommendation, Erin goes to the Lahontan Regional Water
Board, which serves Hinkley. Here, she is able to browse through hundreds
of old records and uncovers a cleanup and abatement order to PG&E to
remove hexavelent chromium because it is contaminating groundwater
over a large area. Soon, a lawsuit is filed against PG&E not because of
their offer in purchasing the houses of the folks living near its plant but for
the act of contaminating the water which supplied the area thus causing the
diseases of the people living in that area. Ed and Erin then go to Hinkley,
meet with other residents and inform them that his firm will represent them
against PG&E. Erin then interviews several other families with serious
illnesses, hoping to add more families to the claim. Ed, who is close to
retirement age, begins to worry about battling a giant company like PG&E,
knowing that they could keep him in court, at great expense, for years, he
is willing to continue, if Erin can produce significant evidence. Erin then
collects water samples around Hinkley. Nine months later, Ed and Erin
attend a community picnic in Hinkley, seeking to add more names to their
growing list of four hundred and eleven plaintiffs.
The legal counsels of PG&E submits a motion to strike the claim, the
judge rules in favor of the residents and reprimands PG&E's lawyers, who
later offer Ed and Erin a twenty-million dollar settlement, which they
refused.
Due to the massive importance and possible repercussions of the
case, Ed engages the help of Kurt Potter, an expert in toxic cases. Several
months later, the case has now acquired six hundred thirty four plaintiffs
against PG&E. Kurt Potter devised a legal strategy which led them to an
out of court arbitration. Erin, angered by this, reminded Ed that the plaintiffs
are expecting a trial. Kurt tells Ed that they must establish that the PG&E
head office knew that the water was bad prior to 1987 and did nothing
about it. In order to use the binding arbitration strategy, it is necessary that
ninety percent of the plaintiffs agree to it, so Ed addresses a meeting at the
Hinkley community center and eventually convinces almost everyone that
this is their best chance to get money needed to meet ongoing medical
expenses. However, they are still about two hundred and fifty signatures
short, so Erin stays in a nearby motel and goes door-to-door, seeking the
additional signatures. As the film progresses, Erin was able to acquire all
six hundred thirty four signatures. At a bar, Erin came across Charles
Embry who used to work in PG&E. Charles discloses to Erin that he was
directed to destroy documents in PG&E. These documents included
incriminating memos from the PG&E head office to the Hinkley plant.
The latter part of the film shows Erin on the way to the Jensens. Erin
then tells Donna Jensen the news that the judge has ruled that PG&E will
pay the plaintiffs three hundred and thirty-three million dollars and five
million of that amount will be allocated to the Jensens.

Court Scene/ Presentation of Evidence:

As to the acquisition of evidence, in addition to the water samples

taken by Erin in the PG&E plant, the most important piece of evidence
taken are the testimonies of the plaintiffs themselves regarding their
diseases and the offer of PG&E to purchase their houses in an attempt to
cover a possible lawsuit emanating from its act of contaminating the
groundwater in the Hinkley area. The testimonies of the plaintiffs, all six
hundred thirty four of them, are the most incriminating piece of evidence
which eventually led to a decision against PG&E.

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE

SUMMARY: This is a movie about an exorcism that went wrong. Father
Richard Moore was charged of negligent homicide for the death of Emily
Rose. He was represented by Erin Bruner, an agnostic. The prosecution
based their allegation on the fact that Emily’s death was caused primarily
due to the shutdown of her body effects secondary to her condition of
“psychotic epilepsy” and malnutrition. The State as corroborated by their
witness neurologist opined that Emily’s condition is rarely fatal and could
have been controlled by taking the drug Gambutrol. The defense relied on
narratives given by Emily’s family and boyfriend. Bruner also called an
expert witness in anthropology and psychiatry in order to create the
possibility that the possession of Emily is real and that could have led to
her demise. Despite such efforts, the defense is losing the case. The
defense then presented a recording in court which showed the events that
happened the night when Emily was exorcised, but such tape was
successfully rebutted by the prosecution. A doctor who had firsthand
experience of the exorcism appeared and told the defense that he was
willing to testify that the case of Emily was not epilepsy however, before he
could be presented, he died in an accident. In the end, Bruner called father
Moore in the witness stand where father Moore read a letter that was
written by Emily herself. Father Moore was found guilty but the sentence
given to him was “sentenced served” so he was set free.
APPLICATION: One of the rules of evidence applicable in this movies is
that of expert witnesses. It shows that an expert witness may be presented
to rebut an expert witness of the other party. The defense presented an
expert witness to give her opinion on the defense’s alternative explanation
which is exorcism
Another rule applicable as found in the movie are hearsay evidences.
In hearsay evidences, one cannot testify as to an opinion regarding a
subject matter. However, if such opinion comes from an expert witness in
giving his expert testimony or take in the fact in dispute, it may be
admissible as part of his expert testimony.
 Leading questions are also presented in the movie. The counsels
cannot ask questions which are putting the answers they want to hear into
the mouth a witness.
Authentication of object evidences is also introduced in the movie.
The recording that was presented in court was authenticated by father
Moore because he was the one who recorded the happening during the
night of the exorcism. This object evidence may also be documentary
evidence because the court may be interested in what is in the tape
recorder

THE RAINMAKER
SUMMARY: This movie is about Rudy Balyor, a law graduate who entered
in to the law firm of “Bruiser” in search for a job while he is reviewing for the
upcoming Bar exams. His job in the firm is to sign-up potential clients in
need of legal services. He was given a case regarding an insurance claim
against Great Claim of the son of Dot and Buddy Black named Donny Ray
who is dying of Leukemia. He was aided by the services of Deck Shifflet, n
expert in handling insurance cases. When the firm was closed because of
some illegal causes, Rudy in Shifflet decided to practice themselves. Rudy
eventually passed the Bar and is now up against a large law firm headed
by Leo F. Drummond who is representing Great Claim. During the case
Rudy meets Kelly Riker, a battered wife, while searching for clients in the
hospital and eventually falls for her. The trial for the insurance claim
commenced and Rudy was showing some signs of inexperience because
this is his first trial. Donny Ray however, died before the case came to a
conclusion. Rudy then secured a witness who is a former employee of
Great Claim and who testified that they were required to deny all claims at
the get go but was later successfully rebutted by the defense by destroying
the credibility of the witness. Nevertheless, during the cross examination of
the president of Great Claim he was able to prove that Donny was really
entitled to the claim. Rudy won the case but Great Benefit immediately
declared itself bankrupt in order to avoid paying the damages awarded in
the case. In the end, Rudy decided to teach law rather than to practice it.
APPLICATION: Impeachment of witnesses is one of the concepts of
evidence showed in this movie. Leo, the counsel of Great Benefit destroyed
the credibility of the former employee who appeared as witness for the
Rudy and demanded that her testimony be stricken in the record. In cross-
examinations, it is up to the counsel to disprove the statements made by a
witness or destroy the character of the witness in order to question the
credibility of the witness.
In the movie, Rudy presented a manual of the employees of Great
Benefit which was later on regarded as stolen documents and are
inadmissible. In relation to Philippine application of illegally acquired
evidences, the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree comes into mind.
According to this doctrine, all evidences that acquired in illegal manner, for
example, seizure without a search warrant, is inadmissible as evidence. In
the movie however, such evidence was later on admitted to be admissible
because of a ruling that stolen evidences may be permitted to be presented
if such evidence was acquired without part of the counsel.

The Client (1994)

Synopsis:

Eleven year old Mark Sway and his little brother Ricky lives with their
mother Dianne in a beat up trailer in New Orleans, Louisiana. The film
commences with a scene portraying the typical domestic life of the Sway
family. Mark’s mother, Dianne, looks like a washed up lady as she prepares
to go to work. Inside her bag is a pack of cigarettes which Mark took
interest in. As Dianne is looking around the house for bus fare, Mark
surreptitiously took a stick or two of cigarettes. After Dianne kissed both of
her sons goodbye and left for work, the two young boys set out for the
woods near their home where Mark taught his little brother Ricky how to
smoke. As the two young boys were taking a drag from their cigarettes, a
black Cadillac arrived. The Cadillac was driven by a bulky and heavily
intoxicated man. The two boys were hiding in the bushes as they watched
the man insert a hose into the car’s exhaust pipe and into the car’s window.
Mark suddenly tells his brother that the man is trying to commit suicide by
carbon monoxide poisoning. Mark wanted the man to live but Ricky, on the
other hand, was very adamant on going home. As the man sitting inside the
car was waiting for his demise, Mark crawled from underneath the ground
and removed the hose from the car’s exhaust pipe which caused the man
to reinsert it. Mark sneaks to remove the hose again but this time, the man
sees him. The man picks Mark from the ground and shoves him inside the
car. The man discloses information to Mark. His name is W. Jerome
“Romey” Clifford. It turns out that he is the defense lawyer of Barry “The
Blade” Muldanno, a nephew of a rich mobster. He tells Mark that he wants
to commit suicide because he believes that Barry will kill him and that the
body of Senator Boyd Boyette was buried in concrete in his detached
garage. Romey then passed out for a second and Mark escaped and hid
where he and his brother was hiding. Romey suddenly jolted and searched
for Mark but when he realized that he could no longer locate mark, he put a
gun in his mouth and shot himself dead. Little Ricky went into severe shock
due to what he had witnessed. Mark, on the other hand, called the police
and, of course, was found at the scene together with his brother.
“Reverend” Roy Foltrigg was the lead prosecutor for the case
involving the murder of Senator Boyd Boyette. Roy Foltrigg is a
government lawyer with political aspirations specifically the governor’s post.
His job was to prove that Barry the Blade killed Senator Boyd Boyette
which he intends to do by making Mark talk in the court stand. He
suspected that Mark knew Romey Clifford and that Romey may have
disclosed valuable information to the kid. Mark, being a wise kid, engaged
the legal services of Atty. Regina “Reggie” Love, a divorcee and a
recovering alcoholic. Meanwhile, Barry the Blade and his mobster uncle’s
men threaten Mark from disclosing information to the police leaving Mark
apprehensive in trusting Reggie.
Mark was then placed in juvenile prison partly for protection but he
was able to escape nonetheless. Mark calls Reggie to get him. Both of
them then set out for New Orleans to locate the body of Senator Boyette in
Clifford’s boat house. As Reggie and Mark were looking for the body, Barry
the Blade and his men arrived in an attempt to move the body. Mark
creates a diversion and a neighbor emerges with a shotgun, scaring the
men off. Mark and Reggie find Boyette's body. Reggie makes a deal with
Foltrigg enabling Mark and his family to enter the United States Federal
Witness Protection Program in exchange for revealing to the FBI where the
body is located. Before the Sway family flies to Phoenix, Reggie gives Mark
her compass necklace and they bid each other goodbye.

Court Scene/ Presentation of Evidence:

Mark Sway is called by the prosecution to take the witness stand;

however, being the minor that he is, he is presented without his parent
which the court noted for the record.
Under Philippine law, the rule on child witnesses is found in Rule 130,
Section 21 which provides that:

Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental

incapacity or immaturity. — The following persons cannot
be witnesses:
(a) x x x
 (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which
they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

A child witness is any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is

below the age of eighteen (18) years (A.M. 004- 07- SC). By this definition,
there is no doubt that Mark Sway is a child witness.
Generally, every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. This
presumption is established by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(Sec. 6, A.M. 004- 07- SC) and to rebut the presumption of competence
enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his
competence according to Sec. 6[b], Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness (Riano, Evidence, The Bar Lecture Series, 2013).
In this film, we can infer that American law would require the
presence of the parent or guardian when a child is to be presented as a
witness. Similarly, under Philippine laws specifically A.M. 004- 07- SC, in
cases where the child is a victim of, accused of, or is a witness of a crime,
the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem. And according to Sec. 5 (b) of
A.M. 004- 07- SC states the following duties of the guardian ad litem:

(b) The guardian ad litem:

(1) Shall attend all interviews, depositions, hearings, and

trial proceedings in which a child participates;
(2) Shall make recommendations to the court concerning
the welfare of the child;
(3) Shall have access to all reports, evaluations, and
records necessary to effectively advocate for the child,
except privileged communications;
(4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of resources
and special services to the child;
(5) Shall explain, in language understandable to the child,
all legal proceedings, including police investigations, in
which the child is involved;
(6) Shall assist the child and his family in coping with the
emotional effects of crime and subsequent criminal or non-
criminal proceedings in which the child is involved;
(7) May remain with the child while the child waits to testify;
(8) May interview witnesses; and
(9) May request additional examinations by medical or
mental health professionals if there is a compelling need
therefor.

According to the aforementioned Rule, a guardian ad litem is appointed for

the best interests of the child and one of the main duties of the guardian ad
litem is to attend all trial proceedings where the child witness is to be
presented.
 “A Civil Action”

This movie is revolves around an incident which happed in 1979 in

East Woburn Massachusettes. Where two drinking well supplying water for
the town were found to b contaminated with industrial solvents. There was
a suspiscion that the local factories caused the pollution. The residents felt
that these factories were responsible for the high rate of leukemia deaths
amongst the town's children and high mortality rate in unborns.

Jimmy Anderson, died due to leukemia, her mother, Anne filed a law
suit against the major companies, Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace &
Company for their pollution liabiliities, but Anne was exposed to a problem
because these companies have the money to destroy her. Jan
Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer was retained to defend her in a
damage suit against the companies suspected to have caused the
contamination of the water supply, who were represented by Facher ans
Cheeseman.

A new style of abulance chasing was represented by Schlichtmann,

not just sleazy but proud of his prowess, in mastery of exploitation of other
people's pain and injuries. Schlichtmann agrees to let his firm take on the
case of the families, who believe, but can't prove, that their tragedies were
caused by negligence in return of a big pay-off. The ownere of the
companies offered for an out of court settlement offering a huge amount of
money but Schilchtmann couldn’t bring himself to accept such settlement.
He wants the ultimate score. It's the premise of "A Civil Action" that
Schlichtmann, almost in spite of himself, begins to change his spots during
the trial. He spends all of the firm's money, plunging it into debt. He gets
himself and his partners in so deep that they can't pull out. Their only
choice is to win the case. It takes Jan several years to settle his debts, and
he now practices environmental law in Boston.
 PRIMAL FEAR
SUMMARY: This movie is about a Lawyer named Martin Veil who took the
case of an altar boy named Aaron who was charged with the murder of
Archbishop Rushman. Marty Veil believed that Aaron was really innocent
but when trial ensued, all the evidences presented by the prosecution was
pointing out that Aaron really did kill the archbishop. Marty after careful
research found a video tape containing a porno movie which was directed
by the bishop. Marty confronted Aaron about the video tape and he was
surprised to find out that Aaron had another personality in the name of Roy.
Marty then tried to use this as an advantage but the problem is that how
would he be able to show in court that his client was insane because he
cannot change the plea to insanity during trial. Marty then decided to give
the sex tape to the prosecution hoping that they would present it as
evidence. On the trial, the prosecution presented it as evidence. Also
during the trial Marty called Aaron as a witness and tried to draw out Roy.
Marty was successful, Roy‘s personality came out and attacked the
counsel for the prosecution. The charge against Aaron was dismissed due
to his mental condition. In the end however, Marty found out that Aaron was
just faking the whole thing and realized that he made a guilty man walk
free.
APPLICATION: The object evidence showing the mutilation and torture of
the victim addresses the court’s sense of sight. However, if such photos
were against moral decency, they may not be presented except when the
interest of the public so requires.
As seen in the movie and in accordance with the rule on evidence,
object evidences are needed to be authenticated before they are admitted
in court. The video tape containing the sex tape was authenticated by the
testimony of Marty’s researcher Thomas. In relation to the sex tape, the
best evidence rule is also applicable to the subject matter because in order
to prove the contents of the tape, which is the porno movie, such must be
presented in court. However like in the discussion above, the porn video is
sensitive to the eyes of the public and may not be shown except by clear
showing that such is in the interest of the public.
 The testimonial evidence of an expert Dr Arrington is also relevant in
this movie because it shows us that even though Marty is aware at that
time that Aaron is suffering from a mental condition, his expert witness
cannot testify that Aaron is mentally ill because his insanity is not the fact in
dispute. It would be considered irrelevant thus inadmissible as evidence.

A Few Good Men

SUMMARY: This movie is about a court martial trial of two US Marine

officers namely Downey and Dawson, for the murder of Santiago, a fellow
marine officer. In the movie, Santiago failed to earn the respect of his
fellow marines by giving information that Dawson, his fellow marine in his
unit, fired an illegal shot towards Cuban territory in exchange for a request
for a transfer to a different base due to difficulties he is encountering in the
Guantanamo bay Naval base. Such request made by Santiago created
problems within the Naval’s high ranking officials, on what action would be
the best in handling the situation. Colonel Jessup then ordered to give
Santiago a part of the marines unwritten rule which was the “code red.”
Downey and Dawson gave Santiago the “code red” but instead, Santiago
died due to respiratory complications because of poison allegedly found in
the rag. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who has no trial experience was then
assigned as their lawyer with Lieutenant Joanne Galloway as his co-
counsel. A trial ensued, Kaffee was able to prove that the two marines were
not guilty of the murder. Because of a little bluff and a gamble made by
Kaffee, Colonel Jessup admitted in court, due to his pride and arrogance,
that he had ordered the “code red” on Santiago, making him responsible for
his murder. The two marines were however discharged of their duties as
marines.

APPLICATION: One of the rules of evidence found in the movie is the rule
regarding the opinion of witnesses. When a witness is asked to testify on
his opinion regarding the feelings of another person or what another person
has perceived, it is inadmissible as evidence because a witness cannot
testify on matters he did not perceive first hand. This will also constitute as
hearsay evidence which is only admissible on some circumstances. A
witness cannot give his opinion regarding a subject matter because it will
constitute as mere speculation.
However, when it comes to opinion, an expert possessing the
necessary knowledge and skill required in determining a circumstance that
is essential in the case may testify and their testimonies are admissible as
evidence. When the prosecution presented a doctor as their witness to
testify about the poisoning of Santiago, The court may take his expert
analysis and opinion about the subject matter unless the defense can prove
that such witness is not really an expert or if they can discredit his merits as
a professional. The defense can also present an expert witness to refute
the testimony by the other party.
Another rule on evidence applicable in the movie is that where a party
has made a confession in court. Towards the end of the movie, with a little
risk on the part of Kaffee, Colonel Jessup admitted that he ordered the
“code” red on Santiago. Upon such admission, the defense moved that the
trial be already decided. Such admission made by Colonel Jessup can be
taken against him. According to the rule of evidence, a judicial admission
may be taken against the person who made it. The remedy of the party is
to move for the exclusion of the statement if such mas made through
palpable mistake.

A Time to Kill
SUMMARY: As the title suggests, is there really a time where one should
kill? This story is about a young African- American girl who as raped by two
white Americans. After they raped the girl, they tried to kill her by hanging
her. But when it failed they threw her away knowing that she would die. She
survived but her ovaries were badly damaged by the assault. Her father
Carl Lee Hailey, due to his anger, took justice into his own hands and killed
the two Americans who raped his daughter while they were being brought
for trial. Jake Brigance, an old acquaintance of Carl Lee took the case and
put up as defense that Carl Lee was insane at that moment. When trial
ensued, Brigance faced a lot of challenges due to the fact that the case
became a sensation because of the ongoing discrimination in that time.
During that time, he was aided by a brilliant legal researcher, Ellen Roark
who volunteered her services in the case. The trial was like a battle
between the blacks and the whites. Despite several attempts of the Ku Klux
Klan on the life of Brigance, he held on to defend Carl Lee and has
convinced the jury that the latter was not guilty.
APPLICATION: The rules of evidence applicable in the movie is the rule
regarding the opinion of ordinary witnesses. When Deputy Looney was
called to testify regarding the act done to him by Carl Lee, he made a
statement that he does not blame him and he would have done the same if
his girl was raped. The prosecution objected to his testimony being
irrelevant. A witness cannot testify about his feelings or his opinion to the
case as it would be deemed irrelevant to the subject matter.
The movie as showed us the impeachment of a witness in the stand.
When Brigance offered the testimony of an expert to prove that Carl Lee
might be insane during the commission of the act, the prosecution
presented facts to discredit Brigance’s expert thus such testimony of the
witness is no longer credible. In the same way, Brigance also destroyed the
credibility of the Dr. presented by the prosecution to prove that Carl Lee
was aware of his acts when he shot the two Americans. He established the
fact that the Dr. was testifying in a lot of cases and have found insane
people sane for the purpose of trial.

Amistad (1997)
Summary: Amistad is the name of a slave ship carrying Africans who have
been sold into slavery in Cuba and is travelling to America. During the
voyage, a former Tribal Leader named Cinque, was able to free himself
from his chains and led a bloody mutiny which resulted in the African slaves
taking the ship. The African slaves spared two of their captors and
continued to sail hoping to find land. Upon reaching the United States, they
are immediately imprisoned and a number of parties claim ownership over
them. One of which is the Queen of Spain herself. The lawyers of the
parties claiming ownership over the slaves argue their claims in court.
However, no lawyer appeared in behalf of the freedom of the slaves. Until a
young real estate lawyer named Roger Baldwin, represented the Mende
tribesmen. The movie revolves on how Baldwin and Cinque discuss the
legal rights of the Mende tribesmen and how they would be released as
free people. The brilliance of Atty. Baldwin here is that even if there are
issues or piracy and murder, he was able to narrow down the issue to one
important aspect, illegal acquisition of slaves. The law in effect at the time
the trial took place had a provision wherein a slave is considered as
“property” only when he is born a slave, like on a plantation. However,
since the movie shows us a lengthy scene showing how Cinque and the
other Mende tribesmen and women were taken from the homes and were
held captive illegally, the exception applies to them. The case was going
well for the slaves and Atty. Baldwin until the judge was replaced. Since the
case involved the delicate international relations between Spain and the
United States, people with power made moves in order to replace the
judge. The new judge is far more unsympathetic with the cause of the
Mende tribesmen. However, since Atty. Baldwin was able to find a
translator, he was able to prove that they were born in Africa and were
indeed stolen and illegally traded. The judge then ruled in favor of the
Mende tribesmen. The case was however appealed by the President to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heavily favors the claim of the
government. John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States,
made an eloquent speech and impassionate plea for the release of the
slaves. The movie ends with the Mende tribesmen on a ship going back to
Africa with a beautiful native African song being sung in the background.
Trial Scene:
The trial scenes here show us how important the original document is in a
trial. Atty. Baldwin was able to acquire the manifest of the Toqura, a
notorious slave ship, wherein it was stated that the Mende tribesmen were
indeed taken from their homes in Africa. Also an expert witness was
presented in the person of Captain Tyswell, a patrol of the Ivory Coast for
illegal slave trading. He testifies that there are indeed illegal slave trading
activities being conducted at Sierra Leone. He also testifies the methods
how slave traders employ dastardly means in order to cover up their illegal
activities. The manifest of the Toqura and Captain Tyswell corroborated
each other and was able to prove that the slaves were indeed taken from
Africa and that a number of them were thrown overboard in order to reduce
their number.

Presumed Innocent (1990)

Synopsis:
The film commences with a camera shot of a court room while the
voice of a man opens with the statement “I am a prosecutor. I'm a part of
the business of accusing...judging...and punishing.” As the film progresses,
the voice turns out to be that of Rozat “Rusty” Sabich’s. Rusty Sabich is the
main character in this film. He is a trusted colleague of Prosecuting
Attorney Raymond Horgan, a rival of Nico Della Guardia for the upcoming
election for the County Prosecuting Attorney. Raymond Horgan commands
Rusty in his office and discloses that Carolyn Polhemus, an attractive and
intelligent colleague of theirs whom Rusty had an affair with, was found
dead in her apartment. Carolyn died a violent death as her head had
numerous blunt force traumas and was found in what seems to be a sexual
bondage. Horgan insisted that Rusty take on the investigation. The film
reveals that Rusty, a married man, faces a dilemma as he is still obsessed
with Carolyn and he is then subsequently arrested and put on trial for the
murder of the object of his obsession.
Greer was initially the detective in charge of the investigation but
Rusty replaced him with his friend Detective Dan Lipranzer in an attempt to
rule out the inquiry as to his past relationship with Carolyn. Meanwhile,
Nico Della Guardia wins the election and is joined by Tommy Molto, the
head of Homicide, who are then making their own investigation. They have
found the presence of semen containing dead sperm inside the victim’s
body and that the killer’s blood type is A, the same type as Rusty’s. Della
Guardia, together with Molto, is hell bent to pin the crime on Rusty Sabich.
One of the pieces of evidence with which they intend to present is a glass
with Rusty’s fingerprints.
Rusty engages the legal services of Sandy Stern. At trial, it is then
revealed that the glass is missing and Sandy convinces the judge to keep
this from the jury. As the film progresses, Rusty discovers that Carolyn had
acquired a file for a bribery case involving a man called Leon who paid a
bribe to get his case thrown out of court. The probation officer who set the
whole thing up was Carolyn and the deputy prosecutor in charge of the
case was Tommy Molto. The thrust of Sandy's defense is that Tommy and
Nico have set Rusty up as part of a cover-up of the bribery case. Lipranzer
tracks down Leon and he reveals that the official who took the bribe was in
fact Larren Lyttle, the judge handling Rusty's trial.
During the cross-examination of the medico- legal officer Dr. Kumagai, it is
revealed that Carolyn had undergone a tubal ligation which makes it
impossible for her to become pregnant. And this led to the inference that
she would have no reason to use the spermicidal contraceptive which was
found on her. Sandy asserts that the only explanation for this discrepancy
is that the fluid sample was not actually taken from Carolyn's body. Dr.
Kumagai then eventually admitted that he may have been careless in the
handling of the samples. Based on the disappearance of the glass, the lack
of motive, and the fact that the fluid sample was rendered meaningless,
there is no direct evidence to tie Rusty to the murder. Judge Lyttle
dismisses the charges.
The film concludes as Rusty fixes a wooden fence near his home. He
takes out a metal hammer from his tool box and starts hammering. As he
was hammering, he notices a red smudge with blonde strands of hair on
the head of the hammer. He goes back to the basement of his house and
washes the hammer. A pensive look is on the face of Rusty when all of a
sudden his wife appears and admits to killing Carolyn out of rage and
lunacy. The films closes with a camera shot of the court room and Rusty’s
voice is heard in the background saying, “There was a crime. There was a
victim. And there is punishment.”

Court Scene/ Presentation of Evidence:

 Section 1 of Rule 130 provides:

Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are

those addressed to the senses of the court. When an
object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.

Object evidence, as the name suggests, is the very thing itself. It appeals
directly to the senses of the court. In this film, the glass with Rusty’s
fingerprints was the only piece of evidence that could have the most
persuasive effect on the part of the court. Had it not been lost, its
presentation could have convicted Rusty.
Under the Rules on Evidence, for object evidence to be admissible:

1. The evidence must be relevant;

2. The evidence must be competent;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness; and
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.

To be relevant, the evidence must have a relationship to the fact in issue.

To be competent, it must not be excluded by the rules or by law (Riano,
Evidence, The Bar Lecture Series, 2013). According to the mentioned
requisites, it is clear that the glass is inadmissible. First, the glass is
relevant to the fact in issue. The fact in issue is whether or not Rusty killed
the victim. The presence of Rusty in the victim’s apartment may be proved
by the glass with his fingerprints on it. Second, the glass to be presented in
evidence is not excluded by the rules or by law. Third, the object, if
presented in evidence, could have been authenticated by the officer who
took the glass from the crime scene. Lastly, the object must be formally
offered in evidence. The prosecution failed to satisfy this requirement which
rendered the evidence practically non- existent. Since the object was
missing, it was impossible for them to actually offer the object in evidence.
Had they been able to do so, they could have convicted Rusty for the death
of Carolyn Polhemus.

Judgment at Nuremberg
SUMMARY: This movie is about a judge judging other judges for their
involvement in the holocaust. Judge Dan Haywood is overseeing the trials
of four German judges who are accused of crimes against humanity by the
military tribunal of Nuremberg, Germany that led to genocide, and the
death of thousands of Jewish. Judge Haywood, the chief trial judge begins
his examination by trying to understand how an intelligent and educated
man like defendant Janning could have passed decisions or resolutions
that led to the unthinkable crime of genocide. As part of the evidences, the
prosecutor showed maps of concentration camps and pictures of prisoners
and dead bodies in court. The claimed that such was the result of the
injustice brought about by the accused judges. Haywood tried to
understand how the majority population of German people could have
turned a blind eye to the killings of many Jewish during the Nazi era. As the
trial went on, both the visiting Americans and their reluctant German hosts
often find themselves facing the legacy of the war, and how both of their
nations have been irrevocably changed by it. The Tribunal rendered
judgment, all were found guilty of the crimes charged and imposed life
imprisonment as their sentence.
APPLICATION: The bulk of evidences showed in the movie consists of
object evidences such as the maps that shows where the concentration
camps were, the prisoners, and dead bodies shown in court through video
evidences and affidavits by numerous people. Regarding the documents
presented, authentication is necessary for them to be admissible as
evidences. In cases also of object evidences, if such object evidence is
morally indecent to the eyes of the court, like the pile of dead bodies shown
in the videos, then such is no longer necessary to be presented except if
the interest of the public is concerned.
The rule of Judicial Notice also comes to play in this case. As a rule,
Judges are required to take judicial notice of the laws of the land. In the
movies, the judges are only upholding the laws of the country in this movie,
the laws of Germany. The judgment of the judges cannot be substituted by
their whims, they only took judicial notice of the laws enforced in the land.
It is shown also in the movie that a lawyer cannot ask the witness to
as to his personal circumstances because the witness is not the one on
trial. This matter may be objected to be irrelevant in relation to the fact in
issue.

ANATOMY OF A MURDER
SUMMARY: This movie is about Paul Biegler, a lawyer who until recently
had been the local prosecutor who accepts a murder case that took place
in a trailer park on the outskirts of town. He is asked to defend Lt. Frederick
Manion who admits to having killed Barney Quill, a local bar owner who
allegedly raped his wife. He now claims temporary insanity or irresistible
impulse as a defense to acquit the accused. During the trial the case for the
defense did not go well because the prosecution tried at every instance to
block any mention of Manion’s motive for killing Quill. Biegler eventually
manages to get Laura Manion's rape into the record however, during
Dancer's cross-examination of Laura, her character was destroyed. A
doctor casts doubt on whether she was raped or not, though Biegler
questions the method he used to obtain the results, and psychiatrists give
conflicting testimony to Manion's state of mind when he killed Quill. On the
day where the Laura Manion’s panties were raised in the court, Mary did
not attend the hearing. Mary, unaware of any details of the case, voluntarily
returns to the courtroom to testify that she found the panties in the inn's
laundry room so Biegler suggests that Quill may have dropped the panties
down the laundry chute located to avoid suspicion. Dancer tries to establish
that Pilant's answers are founded on her jealousy. Pilant then revealed that
Quill was her father. When the defense and the prosecution had given their
closing statements, the jury found that not guilty by reason of insanity.
APPLICATION: In the movie, testimonial evidences were presented. As
shown in the movie counsel cannot ask that which is irrelevant to the fact in
dispute.
Objective evidences were also presented in the movie. Object
evidences which should be presented in court must show connection as to
the fact subject matter of the case or else such may by be inadmissible in
court being irrelevant.

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Summary: The movie starts with the arrest of T.B. Cates, a biology teacher,
who taught the students of his class about the Theory of Evolution, a
supposed blatant and monumental violation of the teachings of the Bible
which says that man was created by God the Almighty. The theory of
evolution says however that man evolved from the prehistoric Apes. The
whole town of Hillsboro are in outrage for the teachings of Cates and rise
up in protest calling for his head. He was charged in the court of Hillsboro.
A very famous, brilliant and powerful man came to town in order to
prosecute Cates. This man is Matthew Harrison Brady, a very devout
Catholic and a very powerful politician. It seemed that no one would defend
Cates until a reporter from the Baltimore Herald arranged a lawyer to
defend Cates. Renowned defense attorney and atheist, Henry Drummond.
The movie now depicts the epic battle of Drummond and Brady, who are
longtime rivals. Drummond opposes the narrow-minded teachings of the
Bible and urges the people to think for themselves. Brady on the other
hand, argues that the word of God is the law itself and must be followed
and respected to the letter. The judge presiding over the case is also an
evangelist and as such, favors Brady and the townspeople of Hillsboro
greatly. It reaches the point wherein all the proposed witnesses of
Drummond are not accepted by the court and Drummond is left with no
evidence or testimony of any witness in his favor. It seemed that Cates was
going to be convicted until Drummond was able to pull a Hail Mary play on
the case. He used the Bible itself as evidence. He even called Brady to the
witness stand as he is regarded as one of the experts on the Bible.
Drummond asked Brady to explain the stories in the Bible and asked if they
were all true. Brady was rattled by such questions that he was unable to
give a coherent answer. The examination of Brady leads to the all-
important question, if God made man with the ability to think for
themselves, the special gift of free will, why is Cates on trial? Brady,
stumped by the question, was left speechless in the end. The jury however
decided that Cates was guilty. The judge, seeing that there are no
precedents to such case, only meted the penalty of a fine to Cates in the
amount of 100 dollars. Brady, disgruntled by such decision of the court,
died.

Trial Scene:
Most of the movie takes place in the courtroom. However, most of the
evidence presented by Brady and the prosecution was just their opinions of
the Bible and what they think of the teachings of Darwin and the Theory of
Evolution. The best part however was the method of impeaching the
competency of Brady by Drummond. He used the very thing Brady was
using in order to sway the opinion of the crowd, the Bible. Drummond was
able to use the Bible to his favor. A skill lawyers must learn and master.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
SUMMARY: This movie is about a Scout Finch who lives with her brother,
Jem, and their widowed father, Atticus, in Alabama town of Maycomb.
Atticus takes on the case of an innocent black man named Tom Robinson
who is accused of assaulting a white girl named Mayella Ewell. The Finch
family faces harsh criticism in the heavily racist Maycomb because of
Atticus's decision to defend Tom. He knows Tom is innocent, and that he
has almost no chance on being acquitted, because the white jury will never
believe a black man over a white woman. The trial pits the evidence of the
white Ewell family against Tom's evidence. According to the Ewells, Mayella
asked Tom to do some work for her while her father was out, and Tom
came into their house and forcibly beat and raped Mayella until her father
appeared and scared him away. Tom's version is that Mayella invited him
inside, then threw her arms around him and began to kiss him. Tom tried to
push her away. When Bob Ewell arrived, he flew into a rage and beat her,
while Tom ran away in fright. According to the sheriff's testimony, Mayella's
bruises were on the right side of her face, which means she was most likely
punched with a left hand. Tom Robinson's left arm is useless due to an old
accident, whereas Mr. Ewell leads with his left. Given the evidence of
reasonable doubt, Tom should go free, but after hours of deliberation, the
jury pronounces him guilty. Atticus was hoping to appeal the case but
unfortunately Tom tried to escape from his prison and is shot to death in the
process.
APPLICATION: The movie as all about direct examination and cross-
examination of witnesses. Direct examinations are used to elicit from the
witness all facts which would favorably be for the arguments that are
relevant to the fact in issue. Cross- examinations on the other hand are
used to destroy or weaken the testimony of the witness. In the movie,
Atticus was able to weaken and destroy the credibility of the testimony of
the witness for example, that Tom could not have neaten or choke Mayella
because he has only one good hand.

The Verdict

Synopsis:
The movie is about the trial of a girl who was put into comatose after the
doctor who attended to him gave an anesthesia which was supposedly not
the case because the girl just had her meal an hour before going to the
hospital. Frank Galvin was now an ambulance chaser lawyer because his
career slumps after he resigned from his law firm and by successively lost
a case one after another. One day, his partner got him a case from a
couple, namely Mr. Kevin and Mrs. Sally Doneghy, who was a relative of
the girl, named Deborah Ann Kaye, who was supposedly deliver her third
child but because she was given a wrong anesthetic medicine, she fell into
coma at St. Catherine Hospital, which was a big respectable hospital. The
plaintiff represented by Frank was asking to settle the case amicably and
the defense agreed and offered a very reasonable amount but on second
thought Frank refused to accept it and wanted to go to trial. Frank realized
how difficult the situation of the girl and wanted to give her a better
compensation. The problem, however, was that the couple was unaware of
what Frank did so they had a heated conversation. Still, the case
proceeded to trial. Frank was having a hard time because it seems the
whole world was battling him in trying the case. The judge clearly shows
partiality in favor of the defendant and against Frank. Frank couldn't even
find a witness present during the operation. One night, Frank and his
partner were having a conversation about the case and who can be called
to testify and his partner said how about person outside the operating
room. Frank read the admission form and had concluded that the nurse
who hadn't testifying in behalf of the doctors was protecting the admitting
nurse who took the history of the patient. Frank found out about the
location of the admitting nurse named Kaitlin Costello and went to see her.
She was able to convince her to testify about his case. The jury then found
the hospital liable for damages.

Court Scene:
At the trial, Frank made an opening statement stating how heavy to sit in
judgment but all will come down in finding the truth.

The first witness was Dr. Thompson and he testified that the girl had a
heart attack because of the medicine given to her and in reviving her heart
beat for nine minutes it caused her brain damage for many times. Then,
Judge Hoyle intervened and asked if by trying to revive the girl's heat beat
makes the doctors negligent and Dr. Thompson replied, no. Then, Frank
told to the Judge that if he’s going to try his case at least he doesn’t lose it.
The Judge, in response, said that we directly go to the issue that whether
or not the Doctors were negligent so that no more time could be wasted.

Dr. Towler, who was one of the Doctors who attended to the girl who fell
into coma, testified that the girl was anemic, which means that she had less
blood, thus, less oxygen that in two minutes, the brain of the girl will be
damaged because of deprivation of oxygen.

Frank read a passage from Dr. Towler authored book about anesthesiology.
It stated that when a patient had a meal one hour before admission, the
application of anesthesia must be avoided otherwise the patient will
aspirate food particles into her mask and will be suffocated. Then Frank
asked Dr. Towler if Deborah had a meal one hour before he was injected of
general anesthesia that's why Deborah aspirated food particles into her
mask and Dr. Towler denied that it was not the case.

Frank called his witness Kaitlin Costello Price to take the witness stand as
a rebuttal witness. Kaitlin testified that Deborah said she had a full meal
one hour before coming to the hospital and she put one hour in the
admission form and that she was called by Dr. Towler to change it from one
hour to nine because Dr. Towler was very tired that time and omitted to
read the medical information. And during her cross-examination, she told
that she kept a copy of the admission form. The defense counsel objected
invoking the best evidence rule and it was sustained. And the defense also
stated that since Ms. Costello was just a rebuttal witness and as a surprise
witness, she can only testify regarding the direct testimony and since her
testimony was regard only to the admission form, which was corroborated
by her Xerox copy which was earlier disallowed, all her testimony be
disallowed and the court sustained it also. In both, Frank objected.

Frank made his summation of the case and a statement about reality about
human affairs. And the Jury returned and made the verdict in favor of the
plaintiff.

Lessons Learned:

In the Name of the Father

SUMMARY: The Prevention of Terrorism Act is passed in Parliament that

allows the British police to hold potential suspects for seven days before
they are formally charged. Paul Hill was arrested in London in connection
with the Guildford bombing that killed five people which includes four
military men. A few days later the police arrested Gerry Conlon. During the
trial, the police commissioner, Dickson testified that the Gerry Conlon and
three others were the one who were responsible for the bombing. This was
supported with the signed confessions made by the four. This was denied
by the defendants saying that the confession was obtained under duress.
Paul and Gerry, including their two friends, Gerry father, and his Aunt Annie
and her family were convicted. In the prison, Gerry meets a convict named
Joe McAndrews. Joe reveals that he and his people were responsible for
the Guilford Pub bombings and for smuggling the explosives used in the
attack. McAndrews informs the police that they are holding innocent people
for the crime but British police still refuse to let them out. One night Gerry
notices his father has stopped breathing. He was transported out of the
prison for medical care, however, Gerry is not permitted to accompany his
father. Gareth Peirce, Conlons’ lawyer reviews the judiciary files of the
Conlons court case. She is only allowed to view Giuseppe's files on the
orders of Dickson. One day she visits the court archives and inadvertently
passes a nasty cold on to the court clerk. A few days later she visits the
archives again and finds a man substituting for the clerk. The man behind
the counter asks Peirce if she wants the files for either Giuseppe or Gerry
Conlon. Peirce seizes the opportunity to view Gerry's files and finds a folder
containing the statement made by Charlie Burke that could vindicate Gerry
himself. Attached to the statement is a handwritten note from Dickson
himself that reads "Not to be shown to the defence". Peirce steals the file
and begins to build a new case and trial for Gerry and the members of the
Guilford Four. The case was reopened and their innocence was proved.
APPLICATION: In relation with the rules on evidence, the evidence of guilt
presented by the prosecution is inadmissible. A coerced extrajudicial
confession does not fall within the definition of evidence. In the Philippine
context, it does not fall with the definition of evidence because it is not
sanctioned by the Rules. Section 1 of Rule 128 provides that, “Evidence is
the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.” In order to be considered
as evidence, it is necessary that a particular circumstance is sanctioned or
allowed by the Rules of Court. In the movie, Gerry is held without formal
charges and is tortured and interrogated. He is beaten severely and forced
to look at the forensic photos of the victims. His interrogators also told him
that his aunt Annie is being charged as well with bombmaking, operating
out of her home. Eventually, Paul is brought to Gerry, having confessed
himself, and he tells Gerry to do the same. Gerry still refuses to cooperate
until one of the policemen threatens to kill his father. Gerry relents and
signs his name to a false statement of confession to the bombings. But it
was until later that Gerry’s testimony was proved to be true.

The Firm

Synopsis:
The movie is about the law firm, named Bendi, Lambert & Locke, which
was killing their members upon disaffiliation. The firm valued not only its
members but also the members’ family members. Mitch Mcdeere was top
of his class and about to graduate from Harvard but he got many offers
from all other firms. Mitch married Abby who had divorced her husband.
The firm gave the two a house and a car, a Mercedes Benz.

On the first day of Mitch in the firm, he was preparing for the bar and at the
same time working with Avery Tolar. The first case he will be handling was
a tax case. And then one unfortunate event occurred, two of the partners,
namely, Marty Kozinski and Joe Hodges were killed by an explosion on the
boat and the it was allegedly an accident.

Mitch started neglecting a time with his wife due to his work and the bar
exam. One day, Mitch chanced upon the FBI agents who were conducting
an investigation about the firm’s activities that gave Mitch a suspicion and
made his own investigation regarding the deaths of the firm’s members.

Mitch and Avery went to Caymans and met Sonny Capps, a firm client.
During their stay, Mitch continued his investigation about the unfortunate
accident and he found out that there were four persons who rode the boat
other than the Kozinski and Hodges but the other two were never found.
Then at the apartment Mitch and Avery was staying, Mitch found the box of
files of Kozinski and Hodges working on. At night, unknown to Mitch, he
was set up by the firm with a girl and pictures of them were taken.

Upon Mitch’s return to Memphis, he went to visit his brother and told what’s
he’s been to and about his suspicions about the law firm and his brother
recommended a person, named Eddie Lomax, to help him in his
investigation. However, the same two persons who were at the boat during
the explosion killed Eddie upon learning by the law firm of it. Because of
that, the FBI made contact with Mitch and told to Mitch what was really
going in about the firm and asked if Mitch was willing to help the FBI
uncover the illegal activities of the firm but Mitch refused because he will be
disbarred.

Mitch confronted the senior partners of the firm and said to them about his
chat with the FBI and that the latter wanted the secret files of the firm. After
that event, Mitch started to copy the files of the firm and he partnered with
the secretary of the investigator that was killed, Tammy Hamphill in
investigating the firm. Then, Mitch was confronted by Bill Devasher, firm
security, and there Mitch was able to meet the guy describe by the boat
owner in Caymans and Tammy. Bill showed to Mitch pictures taken with
him in the picture and a girl and told Mitch what the FBI can do to coerce
him.

Mitch passed the bar in second place and took the lawyer’s oath. Mitch
also confessed what he had done at night at the beach to his wife and they
separate ways. The firm also became suspicious about Mitch.

One day, when Mitch visited a client, the latter complained about his bill,
which seemed to be overbilled. And Mitch realized that he could use the
billing statement of the firm’s clients showing overbilled statement and that
the FBI could make a federal case out of it without giving out the secrets of
the firm’s clients and Mitch being disbarred.

Mitch started to implement all his plans, first, he asked the FBI to make his
brother out of prison and to give him five hundred thousand then in return
he will give an evidence to be used by the FBI against the firm, then
second, he talked to the firm’s clients about giving their consent to bring out
their billing statements and their secrets will not be compromised. And so
when Mitch’s brother got out and the FBI gave them five hundred thousand,
Mitch left all the overbilled billing statements to the FBI.

Lessons Learned:

FRACTURE
SUMMARY: This is a movie involves Ted Crawford who shot his unfaithful
wife and confessed such action, orally and in writing, to the police. At the
trial, Crawford reveals that the arresting officer was having an affair with his
wife, assaulted him during his arrest, and was present during his
interrogation. Crawford's confession is ruled to be inadmissible as
evidence, as it was fruit of the poisonous tree. Beachum discovers that
Crawford's handgun was not used to shoot his wife because it had never
been fired and did not match the shell casings at the crime scene. Crawford
was acquitted because of the lack of evidence. After the trial, even though
his job began to dwindle, he still searched for evidences to prove
Crawford’s guilt. Beachum the figures out that before the crime Crawford
switched his gun with Nunally's in a hotel room where Jennifer and Nunally
secretly met. Crawford shot his wife with Nunally's gun, at which point the
detective arrived on the scene carrying Crawford's gun. While Nunally tried
to revive Jenny, Crawford reloaded Nunally's gun and placed it back where
Nunally had left Crawford's gun, which Crawford then retrieved, unused.
Nunally did not notice the guns being switched back. When Crawford
appeared back in the room brandishing his gun, Nunally tackled and
assaulted him before Crawford's arrest. Nunally unwittingly holstered the
murder weapon, letting the unused gun be taken as evidence. Beachum
then confronted Crawford. Crawford confessed because he thought that he
cannot be prosecuted anymore because of double jeopardy. However,
Beachum told him that since his wife already died, he can now be charged
with murder. Double jeopardy will not set in because the last trial was for
attempted murder. Crawford was then arrested by the police.
APPLICATION: The rules on evidence states that the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
him. When the accused makes a confession, his declaration
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charge, or any offense necessarily
included there in, may be given in evidence against him. In the movie, Mr.
Crawford admitted that he shot his wife. Such confession of his guilt can be
therefore be used against him as evidence.
However, in the movie is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree
is made applicable. This doctrine states that all evidences acquired in an
illegal way are inadmissible as evidence. Crawford revealed that his oral
and written confession was made under duress. Since his confession was
not a result of his voluntary act, and such was proven in court, his
confessions were disregarded was inadmissible evidence.
 The Pelican Brief

SUMMARY: Darbie Shaw was right. In a short essay, “The Pelican Brief,”
she accuses the White House and the man who was the main financial
support of the last Presidential election campaign of being responsible for
the murder of two Supreme Court Justices. The brief speculates that the
assassinations were committed on behalf of Victor Mattiece, an oil tycoon,
who wants to drill for oil on a Louisiana marshland which is a major habitat
of an endangered species of pelicans. A court case on appeal is expected
to make its way to the Supreme Court. The two slain justices had a history
of environmentalism, which the only thing the two justices have in common,
and thus Darbie concluded that Mattiece hoped to turn the case in his favor
by eliminating the two justices.

APPLICATION: This movie has no court scenes. In lieu of the assignment

with the rules on evidence, we will submit the facts of the case to the issue
whether or not Darbie’s testimony, as embodied in the Pelican Brief is
admissible as evidence. The admissibility of a particular item of evidence
has to do with whether a circumstance meets the various tests by which its
reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence
admitted in the case, in arriving at a decision as to the truth. “Evidence
based on olfactory prowess is inadmissible.” Darbie’s testimony without
corroborative evidence to support it will just be pure speculations. Her
testimony, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no
weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value. In the movie,
Darbie and Gray obtained documents and a videotape from Curtis Morgan,
a lawyer in the oil and gas division of White & Blazevich in Washington.
The tape confirms Morgan's discovery that Mattiece ordered the
assassination of the justices and the documents confirm the accusations.
There is no information with regard to the documents. As to the videotape,
an object evidence, also known as real evidence, demonstrative evidence,
autoptic proference and physical evidence, is that evidence which is
addressed to the senses of the court. It is not limited to the view of an
object; it extends to the visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory. It is
considered as evidence of the highest order. In order to be admissible in
evidence, the video should be: relevant to the fact in issue; authenticated;
not a hearsay; not privileged; meet any additional requirement set by law.
The information given in the videotape, although privileged, is exempt
because these are information that are intended for unlawful purpose, that
is, Mattiece wants to drill for oil on a Louisiana marshland which is a major
habitat of an endangered species of pelicans. These evidences will strongly
be supported with the testimony of the FBI Director, Voyles, who confirmed
that the Pelican Brief was delivered to the White House. He revealed that
the President ordered the FBI to "back off", that CIA agents were
investigating Mattiece.

The Judge
SUMMARY: The Judge, Joseph Palmer, was arrested for killing a man with
his car while on a late-night errand. Mark Blackwell, the victim, was a man
that the judge had convicted years earlier. There is an evidence that the
judge, while still confused by the loss of his wife, is aware of what he was
doing. Hank, Joseph’s son, is a lawyer who stayed in town to defend his
father from the charge of first degree murder and voluntary manslaughter
brought by the prosecution. During the trial, Hank attempted to show that
his father is confused and not responsible for his actions due to the
chemotherapy that he is going through. The judge testified that the insult
that Blackwell said pertaining to his wife prompted him to commit the act.
The judge was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to
four years in prison. The judge served seven months and freed after being
granted parole.

APPLICATION: Automatism is one of the mental condition defenses that

relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen
variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or
excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her
actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal
act. This is the defense strategy that was showed in the movie. In the US,
the defense of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the
sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof
where the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The
prosecution does not have to disprove the defense as is sometimes
erroneously reported. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the
offense including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defense
even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is
necessary. In the movie, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements
of the offense. This convinced the jury of the judge’s guilt. In relation to the
rules on evidence, one of the most notable testimony is the testimony of the
police officer in relation with the photos taken in the crime scene. The
testimony brought out the issue of the existence, or for this matter, the
nonexistence of brake marks. The photos of the crime scene and the
testimony of the police officer is an example of a circumstantial evidence
which is also know as indirect evidence. It arises from direct evidence, or a
combination of direct and real evidence. It consists of inferences logically
drawn from known facts. The main fact is arrived at through a process of
simple deduction based on the common experience of mankind. In the
movie, The prosecution was able to give the implication that the judge had
not intended to stop after hitting the victim. This was supported by the
testimony of the police officer, supported by the photos of the crime scene.

WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

SUMMARY: Leonard Vole, a philanthropist was suspected to be the culprit
in for the murder of Mrs Emily French, a rich widow who bequeathed to the
former eighty thousand pounds, making him the main beneficiary in the last
will and testament made my the widow. He was the prime suspect because
him being the main beneficiary established the motive to establish his guilt.
Christine Vole, Leonard’s wife seeks to establish his husband’s innocence
but it was established during trial that Christine was not really the wife of
Leonard because she had contracted a valid marriage before she was
married to Leonard. Therefore when the prosecution called Christine as its
witness, the objection of the defense invoking the marital disqualification
rule was overruled. The day before the recital of the closing statement, Sir
Wilfrid received an anonymous call telling him that she has evidence
sufficient to acquit his client. Though uncertain, Sir Wilfrid introduced the
correspondence, given by the anonymous caller, between Christine and a
certain Max in Germany. Every word recited from the letter denies all the
accusations and motives attributed to the defendant.

APPLICATION: In testimonial evidences, an opinion that is made by the

witness cannot be obtained if what is asked is a matter of fact. If such
witness gave such opinion, it must not be admitted as evidence.
Another rule of evidence applicable in this case is the marital
disqualification rule. This rule states that the spouse of the witness cannot
be compelled to testify against the party spouse if the party spouse objects.
One of the requisite is that the marriage should be valid. In the movie, the
defense objected for Christine to testify against Leonard but it was
overruled because the marriage between Leonard and Christine was not
valid and such the rule does not apply.
Another rule applicable is the best evidence rule regarding the two
wills that Mrs. French left and was introduced in their testimonies. They
sated the contents of the new will. The defense could object on the matter
invoking the best evidence rule. This rule is applicable when the contents of
a document are being presented in court. To be able to prove the contents,
the original document must be brought in court.

Reversal of Fortune
Summary of the Movie:
A lawyer agrees to defend an enigmatic, wealthy aristocrat who is
accused of attempting to murder his wife with an insulin overdose. Based
on the notorious Claus von Bulow case, this acclaimed drama avoids
melodrama, instead presenting a complex puzzle of ambiguous evidence
and conflicting theories.
When socialite Sunny von Bülow inexplicably slips into an irreversible
coma, police suspect foul play -- and the obvious suspect is her urbane
husband, Claus. After being found guilty of murder, Claus is granted a
retrial and hires showboat Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz to
represent him. Though unconvinced of Claus's innocence, Dershowitz
enjoys a challenge and -- along with a group of his students -- fights to
have the verdict overturned.

Rules on Evidence applicable in this movie:

Testimonial Evidence
A prospective witness must show that he has the following abilities:
a) Can perceive and perceiving

b) Can make known their perception to others

c) Must take either an oath or an affirmation

d) Must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law or by the

rules

In the movie “Reversal of Fortune”, the maid testified against Claus

Von Bulow that he is the one who injected insulin and give
prescriptive drugs to Sunny and that he allegedly does not want to
call a doctor whenever Sunny is unconscious. The court ordered that
the testimony of the Maid is admissible as evidence and charged
Claus Von Bulow guilty of Murder. The testimony given by the Maid
with regard to what happened was her personal knowledge that she
derived from her own perception.
Object Evidence: Evidence which is addressed to the senses of the court.
(Sec. 1, Rule 130)
Requisites for admissibility of Object Evidence:
a) Relevant to the fact in issue

b) Authenticated

c) Not hearsay

d) Not privileged

e) Meet any additional requirement set by law

In the movie, the private investigator uses the “black bag” as an object
evidence to support the allegations against Claus Von Bulow. The black
bag contains insulins, syringe, and other prescriptive drugs and marked
as evidence. The defense lawyer of Claus Von Bulow conducts a series
of tests in order to prove the innocence of Claus Von Bulow. The result
of the tests conducted in the syringe that contains insulin which was
 allegedly used to kill Sunny was negative, the syringe was unused and
therefore, does not support the allegations against Claus Von Bulow that
he was the owner of that black bag and he injects drugs to Sunny. The
Court reversed its decision and found Claus Von Bulow not guilty.

Separate but Equal

Summary of the Movie:
The issue before the United States Supreme Court is whether the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
mandates the individual states to desegregate public schools; that is,
whether the nation's "separate but equal" policy heretofore upheld under
the law, is unconstitutional. The issue is placed before the Court by Brown
v. Board of Education and its companion case, Briggs v. Elliott. Many of the
justices personally believe segregation is morally unacceptable, but have
difficulty justifying the idea legally under the 14th Amendment. Marshall and
Davis argue their respective cases. Marshall argues the equal protection
clause extends far enough to the states to prohibit segregated schools.
Davis counters that control of public schools is a "state's rights" issue that
Congress never intended to be covered by the 14th Amendment when it
was passed.
Taking the case under advisement, the stalemated justices agree to
allow Marshall and Davis an opportunity to re-argue their respective cases
as to whether the equal protection clause specifically extends to the
desegregation of schools. In the interim, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson dies
and is replaced by a non-jurist, Governor Earl Warren of California.
Meanwhile, Marshall and his staff are fruitless in finding any research
showing the Civil-War era crafters of the 14th Amendment in 1866 intended
for schools to be desegregated. On the other hand, Davis and his Ivy
League-educated staff find several examples of segregated schools having
existed ever since the passage of the equal protection clause. Finally, the
NAACP staffers discover a quote by Thaddeus Stevens delivered on the
floor of the Senate during the debate over the Amendment, which directly
states segregation is constitutionally and morally wrong. They place it at
the front of their brief. Marshall's argument is compelling.
As the case is taken under advisement a second time, new Chief Justice
Warren is taken on a tour of Gettysburg by his black chauffeur. He also
realizes that his chauffeur must sleep in the car because there are no
lodging places available for him because of his race. Warren discovers a
majority of the Court agrees to strike down the "separate but equal" laws;
however, it is important to him that the Court be unanimous. He writes an
opinion and takes copies to all of the dissenting justices trying to convince
each one of the significance of unanimity. They finally all agree. Warren
reads his opinion which states that segregation "has no place" in American
society. Even opposing counsel, John W. Davis, privately agrees it is time
for society to change.
The film closing acknowledges Thurgood Marshall's own ascent to the
Supreme Court in 1967 and explains that the plaintiff in the companion
case, a black student named Briggs, never attended an integrated school.

Rules on Evidence applicable in this movie:

Testimonial Evidence: Oral or written assertion offered in a court as a proof
of the truth of what is being stated. It includes testimony and hearsay.
In the movie “Separate but Equal”, the validity of the law which provides the
theory of separate but equal was decided by the Supreme Court Justices to
be unconstitutional. The decision was supported by the testimonies of the
expertise, psychiatrist, and government officials to the effects of the
separation of white and black students, that such law is a violation of Bill of
Rights and is therefore discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the
law of Separate but Equal is unconstitutional.
The testimonial of the expertise and psychiatrist is deemed admissible as
evidence because they testify to the facts within their knowledge and may
not state their opinion even on their examination.
Expert Witness: He is one who belongs to the profession or calling to which
the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses special
knowledge on questions on which he proposes special knowledge to
express an opinion.
Opinion Rule
General rule: Inadmissible
Exception: Opinion of expert witness
The opinion of the psychiatrist is admissible as evidence because his
opinion as to the effects of the separation requires special knowledge, skill,
experience or raining which he is shown to possess.

And Justice for All

Summary of the Movie:
When a judge is charged with rape, Arthur Kirkland is forced to
defend him because if he doesn't do it, the judge will have him disbarred.
Kirkland has had problems with the judge in the past, including one incident
when the judge wrongly sentenced his client Jeff McCullaugh because of a
technicality. Kirkland faces a moral and legal dilemma. Arthur Kirkland, an
idealistic defense attorney in Baltimore, cares about his clients and visits
his aging grandfather, who put him through law school, every week. Things
aren't going well for Arthur: two of his clients are increasingly desperate,
neither should be in prison, his partner is behaving bizarrely, he's begun an
affair with an attorney who's on the bar's disciplinary committee, his favorite
judge may have a death wish, and then, the judge he dislikes most, a by-
the-book martinet, demands that Arthur defend him when he's accused of a
brutal assault on a young woman.
As the trial opens, Fleming makes a casual remark to Arthur about
wanting to rape the victim again, which pushes an already disgusted Arthur
to the breaking point. In his opening statement, Arthur begins by mocking
Bowers' case while speculating on the ultimate objective of the American
legal system. He appears to be making a strong case to exonerate Fleming
but unexpectedly, he bursts out and says that the prosecution is not going
to get Fleming, because he is going to get him. Arthur is dragged out of the
courtroom, venting his rage all the way and condemning Fleming for his
and the legal system's abuse of law and order that cost the lives of his two
clients and let true criminals like Fleming go free. As the courtroom
spectators cheer for Arthur, Fleming sits down in defeat, and a fed-up
Rayford storms out. In the end, Arthur sits on the courthouse's steps,
knowing his antics will probably cost him his career in law but will
presumably put Fleming in jail. A supposedly cured Jay passes by and tips
his wig to Arthur in greeting.

Rules on Evidence applicable in this movie:

Circumstantial Evidence also known as Indirect Evidence
Requisites:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4, Rule 133 of Rules of
Court)

In the movie “And Justice For All”, the eye witness failed to satisfy all
the requisites because he cannot identify the attacker of Sheperd on
the night she was beaten and raped. He just testified that on the night
of the crime, he saw a man leaving the premises of Sheperd, but he
actually did not recognize the face of the accused. The evidence
presented was not proven. The evidence against Judge Flemming
was circumstantial and the combination of all the circumstances is not
enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt by proving that there
could be an alternative to the events that transpired and that the only
witness could be unreliable.

Substantial Evidence: In cases filed before administrative or Quasi-Judicial

bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Sec. 5, Rule 133 of
Rules of Court)
In the movie, what was presented by the Prosecution as evidence
that Judge Flemming raped Sheperd was only the testimony of the victim,
Sheperd. The Prosecution failed to produce any substantial evidence to
support the allegations against the accused.
Character Reference
General Rule: It is not admissible as evidence
Exceptions:
a) In Criminal Cases:

1. The accused may prove his good moral character which is

pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged

3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be

proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.

In the movie, the defense lawyer of Judge Flemming used the

character reference of Judge Flemming as evidence that Judge
Flemming as a member of the Ethical Committee is not capable of
committing the offense charged against him and therefore, is
relevant to the moral trait involved in the rape case filed against
him.

MY SISTER’S KEEPER
SUMMARY: Brian and Sara had three children, Jesse, Kate, and Anna. Of
the three siblings, Kate was diagnosed of Leukemia when she was young.
In order to treat her condition, a doctor suggested that the couple should
consider having a genetically similar child in relation to Kate to be the
perfect donor to Kate. That child was Anna. Since then Anna has
undergone several bone-marrow aspirations for Kate. One day however,
she went to see Attorney Alexander to ask for his legal services to declare
her “medically emancipated” from his parents alleging that she does not
want to donate any part of her body anymore. Meanwhile Kate’s condition
worsened. Trial commenced. During the time when Anna took the witness
stand, Jesse appeared in court and forced Anna to tell the truth that it was
really Kate’s plan to sue their parents because Kate was all ready to die.
Kate died before the case concluded. Anna won the case.
APPLICATION: Expert witnesses may be presented to support an
argument in court which in case, a doctor was testifying in the implications
on Anna undergoing such bone-marrow aspirations.
 THE CONSPIRATOR
SUMMARY: This movie is about the trial Mary Surratt who was charge by
the government with participating in the plot for the assassination of
President Abraham Lincoln. Among the assassin is Surratt’s son, John
Wilkes Booth. Frederick Aiken, a war hero was then assigned to handle her
case. Aiken was reluctant to take the case because he taught of her as
guilty, being the mother of a conspirator. He meets with her, intending to get
evidence of her guilt. She explains that John and the others conspired to
kidnap Lincoln, not to kill him. They were about to attack a carriage but
were stopped by Booth who reported that Lincoln was elsewhere. She says
John left town and went into hiding after this, two weeks before the
assassination. Aiken asks Anna for information to help with his trial
preparations, but she refuses. Aiken has convinced Anna to testify in the
trial in order to prove that she is innocent. Anna testifies that Mary had no
part in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but that it was her brother
John instead. Anna visits Aiken at his house and tells him about Booth and
John, and sends him to where John Surratt is hiding. He brings the
message that John must surrender or his mother will hang for his crimes.
On July 6th, Mary is found guilty on all charges and, with Stanton's
intervention, sentenced to hang with three others on the 7th. Aiken
procures a writ of habeas corpus to try Mary in civilian court, but President
Johnson suspends the writ and Mary is hanged.
APPLICATION: In this movie direct examinations and cross-examinations
were introduced. When questions are asked, only those which are relevant
to the fact in dispute must be asked. If not such is objectionable because
these are inadmissible as evidences. In asking questions, counsel also
cannot ask questions that would incriminate the witness. This is because
the witness is not the one on trial even though such questions are set to
establish the character of the witness.
The quantum of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable
doubt. If the counsel for the accused has presented a possibility that she or
he might have done it, the prosecution is presumed to have failed to prove
the act of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Another rule of evidence shown in the movie is that of inconsistent
statements. An inconsistent statement stated by the witness during cross-
examination by another party may be taken against the credibility of such
witness.

Man for All Seasons (1966)

Summary:
The queen and current wife of King Henry VIII is incapable of having
children. Her inability to have a child places the whole nation at risk
because in order to keep the different lords and dukes from making civil
war with each other for the crown, a male heir must be born. In order to do
this, the Lord Chancellor proposes an idea, divorce the queen and marry
another woman. Sir Thomas More opposes the idea saying that it is
immoral, unethical and that the church would never allow such a thing.
More, adamant with his principles and ideals, will not help. Even when
Henry VIII himself threatened, bribed and taunted More, he would not help.
Infuriated with the papal refusals, Henry VIII declares himself the “Supreme
Head of the Church in England”. Agents of the King attempt to win over Sir
More but all attempts have failed. The new Chancellor hatches a new plan,
declare More a traitor and have him imprisoned. They give him one last
chance however, a new oath must be taken or else he will be charged with
high treason. He accepts the proposition but says that his oath will only be
with respect to the new queen and not to the title of Supreme Head of
Church in England. Despite repeated pleas from his family and friends to
take the oath, he refuses and is then imprisoned in the tower of London.
More is aware that under British law, he cannot be prosecuted if he refuses
to explain why he refuses to take the oath, he keeps his objections to
himself. Upon trial, More argued that his silence does not mean that he has
neither denied or affirmed anything, that it under law it is only consent
which silence refers to. A friend named Rich, testifies under oath that More
told him that the parliament has no power to grant the King such title
among other things, perjury. More does not say anything. He is sentenced
to death by beheading.

Trial Scene:
Admission by silence. During the trial of Sir Thomas More, he explains the
concept of admission by silence. He states that he cannot have been
considered to have admitted or denied anything because under their law,
his silence means only consent.
Also present in the case is Perjury. Rich testifies that More had told him his
denials, while in all truth More has kept his silence the whole time. We must
remember that when a witness is called upon to testify, the witness must do
so under oath. Under oath, a witness cannot be testify to matters which are
not truthful, lest he be punished for Perjury.

Chicago

Synopsis:
The movie is about the trial of a girl, named Roxie Hart for killing Fred
Casely. The latter had lied to the former about referring her to his friend, a
club owner, in exchange for the sexual favor because in reality Fred did not
know the club owner personally and that he’s just a mere furniture sales
agent. At the apartment, Amos, Roxie’s husband, first took the blame in
killing Fred and stating that he was a burglar but later on, Amos changed
his answer after knowing the name of the deceased who sold to them a
furniture at 10% off. Roxie got arrested and charged with murder with a
penalty of death. At the jail, Roxie found out about a good lawyer who
never lose, named, Billy Flynn. Roxie hired Billy Flynn. Billy and Roxie
started creating stories about the incident. These stories were published in
the newspaper and broadcast in radio. Roxie became a star and she had
performed also in the stage to earn money with the help of the jail warden.
The trials proceeded and Roxie testified what Billy told him to testify. The
jury found Roxie not guilty by reason of self-defense. A little later after the
verdict, at the front of the court, another girl just killed a guy and so the
reporters immediately ran toward the crime scene to cover a new story.
Roxie and Velma after their acquittal then became famous co-stars and
performers.

Court Scene:
At the trial, Billy was able to discredit the credibility of the testimony of the
witness for showing how blurry her eyesight could be. The gun was also
produced during the hearing. Pictures of the victim were showed to the jury.

The next witness was Amos and he testified that he filed a divorce because
the baby Roxie is carrying was not his. He also testified that he slept with
his wife every night. He added that he’s willing to accept Roxie back if
Roxie will tell him that he’s the father of the child. Roxie then hugged Amos
and everyone in the courtroom showed emotional response.

Roxie took the witness stand and she testified that she’s having an illicit
relationship with the deceased, Fred Casely. She met Fred when the latter
sold to them furniture. She stated that their relationship begun when she
permitted Fred to escort her home one night because She and Amos had
quarreled. And she added that it was her fault because she never pestering
Amos for working long hours rather than with her company. She testified
that she wanted a home and a child. She added that she’s most unhappy
while making a gesture that took the attention of the jury. Billy asked Roxie
if she’s guilty of murdering Fred Casely and Roxie answered in negative.
She also narrated the event that transpired during the time of the crime that
Fred visited her and She told him that She and Amos would be having a
baby. Billy asked if Fred threaten her but the prosecution objected to it for
being a leading question. Billy asked what Fred did say to Roxie about the
news and Roxie stated that Fred said to her that he will going to kill her
before the baby born. She added that Fred tore her robe and threw her on
the bed and Amos’s pistol was lying between them. And then they both
reached to the gun but she got it first. Afterwards, Fred came toward her
with crazy eyes, very angry and wild with intent to kill her. So she closed
her eyes and shot him to save not only her life but also their child’s life and
she suddenly collapsed.

The prosecution called a rebuttable witness, Velma Kelly, Roxie’s co-

prisoner who also killed his husband and her sister when she caught the
two having sexual act. Velma identified Roxie’s diary and she read the
contents stating that Fred Casely had it coming and that Roxie’s just sorry
she only got to kill him once. On cross-examination, Velma testified that
she got a deal with prosecution to drop all the charges against her. Billy
asked Velma to read another parts of the diary regarding Fred Casely’s
promise to give Roxie a chance to perform in the stage but it was all a lie
so Roxie shot him. Billy was able to trap the prosecution to admit that the
diary could be erroneous. The jury found Roxie innocent of the crime of the
murder.

Lessons Learned:

COMPULSION

SUMMARY: This 1959 movie was about two law students who manages to
get everything they want with their lives since they were born with a silver
spoon. Artie Strauss and Judd Steiner were friends who thinks of
themselves as intellectually inferior from others. They were never
contended with lives and wanted to experience dangerous things to spice
up their lives. As such, they plot to commit the perfect crime of kidnapping
and murder, not only so that they can experience the sense of killing for
killing's sake, but also to taunt the law. Paullie Kessler, at such a young age
was their poor victim. After executing the notorious acts, the two were very
proud of their crime. However the crime was not so perfect. Sid Brooks, a
friend of Artie and Judd, who was working as a reporter in a newspaper
was the one who discovered a piece of evidence that will lead to the
identity of the perpetrators. An eyeglasses was found in the crime scene
which belongs to Judd. The two tried to lead the investigators away but the
prosecutor was persistent in finding the owner of the eyeglasses.
Eventually, they were charged and tried for the kidnapping and killing of
Paullie Kessler. Their lawyer, Jonathan Will changed their plea of not guilty
to guilty and presented convincing evidence as to the psychological
conditions of the two. The testimony of Ruth, a near rape victim of Judd,
also corroborated the claim of psychological problem of the two accused.
With this, Wilk managed to get a lower penalty of life imprisonment instead
of death penalty. However, the two were still outraged with the decision of
the jury and there was also absence of remorse and regret in the two.

APPLICATION: There are different classifications of evidence that are

sanctioned by the rules of court.
In the movie, the evidence presented by the investigators is the eyeglasses
of Judd which is a real or object evidence. This is evidence furnished by
things or physical objects on view or inspection or that evidence subject to
the senses of the court, as distinguished from description thereof by
witnesses. This kind of evidence is sometimes called “Autoptic Preference."
it is not limited to the view of an object; it extends to the visual, auditory,
tactile, gustatory, and olfactory. It is considered as evidence of the highest
order.
Another factor that led to the prosecution of Judd and Artie was their
extrajudicial admission during the investigation of the case. They admitted
the commission of the crime after they ran out of alibis regarding the
eyeglasses of Judd. Extrajudicial admissions are made out of court and
they are acknowledgment of facts or of circumstances of the case.

The Chamber (1996)

Summary:
Sam Cayhall is a member of the notorious Ku Klux Klan (KKK), the
organization which hates those people of African descent. 30 years prior,
he bombed a building which left 2 jewish children dead. He is arrested and
convicted of the crime of murder and is sentenced to die in 30 days. Adam
Hall, the grandson of Sam, arrives 28 days before the execution and tries
to save his grandfather from the gas chamber. The movie then goes into
depth into the family history of the Hall family and how a life filled with
hatred can cause immeasurable damage and pain. Adam Hall tries every
legal remedy available to him but to no avail. There is showing however
that it was not only Sam who was involved in the bombing but time had ran
out on them. Sam is eventually executed but before his execution, he finally
redeems himself when he shows remorse for his acts and realizes that he
wasted his life with hate.

Trial Scene:
The movie depicts Adam Hall trying to persuade the court that the gas
chamber is a form of cruel and inhumane punishment. The court however
denied such allegation. Adam desperately tries to argue that Sam is
innocent but due to the lack of time, he fails to prove to the court Sam’s
innocence.

A Class Action (1991)

Summary of the Movie:

Liberal activist Jedediah is a brilliant San Francisco lawyer who fights

for underdog causes, smallish financial returns and, on occasion, great
publicity. His daughter Maggie is also a brilliant San Francisco lawyer who
works for an old, rich conservative firm specializing in corporate law.
Maggie agrees to go up against her father in court. To gain promotion, she
must defend an auto manufacturer, Argo, against charges that their
explosion-prone station wagons are unsafe. As her mother begs for peace,
Maggie takes her dad in a trial that turns increasingly personal and nasty.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not Argo Motors Company is liable for the damages caused to
their employees

Rules of Evidence Applicable in this Movie:

1. Opinion Rule (Rule 128, Sections 48 and 49)

General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
SEC 49. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is known
to possess, may be received in evidence.

2. Interpretation of Documents (Rule 130, Section 16)

Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or
the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of the persons
skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.

 Alexander Powell, a scientist who made a research and testing of the

Meridian Automobile for the Argo Motors Company. He was
presented to take the witness stand to prove is expertise on matters
regarding the explosion.

3. Documentary Evidence (Rule 130, Section 2)

Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing

letters, words, numbers, figures symbols, or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents.

Reasonable Doubt (2014)

Summary of the Movie:
Mitch Brockden, a district attorney who one night while driving drunk
commits a fatal hit-and-run and kills a pedestrian and then drive away. The
victim was known as Cecil Ackerman, a regular sex offender, has 2 counts
of child abuse were paroled 3 months ago before the incident. The death
gets blamed on another man named Clinton Davis, who has 2 crime of
aggravated assault and whose family was murdered. When the case goes
to trial, Brockden’s nagging conscience drives him to acquit Davis, who has
claimed innocence from the beginning.
Issue of the case:
Whether or not Clinton Davis is guilty of Murder.

Rules of Evidence Applicable in this Movie:

1. Opinion Rule (Rule 128, Sections 48 and 49)
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
SEC 49. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is known
to possess, may be received in evidence.

2. Interpretation of Documents (Rule 130, Section 16)

Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. When the
characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or
the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of the persons
skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.

 The opinion of the Doctor as to the cause of death of the victim. The
doctor states that, it was the blood forced trauma to the skull caused
by a hard object that is consistent with the hammer found in the
suspect’s van covered with grease and motor oil.

 The opinion of the Forensic Linguistics expert. The expert witness

states that, forensic linguistic is extremely accurate but is not perfect
because perfection does not happen in science. According to the
witness, the 911 caller is reporting a real accident, the voice of the
caller sounds like a white male in his 30’s and from south to Chicago.
Such statement is totally different to physical character of the
suspect.

3. Collateral Matters (Sec. 4, Rule 128)

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief
in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not
be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
  The defense attorney offered a new witness. The prosecution objects
on the ground that they were not informed. However, the Judge
asked the defense attorney as to the relevance to the fact in issue of
the testimony of the new witness. The defense attorney answered,
the witness was identified as the 911 caller and as an eyewitness of
the hit and run incident. The Judge allowed the defense attorney to
present the witness.

4. Object Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 130)

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When
an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court.

 Evidences sought by the prosecution against Davis Clinton which

was found in his van are; hammer and other tools, and parts of
machines covered with grease and motor oil, as well as the clothes
which was found as belongs to him with blood stains matched with
the blood of the victim proved by DNA results.

After Trial, Clinton Davis was acquitted. However, Mitch discovered secrets
about Davis and found out that the man he helped to be acquitted is guilty
of murder.
What had happened is that, before Mitch hit the victim, Davis was already
in action of killing and when the victim was running away, he was
accidentally hit by the car driven by Mitch Brockden. Mitch Brockden’s life
turned upside down and his family in mortal danger.

Ghost of Mississippi (1996)

Summary of the Movie:
Medgar Evers is the 1960’s civil rights leader in Mississippi who was
killed by a gunman. It is later suspected that Byron De La Beckwith, a
racist, is the killer and he would be tried a couple of times and both trials
ended in hung juries. During Byron De La Beckwith’s two 1964 trials, the
all-white justice system seemed to favor him. His second trial was
interrupted when former governor Ross Barnett entered the courtroom to
shake Beckwith’s hand in front of the jury. The final verdict was appealed
on grounds that the trial was not fair due to the long delay.
For more than 30 years, Evers’ widow Myrlie has been trying to bring
De La Beckwith to justice and she believes that she has what it takes to
bring him to trial again. However, most of the evidence in the old trial has
disappeared but Bobby DeLaughter, an assistant district attorney, decides
to do what he can to help her. This career success is incongruous to
DeLaughter’s personal life, where his marriage has deteriorated and his
wife left him to care for their children and despite being warned that it might
hurt his political aspirations.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not Byron De La Beckwith is guilty of killing Medgar Evers

Rules of Evidence Applicable in this Movie:

1. Best Evidence Rule (Sec. 3, Rule 130)

Original document must be produced; exceptions. When the sunject of

inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;

c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the
fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of
the whole; and

d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer

or is recorded in a public office.

e) After 30 years, the case was moved for a new trial. Upon the lapse of
30 years after the two trials against Byron De La Beckwith, all the
evidences were lost. However, Mr. DeLaughter found them and even
presented three new witnesses who were not presented in the
previous two trials.

2. Object Evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 130)

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When
an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court.

 A 1917 Enfiel .30-06 rifle used to kill Medgar Evers was presented as
evidence which was later discovered that Byron De La Beckwith
owned it matched with its serial number 1052682. The same was
traded to Mr. McIntyre in 1960.
3. Testimonial Evidence (Sec. 20, Rule 130)

Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding

section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
their perception to others, may be witnesses.

 An eyewitness was presented by the prosecution. The testimony of

the eyewitness states that they, together with other friends, saw Mr.
Byron De La Beckwith driving a white car, with long antenna on the
side of it. It was recognized as Plymouth Valiant.

4. Opinion Rule (Rule 128, Sections 48 and 49)

General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
SEC 49. Opinion of expert witness. – The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is known
to possess, may be received in evidence.

Mr. Hargrove was presented as witness, who was employed by Jackson

Police Department in June 1963. He was incharge of the Identification
Division for 40 years. He testified that the fringerprints founded in the
gun recovered is Mr. Byron’s fingerprints.

Byron De La Beckwith was found guilty of killing the civil rights leader,
Medgar Evers. The verdict was rendered by the jury composed of 8
blacks and 4 whites. No hung juries a this time.

I am Sam (2001)
Summary of the Movie:
Sam Dawson is a man with developmental disability, lives in Los
Angeles, works at Starbucks, and is the sole guardian of his six years
old daughther Lucy, after her mother abandoned them. Despite his
limitations, Sam is well-adjusted and has a supportive group of friends
with developmental disabilities, as well as kind, agoraphobic neighbor
Annie who takes care of Lucy when Sam cannot, as he takes her to
work and she spills coffee on a woman and Sam tries to remove an ice
cube from the woman’s cleavage. Though Sam provides a loving and
caring environment for Lucy, she soon surpasses his mental ability.
Other children tease her for having a retard as a father, and she
becomes too embarrassed to accept that she is more intellectual
advanced than Sam.
In preparation for a custody case, a social worker turns up at Lucy’s
birthday party and takes her away, allowing Sam two supervised visits
per week. On the advice of his friends, Sam approaches a high-powered
lawyer, Rita Harrison, whose brusque manner; fast-paced schedule and
difficult personal life have earned her a reputation as cold and unfeeling.
 In an attempt to prove to others that she isn’t heartless, Rita surprisingly
agrees to take on Sam’s case for free.
As they work together to secure Sam’s parental rights, Sam
unwittingly helps Rita with her family problems, including encouraging
her to leave her philandering husband and repairing her fractious
relationship with her son.
During the trial period, Lucy is living in a foster home with Randy
Carpenter, but tries to convince Sam to help her run away, and
continually escapes in the middle of the night to go to Sam’s apartment,
whereupon he immediately returns her.
At the trial, Sam breaks down after opposing counsel convinces him
that he is not capable of being a father. Ultimately, the foster family who
planned to adopt Lucy decides to return her to Sam, with an agreement
that Randy will help him raise her.
The final scene depicts a soccer game, refereed by Sam, in which
Lucy participates as a player. In attendance are the foster family, Sam’s
friendship group, and a newly-single Rita with her son.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not Sam is entitled to the custody of his child

Rules of Evidence Applicable in this Movie:

1. Character Evidence (Sec. 51,sub par b, Rule 130)
Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:
In Civil cases; Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case
is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in
the case.
2. Collateral Matters (Sec. 4, Rule 128)

Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce

belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters
shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

3. Testimonial Evidence (Sec. 20, Rule 130)

Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next

succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

THE ACCUSED
SUMMARY: Sara Tobias is a hard edged, waitress, who lives with her drug
dealing boyfriend in a run-down trailer park. One night after a fight with her
boyfriend, Sara heads to the local dive bar to drown her sorrows and party
the night away with her friend, who is a waitress at the tavern. Sara got
drunk and was picked up on by a local bar fly who invites her back into the
bar's game room for a game of pinball and some drinks. Sara soon finds
herself atop the pinball machine, being brutally gang raped. The district
attorney who is prosecuting sensed that the case against the accused is
weak and the probability of an acquittal is high, he settled and accepted the
plea bargain of the accused to a lesser offense. Sarah the accused the
lawyer of cheating her and wanted the public to know that her attacker went
to jail because they had raped a woman. In order to redeem her self-
respect, the lawyer later explained to Sarah that they could no longer
prosecute the attackers because double jeopardy had set in but they could
go after the people who had cheered and encouraged the commission of
the crime. However, problems during the prosecution of the second set of
accused who are those who instigated the commission of the crime when
the District Attorney’s Assistant who is prosecuting the case soon discovers
that Sarah willingly went with one of the accused and even accepted a
drink from him. Despite of such problems, they were able to convince the
judge that what happened in the placed called The Mills is still a crime.
Nobody deserved to be gang-raped in front of a cheering crowd who far
from helping the victim, even encouraged the perpetrators of the crime.
They have proven that these people are as guilty as those who actually
committed the crime.
APPLICATION: Only testimonial evidences were introduced in this movie,
that is, the testimony of Sarah and Kenneth. Sarah testified on what
happened when she was raped. Kenneth’s testimony was used to support
the claim of Sarah that people watched and cheered while being raped.
Testimonial evidences are declarations of a witness in court. Their
testimonies shall be admitted as long as they are competent. Both of the
witnesses that was presented in the movie are competent and their
testimonies are relevant to the fact in issue which is the rape of Sarah thus
are admissible as evidence.

“LET HIM HAVE IT”

SYNOPSIS:
This film is a true story based on the life of Derek Bentley, who was hanged
for murder of a policeman based solely on circumstantial evidence. Derek
Bentley, did not whatsoever had a hand on the fatal shot of PC Miles, a
policeman, who was shot by Bentley’s friend, which is a member of the
gang which Bentley was also a member. Bentley, was an illiterate, with
developmental disabilities young adult, who befriended gang members.
Which makes him easy prey to any bad elements in the community.
In a one altercation with the police, the two were trapped, the police told his
friend to put down his gun and Derek Bentley also said “LET HIM HAVE IT,
CHRIS”. Chris then shoot the police which caused the latter’s instant
death. Since his friend was a minor, he was given a minor sentence.
Although he did not shoot the police, Derek Bentley was sentenced to
death, on the basis that his instigation to Chris, that is, the words “LET HIM
HAVE IT” was the caused why Chris shoot the police. Bentley’s family
began an effort for his clemency. Despite public’s support, Bentley was still
hanged.
COURT SCENES:
The prosecution described the incident as a Chicago Style Gun Battle
which resulted to the death of a police and the other one injured. The
prosecution argued that Bentley incited Chris to commit the crime, and
mentally supporting the latter making him a party to the murder.
When a police officer was presented as a witness, the prosecution asked
him what did “Bentley shouted to cause Chris to fire?” which the defense
objected on the ground that it was a leading question. The judge overruled
the objection, that the question was a valid one. The witness answered “he
shouted, let him have it, Chris”. The prosecution asked again if what is
meant by those statement, which the witness said, Shoot! Start firing!

During cross-examination, the defense established that the police was the
one attacked Bentley, that the latter was free to run to Chris if he really
wanted to help his friend commit the crime.
Chris was the one called in the witness stand. The judge was the one
asking the question, which the witness states that Bentley did not have
knowledge that he had a gun with him. The judge was asking why they shot
the police, but the defense objected that Chris shoot only to scare the
police.
When it was Bentley’s turn to testify, the judge and the prosecution asked
him questions, at the same time, but Bentley can’t answer them
intelligently, because of his condition. The defense did not even objected to
the kind of questioning done to Bentley.
In summation, Derek Bentley was denied due process for the reason that,
the victims was a policemen. They did not even consider the mental
condition of Bentley. All the evidence was merely circumstantial, not
sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt the accused. They only relied
to their common sense and interpreted the words shouted by Bentley
against him.
In Philippine setting, for a person to be convicted, his guilt must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Especially if it is a capital offense, since it is the
life, freedom and liberty of a person which will be at stake. The movie, is
indeed, very sad, since Derek Bentley has a very good chance to be
acquitted of the crime, but the defense lawyer seems like he’s not at all
interested for the acquittal of his client.
LESSON LEARNED:

MURDER IN THE FIRST

SYNOPSIS
Henry Young was a destitute person trying to have a decent job, but was
refused. He became a small time “criminal” stealing from grocery stores so
that he’s younger sister have something to eat. The grocery store that he’s
able to steal $, housed the US Post Office, making his crime a federal
offense. He was imprisoned, and never saw his sister again. He was
transferred to Alcatraz, wherein they plotted to escape, but failed due to the
betrayal of their fellow inmate. Young was punished by being sent to a
solitary confinement in a dungeon for three years. Aside from being
isolated, he was being subjected to torture, cold and no sufficient food. This
caused his being demented and lose his sanity. After being released in the
dungeon, he killed a fellow inmate who betrayed them by using a spoon.
He was charged Murder in the First Degree. A public defender, a rookie
one, Stamphill, recently graduated the Harvard Law School was assigned
to defend Young. Stamphill went to Alcatraz to interview personally his
client. The counsel had a hard time interviewing Young for the reason that
he lose his sanity already. But the Counsel was determined to help him,
because the penalty of the crime he was charged is death by gas chamber.

COURT SCENES:
Defense tried to have more 60 days to prepare for the case. But the judge
gave him 1 week to get ready for trial. The prosecution opened the trial
blaming Young for the death of the inmate. The defense counsel, reiterated
that Young indeed does not deny the killing. But he was not alone in doing
so, he has a co-conspirator, which the prosecution objected, saying that
Young has been in solitary confinement for three years and after released
there, he went to the dining area and killed the inmate, that he has no co-
conspirator. Which the defense said “the district attorney just made the
case for me”. That for three tortious years, a man who only stole $5 to feed
his sister, who never knew to hurt or kill someone, but was forced to do
otherwise, due to the fact that the system made him to. Defense Attorney
made the Alcatraz a headline- Crime against Humanity, which put the
justice system in question.
Prosecution called the guard in Alcatraz as their witness, to state the crime
and how Young killed the inmate. And establish whether or not Young
appeared to be insane at the time he killed the inmate. Stamphill tried to
interview the inmates in the Alcatraz and the warden. They were given a
court order to have an ocular inspection in the dungeon and all medical
records of Young.
The defense called the associate warden to the witness stand. Stamphill
established that the Assoc. Warden, was the one who ordered the solitary
confinement of Young. That Young was not allowed outside for three years
and two months. That all the inmates (32) that released from solitary
confinement became insane and sent to the mental institution. That they
came to Alcatraz legally sane, and went out of the Dungeon, insane. That
beating an inmate has a merit over the sanity of a person which were left in
solitary confinement for more than three years. Warden was called to the
witness stand on why Young was confined in the solitary confinement for
more than thousand days, which in regular case, only 9 days that an
inmate shall be put in the dungeon. The warden can’t give intelligible
answer to the defense counsel questions, since he was not always there,
and let the associate warden to run Alcatraz in his own discretion.
Young was called to the witness stand, but due to the condition of the latter,
he was not able to answer intelligibly the question of his Counsel. And
when asked if he’s guilty on the murder of McCain, he cried and said he’s
not guilty, that they are the murderers.
The jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter only. The jury
recommends and request immediate investigation and find the institution
and its warden and associate, guilty of Crime against Humanity. Henry
Young, was then brought back to his cell, but was killed.
LESSON LEARNED

Town Without Pity

Synopsis:
The movie is about the trial of the four US military men, stationed in
Germany, who raped Karin. Col. Jerome Pakenham handled the
prosecution and Maj. Steve Garett handled the defense. Karin, 16 years
old, was swimming with Frank, 19 years old, in the river. The two had
altercation, which made Karin swam ahead of Frank to the other side of the
river. While Karin was changing clothes, she was seen and grabbed by Sgt.
Snyder. Karin shouted for help so Frank went to her rescue but Frank got
punched in the face and knockout. Karin was raped by the four men,
namely, and left alone but Jim, one of the four men left his jacket to cover
Karin. The four military men was arrested and charged with rape. Trials
ensued and the jury found the four guilty and sentenced to serve in prison
and they were also dishonorably discharged.

Court Scene:
At the hospital, the prosecution asked Karin to narrate the facts of the case
and to identify the offenders, which she identified namely, Sgt. Chuck
Snyder, Cpl. Birdwell Scott, Cpl. Jim Larkin and Private Joey Haines.

At the General’s office, the defense counsel offered a plea bargain for the
three men except Jim but the prosecution refused and instead said that he
will be asking for the maximum penalty which was death. Maj. Garett told
Mr. Steinhof, the father of Karin, that his daughter would have to testify in
open court and think of the effect it would give to his daughter but Mr.
Steinhof stood firm.
At the arraignment, all except Cpl. Larkin pleaded not guilty but Maj. Garett,
the defense counsel changed Cpl. Larkin’s plea to not guilty.

At the trial, Frank identified two of them and testified about the facts that
have happened. On cross-examination, Frank testified that Karin was in a
hurry to go home that’s why she swam alone to the other side.

The next witness testified about the condition of Karin at the time of the
crime.

Col. Pakenham asked Mr. Steinhof if Karin gave him any trouble and it was
objected and Col. Pakenham stated that he was trying to establish the
credibility of the victim before she takes the stand but the objection was
withdrawn. Mr. Steinhof answered that Karin was a very good girl. On
cross-examination, Mr. Steinhof said that Karin never lied to him.

Dr. Franz Urban testified about the result of the blood test and it belonged
to two blood groups. He added that it was possible that four men were
involved because it was possible that two persons were in the same blood
group. On cross-examination, Maj. Garett asked Dr. Urban if it was also
possible that only two persons were involved and he answered in
affirmative.

The prosecution called Karin to take the witness stand and she testified
that she fought hard her assailants but she stopped because she’s afraid
that the four men would kill Frank. She added that she and Frank
sometimes talked about their future but something was different now after
the incident. No cross-examination but Maj. Garett reserved a right to call
Karin back.

Dr. Riessmann, a psychiatric board of the army, testified that Cpl. Larkin
had suffered from a severe inferiority neurosis and state of chronic
impotence. Cpl. Larkin shouted to the doctor and stated that he is liar. Due
to the commotion, the proceeding was suspended.

Mrs. Borgman testified that Karin lied to her parents when in fact she was
with Mrs. Borgman son, Frank, which was objected by the prosecution for
being irrelevant but it was overruled after Maj. Garett qouted what the
prosecution previously stated that he was establishing the character and
conduct Karin.

Herr Schmidt, a bookkeeper, testified that he saw the victim, Karin, in her
room exercising while naked because he lived across Karin’s room, which
was also objected by the prosecution but it was overruled.

Frank was recalled by the defense and Frank testified that he and Karin
had no quarrel.
Frau Kulig was called as the next witness by the defense and she testified
about what happened between the two while in the river, which
contradicted what Frank previously testified that he and Sarah had no
quarrel.

Maj. Garett started his cross-examination with Karin and Maj. Garret
showed to a bikini and asked her to identify the bikini if that’s what she
wore at the time of the crime. Maj. Garett asked Karin if she lied just to see
Frank and she answered in affirmative. Karin confirmed the testimony of
Schmidt that she was exercising naked because she was careless and
forgot to close the curtain of the window. Karin also confirmed the
testimony of Kulig. Maj. Garett asked if Karin stood naked so that Frank
could see her but Karin couldn’t answer. Maj. Garett asked if showing her
body to people excited her and Karin collapsed.

Lessons Learned:

West Of Memphis (2012)

Summary:

The documentary tells us the story of the West Memphis 3, a group of

young teenagers who were charged with the murder of 3 young boys.
Damian, Jason and Jessie were charged with the murders because all
three of them were found to be members of a Satanic Cult. The police and
the prosecuting attorneys related the killing of the 3 boys to the practices of
Satanic Cults in the area. Upon trial, prosecution presented evidence of an
admission by one of the West Memphis 3. A witness also testified that one
of the accused told him how they mutilated the victims before raping them.
They were convicted of murder and were sentenced to 40 years to life
imprisonment for the crime. But something didn’t quite fit. The alleged
confession of the accused was found out to be incompetent as evidence
because the police made the accused say the things they wanted to hear.
The testimony of the witness was also found to be incompetent because
the witness was always high on hallucinogenic drugs. Supporters of the
West Memphis 3 started investigating into the possible innocence of the
teenagers. In the end, it was found out that the uncle of one of the victims
was killer. Dubbed, “the Hobbs’ Family Secret” wherein a nephew of the
real killer admitted that his uncle killed the victims all those years ago. 18
years have passed since the WM3 were imprisoned and a motion for new
trial was made. The motion sparked a controversy nationwide. The lawyers
of the WM3 even entered a special kind of guilty plea called the Alford plea
wherein an accused pleads guilty but still maintains his innocence. The
judge granted the motion and acknowledged the plea. The WM3 boys were
then released from prison and the real killer is put on trial. The movie ends
with Damien, Jason and Jessie living normal lives with their friends and
loved ones.

Trial Scene:
The trial scenes here show the confession of Jessie, who is close to being
retarded and how the police and the interrogators lead Jessie to admit that
they killed the victims. As a rule, evidence of such nature is incompetent
and inadmissible. The confession was not made voluntarily, it was made by
a person of unsound mind and without the assistance of counsel. A great
injustice is found in the case because the police and the district attorney’s
office were in such a rush to convict the killer that they resorted to unlawful
means to do so.

Conviction

SUMMARY: This is the story of Kenny Waters who was arrested for murder
and sentenced for life imprisonment. Katharina Brow is murdered in her
mobile home. Kenny was questioned but later released. Two years later,
based on new evidence, Kenny is arrested for the murder. The new
evidence is the testimony from Ayer police officer Nancy Taylor, his ex-wife
Brenda, and his ex-girlfriend Roseanna. In addition to the testimony, blood
evidence was used in Kenny's trial, which showed Kenny and the killer had
the same blood type. DNA testing did not exist at the time of the trial.
Despite claiming his innocence, Kenny is convicted and sentenced to life
without parole. Kenny’s sister, Betty Anne, believed that he is innocent and
dedicated her life to prove it. Betty Anne and her best friend, together with
an NGO, Innocence Project, uncovered the facts and utilized DNA
evidence with the hope of proving his innocence, thus, making him free.
After Betty Anne obtained exculpatory DNA test results proving that
Kenny’s and the murderer’s DNA is not the same; the testimony of his ex-
wife’s Brenda being recanted, Kenny was freed after 18 years of
imprisonment.

APPLICATION: One of the rules in evidence that was showed in the movie
was the rule on DNA evidence. On the time of the commission of the crime,
there was still no DNA tests. They only knew that the murderer was type O
and so is Kenny. This gave Betty Anne the hope in proving Kenny’s
innocence—to test the murderer’s blood and Kenny’s blood and see if they
will match. In our law, The DNA Evidence Rule applies whenever DNA
evidence is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in
all criminal and civil actions as well as special proceedings. DNA evidence
constitutes the totality of the DNA profile, results and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. DNA
Testing refers to the verified and credible scientific methods which include
the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA
profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA
testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with
reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more
distinct biological samples originates from the same person or if the
biological samples originate from related persons. The scientific basis of a
DNA test comes from the fact that our differences as individuals are due to
the differences in the composition of our genes. The existence of a DNA
sample that was present on the time of the commission of the crime is
necessary for this matter. Just like in the movie, the existence of the knife
used by the murderer to kill the victim was vital, without it, DNA testing
cannot be done.

Jagged Edge (1985)

Socialite Paige Forrester was murdered in her beach front house by a

masked man. While Paige Forrester was sleeping, a masked man entered
her house, tied her up and used a hunting knife with jagged edges in killing
her. After killing her, he wrote the word “Bitch” on the bedroom wall using
the victim’s own blood.
Jack Forrester, Paige’s husband, was arrested and charged with the
latter’s murder by DA Thomas Krasny, based on evidence that includes a
janitor at a country club who saw a hunting knife in Jack's locker; medical
suggestion that Jack's head wound was self-inflicted; Jack's fingerprints
being at the crime scene with Paige's; and Jack inheriting all of Paige's
corporate and personal assets in the event of her death. Jack Forrester
then hires Teddy Barnes, a lawyer whom Thomas Krasny worked with in
the past, to defend him.
As the trial progresses, Jack and Teddy develops an intimate and
sexual relationship with each other. Teddy’s office then begins receiving
anonymous typed letters that mention things about the case, especially that
Forrester is innocent. All of the letter t's are slightly raised, and analysis
determines that they were written on a 1942 Corona typewriter.
Nonetheless, Teddy took consideration of these letters.
In a pre-trial meeting, Teddy tells the judge that Krasny has a history
of not meeting his discovery obligations. The prosecution's case relies
mainly on circumstantial evidence. A woman claimed that Paige told her
she was divorcing Jack, but Teddy discredits her with evidence, including a
love letter, that her advances had been rejected by Jack, causing Paige to
cut off all communication with her.
Another note arrives at her office saying, "He is innocent. Santa Cruz.
January 21, 1984. Ask Julie Jensen." Teddy interviews Jensen, who
testifies at the trial that she was attacked in the same manner as Paige
Forrester. All the details match, but she says her attacker seemed to stop
himself from killing her. As Krasny objects that the attack on Jensen is
unrelated to the one on Forrester, he lets slip that his office had
investigated the attack and not revealed it in discovery. In chambers, the
judge threatens to have Krasny disbarred. Krasny insists that Forrester
staged the earlier attack in order to create an alibi of sorts for Paige's
murder, which he had planned for eighteen months. Krasny also insists that
Jack has been sending Teddy the anonymous notes.
Jack was then pronounced not guilty and Teddy announces to the
media that she left Krasny's office over a previous case they have
prosecuted where Krasny suppressed evidence that proved the accused
was innocent.
Teddy went to Jack's house to celebrate. In the morning, she
discovers a Corona typewriter in his closet. She tests it, and the "t" is raised
just as it was in the anonymous notes. She heads to her car pretending to
Jack that her little boy is sick. Teddy arrives in her house and immediately
takes a hot shower as if to rid her of filth.
Jack calls Teddy to ask about her child, she tells him that she found
the typewriter. Jack seems confused and tells her he is coming over. After
a while, Teddy hears her door’s glass window being broken. A masked man
dressed in black enters her house and confronts Teddy in her bedroom. As
he starts to attack, Barnes throws back the covers to reveal her gun. She
shoots him four times until he falls to the floor dead.

Application:
The first piece of evidence which the prosecution presented was the
testimony of Virginia Howell, a friend of Paige Forrester. The defense
objects on the ground that the testimony is hearsay. The prosecution
counters that the testimony is an exception to the hearsay rule on the
ground that it is being offered to show the state of mind of the victim.
Virginia Howell then disclosed that Paige wanted to divorce Jack but she
could not for the meantime because he was doing such a good job in
running the business.
Under the Rules on Evidence, evidence is not hearsay if the purpose
of the evidence being offered is any of the following: 1. To determine the
state of mind of the declarant; 2. To determine the state of mind of the
listener. Virginia Howell’s testimony was offered to determine the state of
mind of the declarant, Paige Forrester.
The next piece of evidence presented by the prosecution is the
testimony of Anthony Fabrizzi, a janitor in the country club which the
Forresters were members of. Mr. Fabrizzi testified that he found a hunting
knife with jagged edges in locker no. 122, the locker of Jack Forrester. The
hunting knife was similar to the weapon used in killing Paige Forrester.
Since the object itself— the knife— was never presented in court, the
testimony of Mr. Fabrizzi was only circumstantial evidence. To discredit the
testimony of Mr. Fabrizzi, the defense called Mr. Duane Bendix. Mr. Bendix
testified that he was a member of the same country club which the
Forrester’s were members of; that he owned a hunting knife with jagged
edges and that his locker number is 222. The prosecution recalled Anthony
Fabrizzi stand. As prosecutor Krasny was questioning Fabrizzi is was then
discovered that Fabrizzi was not sure if it was really Jack’s locker from
where he found the hunting knife as Mr. Bendix’s locker was only behind
Jack’s.