Dramatic attorneys

July 2, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Today's post was written by Managing Editor Elizabeth Brockett. 

In her opening remarks, the deputy prosecutor told the jury that real trials are nothing like what people see on TV or in the movie theaters.

“Oh yes it was! It was exactly like it!” laughed my friend as he told me about his experience serving on a jury.

He said that prosecutor especially was oh-so dramatic in her presentation and arguments. I can’t even remember what he said the case was about because I was so struck by his impression that has stayed with me for several years. As a former police and court reporter, I’ve covered murder and other criminal trials and a few civil trials. Rarely are they as dramatic as they seem on the screen, although I can think of two trials I covered that were … perhaps that’s another blog.

Yes, we’ve talked with some of our readers who say lay people get a bad impression about lawyers and judges from TV shows and movies. But not all of those characters are buffoons or greedy, unethical cads. On the good end of the scale of legal characters, most people would mention Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird” or Denzel Washington’s Joe Miller in “Philadelphia.” Or Albert Finney’s Ed Masry in “Erin Brockovich.” I admit I don’t watch a lot of TV so I can’t recall at the moment any “good” lawyers on TV shows or in recent movies. But back to my friend’s experience … let’s recall some of the worst legal characters – lawyers and judges – in TV and movies.

In recent years, consider the attorneys of “Boston Legal” – bad attorneys or just overly zealous and quirky? How about Jim Carrey’s character in “Liar, Liar.” Richard Gere’s Billy Flynn in “Chicago.” Although I haven’t watched it, Glenn Close’s Patty Hewes in “Damages” is a supposedly revered litigator … one that also is being investigated by the FBI.

What about Paul Newman’s alcoholic Frank Galvin in “The Verdict.” Sean Penn’s Dave Kleinfeld, a drug-addicted lawyer in “Carlito’s Way.” Of course there’s always Joe Pesci’s Vincent Gambini in “My Cousin Vinny.” The partners at Tom Hank’s law firm in “Philadelphia” beginning with Jason Robard’s character. There of course are the likeable ones who do bad things, like Robert Duvall’s Tom Hagen in “The Godfather” movies. There are more than I could even name here … there are research papers, and maybe even books, on this topic!

So, while you’re standing around the grill with your favorite beverage in hand or while you’re waiting for the fireworks to start, start the conversation, “Hey, who’s the worst lawyer ever on TV or in the movies?”
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Who could be worse than Al Pacino\'s John Milton in The Devils\' Advocate?
  • Tom Cruise\'s closing argument in the midst of crossing Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men is always amusing.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT