“...I don’t want him convicted of felony assault Brian. Because if she was REALLY hit then there would have been a police report.  If she was REALLY hit then she would have had to have her lip sewn up.  It’s “he said she said” and I don’t think it’s good enough for a conviction.No evidence = no conviction as far as I’m concerned. People lie and have agendas so word can only go so far. … ‘

Here is another:

“those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. everyone lives in one. Mel, has at least brought some great masterpieces onto the screens. Rubberneckers only see the reck, not knowing the full context of an incident…..

Are these the Neanderthal views the general public has with regards to domestic violence?   If it doesn’t draw blood or leave a mark it didn’t happen?  If he is talented we will excuse it?  According to one study, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in a year period did not report the incident to the police.  With attitudes like this it is no wonder more battered women do not come forward.

While Mel’s outbursts speak for themselves as to his ethnic and racial views, he is certainly entitled to his day in court any criminal allegations.  Is it possible that his ex is lying?  Sure it is.  Regardless of what “truth” comes out,  I read crap like above and despair the human condition just a little bit more..

The Legalities of Lindsay Lohan written July 29. 2006

I have never seen a Lindsay Lohan movie. I do not read gossip columns, or frequent TMZ. I could not care less about her off screen antics. I however could not resist seeing what kind of threatening letter a top studio executive sends a 20 year old out of control, party-wild, self impressed actress when they are not happy with her work habits.

In this case it involves a movie in production called “Georgia Rule” in which she is the star. The studio is apparently concerned with Lindsay’s failure to show up for production calls and showing up late when she did show. They feel there is some relationship to her perceived excessive partying. In the letter James G. Robinson, CEO of Morgan Creek Productions, calls Lohan’s recent absences from the set “irresponsible and unprofessional.”

Being an attorney, I took interest in the letter. I scanned quickly through all the emotional rhetoric and right down to the legal threats. They of course threaten to take all action necessary to ensure the protection of the integrity of the film. Having some limited exposure to the film industry, the first thing that came to my mind and was what is generally considered one of the more costly aspects of a major motion pictures aside from salaries. This is the completion completion insurance or a “completion bond.”

Now you may ask, what the hell does insurance have to do with Lindsay Lohan and the making of her film? It may not have a lot to do with this film, but I can guarantee you it will affect her future films and if she doesn’t calm down. She may find herself a “B” movie queen because she will be uninsureable or it will be cost prohibitive to insure her.

When a studio is casting for a major production it is a crap shot on whether it makes money. Like most other business ventures it is about minimizing risk. If an actor or actress can not be insured or be insured for a reasonable amount in comparison to the projected revenues of the film that person is probably not going to get many starring or mainstream roles. This is because the producers of the film may not be able to get a completion bond.

A completion bond is a motion picture completion guaranty is a written contract that guarantees a motion picture will be finished and delivered on schedule and within budget. The majority of films produced and fully financed by the major Hollywood studios are self-guaranteed. However, most independently financed films, including many that are released and distributed by the major studios, require a completion guaranty.

A producer usually secures a completion guaranty for the benefit of the bank or other financiers who agree to make the necessary production funding strike price available to the producer. In general, a completion guaranty assures banks and financiers that:
1. The producers will complete and deliver the film in keeping with the screenplay, budget and production schedule that the bank or financiers approved; or
2. The completion guarantor will complete and deliver the film in keeping with such pre-approved screenplay and production schedule, and advance such sums in excess of the pre-approved budget necessary to do so; or
3. In the event production of the film is abandoned, the completion guarantor will fully repay all sums invested in the film by the bank or financiers.

If Lindsay, who is from what I hear a very talented actress when she is sober, does not get her act together soon, she will find herself relegated to low budget Indies such as “Herbie Retooled and Reloaded Again And Again And Again And Again”

There was one a few days ago that the organization was successful in getting taken down.  Another one popped up two days later to take its place. It looks like it’s the same people trying to get a rise but the general bottom line is the same.  In addition to all the great content and information on Facebook, there is a lot of antisemitism and hate speech against  ethnic, religious and gender orientation minorities.  Facebook does what it can to keep it in check when made aware of the problem within the inherent flaws of  user-based self-reporting systems.  There however, is simply so much more of the hatred than there are employees at Facebook to monitor it.

I try to take most of this crap in stride as there are idiots everywhere.  The most troubling aspect of “the day” is not that some anti-Semitic idiot would put it up but that so many are willing to play along and incite the hatred in the page commentary.  Strong evidence that it is much more than a silly page put up by a moron. It is a stark reminder that Facebook is not just a place for friends to connect and share information.  It is a venue for those of like mind in hatred of not only Jews but any minority group to take that message, find those who agree and take hatred viral.

I wonder if they will talk about that in the new Facebook movie, The Social Network. I doubt it.  People are more interested In Mark Zuckerberg’s quirks and dalliances than they are about real issues affecting all of us in that network.  That’s to be expected.  People want to be entertained.  I hope it’s more entertaining than Kill A Jew Day.

Germany happens to have laws in place against hate speech, Holocaust Denial and other types of hateful expression borne of Nazi Germany.  The guy faces up to 6 months in jail.  It brings to mind an incident not long ago.  I was at the gym listening to my iPod.  Just after I was serenaded by Billy Joel, I was snapped to attention when a Hitler speech started playing!  Quite the musical transition!  Imagine my surprise when I went from Billy Joel to a Hitler rant.

I had previously downloaded some Hitler speeches as part of my research for a book on hate speech.  Unbeknown to me, the speeches had transferred to my iPod when I synced it with my Mac.   Glad there were no police waiting to arrest me.  I will be sure to check my Ipod play-list before my next trip to Germany.

As reported in the Dallas Morning News, the case focused on several winter break parties from 2001 to 2004 at Thomas Elementary and Rasor Elementary. Lynn Swanson, the principal at Thomas, stopped a third-grade boy from distributing the candy cane pens with the Christian message that read, in part, “The blood Christ shed for the sins of the world.”

A month later, Jackie Bomchill at Rasor prevented a girl from handing out tickets for a Christian drama and from distributing religious-themed pencils. The boy’s parents and others whose children were prevented from handing out the materials sued the school district.

The courts have held that the constitutional rights of students are not surrendered at the school door.  The courts have also held however ,that schools can however regulate activities that disrupt the educational purpose.  This was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court  in the  Bong Hits For Jesus case in which a student, during a school sanctioned off premises event, put up a banner on a public sidewalk that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”.  The banner was confiscated and the student disciplined. The court found in part, that as the banner promoted illegal drug use, it did disrupt the educational mission and the speech was therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment.

In this case, we are dealing with censoring of a private exchange of a  a benign religious message.  It is not occurring in the classroom, at the behest of the school or in any type of school sanctioned manner.  The mere fact that it occurs on school premises does not in itself inure it with this quality   There is no disruption to the educational mission and no illegal activity is encouraged.  The school is not sanctioning it, encouraging it or endorsing it simply by the mere fact that it is occurring.

The fact that it is an elementary school student versus a high school student in my mind is irrelevant.  The message is the message regardless of age.  To claim that the 1st amendment applies differently to the message in the 4th grade versus high school in my mind is the very essence of a viewpoint discrimination and the school unacceptably invading the province of the parents how they raise their children.

In the end, the 1st Amendment applies to the government’s attempt to regulate our speech including religious expression. That means that the school can not engage in conduct that endorses  religious viewpoints.  It does not mean that the school can muzzle a student from expressing their viewpoints in a non-school endorsed private manner.  If I do not agree with the message that is my job as a parent to deal with it at home and not to try to censor the message simply because I disagree.

You can read case here.

The controversy reinforces my long standing belief that the majority of the general public have no clue what the 1st amendment says or means in a legal sense.  They simply understand the basic concept of “free speech”.  They then shape that concept based on their own belief system borne out of their life experiences. The end result is their “idea of free speech” that is carried throughout their daily lives. That idea often has nothing to do with the realities of the 1st Amendment.  It goes something like this: I have something to say in your home.  You tell me I can’t say it there.  You are violating my rights to free speech.  A muzzle is a muzzle regardless of what dog its on.

Lets get some clarity here.  This is not about hate speech or Muslim’s or conservative politics.  Pete Doughtie has the right to write and publish what he pleases regardless of whom it offends or who regards it as hate speech unless it incites others to violence.  That is the 1st Amendment at work.

Time for some more clarity.  The 1st amendment only applies to government attempts to regulate our speech.  KFC  and Kroger are private companies. They can determine what newspapers, speech or any other expression they want to allow or prohibit on their premises. The distributor is a private company.  They can choose not to work with his paper.  End of story.  Get that straight.  Pete is clearly ignorant of this concept when he threatens to sue these companies.  Everyone in Rutherford please take a breath, gather some basic understanding of the 1st Amendment and the have the Rutheford Reader delivered directly to your doorstep hate speech and all.  You have that right.  Its a free country.

Kenya, while having some guarantees of free expression in place, takes a much different view on hate speech than the United States. They experience it differently on a cultural and ethnic level.  Hateful rhetoric similar to speech targeting Jews, Muslims, Hispanics and other religious and ethnic minorities that we may find despicable but part of a free society has resulted in full scale riots in Kenya.  They are therefore much more sensitive to the relationship between words, violence and ethnic incitement.

Kenya’s hate speech laws read as follows under Section  Section 62 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008:

“Any person who utters words intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence or discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both or a newspaper, radio station or media enterprise that publishes the utterances referred to in subsection (1) commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million shillings.”

Section 13 of the Act stipulates that a person is liable to be charged with hate speech when he or she uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or displays any written material.

Think that would fly here in the United States?

I found of particular interest, an opinion piece written by John Orso on the allAfrica.com web site entitled “Hate Speech Must Be Penalised“referring to the recent arrests of Kenyan politicians on hate speech charges. He wrote:

“After the turmoil which followed the 2007 general elections, Kenyans developed certain sensitivities which every politician and public speaker needs to observe whenever addressing the public. On its part, the government has no option but to ensure that laws against hate speech and incitement are applied. In any case, such laws can only serve their purpose as preventative measures”

If that article was written regarding U.S. politician and media exhortations, we would probably snicker.  As long as Glenn Beck or some other political pundit does not exhort us to go out and commit murder, it’s no holds barred with the ratings winner to he or she or screams the loudest and in the most outrageous fashion. Accusations of hate speech routinely fly back and forth here. In reality, they have no standardized meaning so no one cares on a societal level.  It’s just speech.  Words don’t hurt, unless you live in Kenya.  In Kenya it’s life or death.  As we bask in the glory of free speech and the right to say the outrageous at no cost but to our dignity, lets not lose site of the fact that words are sticks and stones, just not here…

In 2008, White published the name, photograph, home address and phone number of a juror on his site in an entry entitled “The Juror Who Convicted Matt Hale.” The juror had been foreman of a jury that convicted another white supremacist, Matthew Hale, of soliciting the murder of a federal judge.

White had earlier written on his website that “everyone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time.”

In dismissing the charge last July, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman noted that White broke no laws when he dug up the publicly available contact information for the juror and posted it to overthrow.com.  Adelman further stated that:

“An intimidating context alone does not remove the protection of the First Amendment.”

Where do we draw the line between hubris/intimidation and true threat?   In these types of cases, context is king and intent is queen.  While the the linchpin here seems to be the posting of the address in conjunction with the other posts, it should be noted that the information was publicly available.  It however, is all part of context.  White was not some flaky loner nut case.  He was an avowed white supremacist.  He had a following.  Does this type of context take it beyond intimidation into the world of imminent incitement to violence against the juror? While I have misgivings about whether these facts fall outside the 1st Amendment,  it seems clear that if you you post addresses, even publicly available,  in conjunction with even vague threats, it will be looked at in a more critical light even if the threats in themselves would be protected.  What also seems clear is that there is no bright line standard for these types of cases.  It’s all about context.

An interesting side note is that one of the appellate judges in this case,  Richard Posner recently testified as a witness in the case against Neo-Nazi radio shock jock Hal Turner who was charged with encouraging his readers to murder Posner and two other federal judges in retaliation for upholding the Chicago handgun ban which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. Did that case have any influence on the decision here?  In the Turner case, Posner and the other judges testified that they felt threatened by Turner’s posts.  Posts that were not much different in tone and if anything more explicitly threatening than White’s posts. That case has resulted in two mistrials

The United States Code Title 18, Part I Chapter 115 defines treason as follows:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”

“The full resources of the Justice Department will be devoted to ensuring that those persons who would betray their country and the people of the United States are prosecuted and severely punished.”-The United States Attorney commenting on the Robert Hanssen case.

The cold war is back. Federal prosecutors have accused 11 people of spying for the Russians. In true mole fashion sounding like something right out of the movie  “No Way Out” the FBI alleges that these spies were sent here by the Russian overseas intelligence service known as the SVR — the successor to the Soviet KGB — as early as the mid-1990s, and were provided with training in language as well as the use of codes and ciphers.

Spying is a time honored means of learning about our enemies even when they are formally no longer our enemy. Sometimes they are moles whose allegiances were never to the United States. Sometimes they are turned. What motivates people to turn against their country? “Treason” is a terrifying word. Any time it is invoked, a person has either successfully or attempted to sell out the United States to the highest bidder.  Treason is also one of the very few crimes on the Federal books that carry the death penalty without having to prove that the crime actually resulting in death.  So why do traitors turn when they are facing death? “

I was able to speak with an current FBI agent who has worked on the intelligence side. He wishes to remain anonymous. He stated that most traitors turn for the following reasons:

• Money
• Ideology (Political or religious)
• Sex / Drugs other dependencies

In the years since the Robert Hanssen case, it has been business as usual for those selling out our country both intentionally and unwittingly for the above reasons.

Robert Hanssen is considered the most damaging traitor in terms of lives, intelligence lost and dollars to repair the damage done to national security. That is quite a title in the company of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Aldrich Ames and Benedict Arnold. His case was dramatized in the move Breach. Hanssen consistently passed critical intelligence information on to the Soviets over 20 years. He divulged information such as Soviet double agents(resulting in their execution) and the United States continuity of government plan in case of nuclear attack.  Hanssen was spared the death sentence in exchange for his cooperation in undoing the damage he did. He is currently serving his life sentence at the Federal Supermax facility in Florence Colorado.

Has everything we learned since Hanssen prevented further “megaton” breaches in national security?  There is no question that counter Intelligence spending has increased dramatically post Hansen.   It was mistakenly revealed that in 2005 the United States spent 40 billion dollars on its’ spy agencies.  One would have hoped we had successfully “whack a moled” most Russian plants and disaffected government agents.  Who are some of the spies that have betrayed our loyalties and for what reasons?

Gregg William Bergersen was sentenced to five years in prison for conspiracy to disclose national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it. Bergersen was a Weapons Systems Policy Analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based Defense Security Cooperation Agency, an agency within the Department of Defense.  While in this position, Bergersen provided national defense information on numerous occasions to Tai Shen Kuo, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a New Orleans businessman. Much of the information pertained to U.S. military sales to Taiwan and was classified at the Secret level.  Mr Kuo in return provided Bergersen with money, gifts and trips to Vegas. Tai Shen Kuo was sentenced to almost 16 years in federal prison.

The Bergersen case highlights the continuing tension with China with regards to their aggressive efforts to obtain United States military and technology data. This case was one of the more serious cases of espionage since Robert Hanssen. Interestingly, his handlers ran what intelligence professionals call a “false flag” operation. They made him believe that the information he was providing was going to Taiwan, an American ally.

In the end, the true motivation was far less altruistic. It was the second oldest temptation. Like 90 percent of the espionage cases that came before him, it was all about money. Mr. Kuo promised Bergersen that he would make him as a partner at 400k per year in a defense consulting firm after he retired from the Pentagon. This was in addition to the gifts and Vegas trips.

While the Bergersen case was a case of a planned attempt at espionage by the Chinese government, many more of these cases are in the Grey zone between breaches of national security and commercial espionage by foreign governments to gain a technology advantage.  An article in the New York Times highlights the concern the United States government has over very aggressive Chinese efforts to obtain classified information by conventional and unconventional means probing for openings at the lowest levels in areas we would never expect in the hopes that it will lead to the locations of weakness in our commercial and government intelligence defense systems.

The FBI recently investigated and obtained one of the 1st convictions under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, a software engineer born in China was sentenced to 24 months in prison for stealing a military source code from his employer and attempting to transfer it and other military technology he took to the Chinese Government.

In addition to China, the Middle East will undoubtedly be a fertile recruiting ground for moles, double agents and infiltrators. The Middle East scenario has already reared its ugly “two face” in the name of Nada Nadine Prouty, a former FBI agent who plead guilty in November 2007 to fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship and improperly accessing sensitive computer information about Hezbollah.   Prior to her resignation she was a CIA spy assigned to Middle East operations.  Prouty is an interesting case. There are those who feel she was a true spy treated much too leniently in receiving a $750 fine and no jail time for her actions.  There are those who feel she is a scapegoated patriot.

Ironically one of the more recent arrests of an accused traitor involved the Middle East but not with one of our enemies. In 2009, Stewart David Nozette, 52, rrested Monday on charges of attempting to pass along classified information to an undercover FBI agent he believed was an Israeli intelligence officer.

Speaking of Israel, In 2008, 85 year old Ben-ami Kadish a former U.S. Army mechanical engineer, was arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy. The charges allege that Kadish passed classified documents to the government of Israel during the 1980s. His alleged spy activities have been linked to convicted spy Jonathan Pollard who also passed secrets on to Israel.  Kadish did no jail time but was fined 50k.

What about Jonathon Pollard?   Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analysis was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987 with a recommendation against parole.  The Pollard case has been a consistent source of  diplomatic tension between the State Of Israel, and the United States.  Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995 and would like to see him freed for return.  Pollard is in fact eligible for parole but has never applied for it.

Pollard  has denied spying “against” the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.

If you take a look at the Victim’s Impact Statement filed by the Federal Government at Pollards sentencing, his activities and the damage done to our national security take a much more personal bent and even more so when the video below is viewed.  Video of Pollard in the actual act of stealing classified material from the United States. In effect stealing the security of every citizen of this country.

How much damage did Pollard do?   That is in dispute but he was certainly no Robert Hanssen.  In my mind that is irrelevant.  Once he put our vulnerabilities into the open he lost control over the material as to where it ended up and every American ,Jew and non-Jew lost control to a small degree over their future safety.  Not because he passed information to an ally but because we lost control of  every other place that information could end up.

Should Jonathan Pollard be released.  I would prefer not.  Those who steal my security and comfort in going to bed every night by putting our countries most protected secrets and  vulnerabilities into the open regardless of intentions should serve out their full sentence.

Pollard has many high profile supporters asking for his release.  Among them Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz who represented Pollard early in the case.  You can read his family’s  web site outlining why should be released and come to your own conclusions.

Moral of story? Old spies never die, they just blend into the masses. The other moral? When it comes to money and national security love is fleeting….

Here is the list of my personal favorite courtroom movies as well as one that in my opinion are guilty of legal malpractice.  It is not meant to be a definitive list of all-time great or stinker  courtroom movies.  If I am missing any you feel are great, feel free to add it to the list!  There are also good movies that revolve around lawyers but I do not view as courtroom movies such as Twelve Angry Men,  The Firm, The Client The Pelican Brief and Michael Clayton.

Movies like Liar Liar, My Cousin Vinny and Legally Blonde are hilarious. I did not include comedies. The reason is that no matter how funny the movie may be, there is really no character or individuality. They all basically revolve around making courtroom dialogue humorous.

To Kill A Mockingbird:

On every top ten list there is.  Atticus Finch, a depression era, small town Alabama lawyer agrees to defend a young black man who is accused of raping a white woman.  His friends and others in the community try to get Atticus to pull out of the trial, but he decides to go ahead. There is not a happen ending as you would expect in the Deep South of that period. If you have seen this movie, you should also watch Ghosts Of Mississippi.

Fracture:

It took me a while to see Fracture.  When I finally got around to it, I was not disappointed.  The great performance of Anthony Hopkins aside, the movie had me more engrossed in the legal issues presented than the plot drama.  Would double jeopardy prevent a person from being tried for murder after being found not-guilty for the attempted murder of the same person?  Would the various confessions given by Anthony Hopkin’s character been excluded?  Fracture is an amalgamation of about ten different Law And Order episodes. This is one of the few movies where the legal issues in themselves kept my attention.

The Verdict:

This is my favorite courtroom movie of all time.  I can watch it over and over. Paul Newman in my opinion, gives his greatest acting performance. What lawyer out there cannot identify with getting that one big case that will cure what ails the human condition?  A case that that not only redeems society but redeems the down and out alcoholic attorney played by Newman.   He battles a crappy case, biased judge, reluctant witnesses and a crooked law firm defending the Catholic Church.  You get so sucked into Paul Newman’s character that you completely disregard any courtroom tactics that would be questionable in real life.  David vs. Goliath courtroom movies are a dime a dozen and only work if they bring you into the story so you become David. Watch this movie and you will be David for two hours.

The Rainmaker.

Based on the book of the same title by John Grisham.   In my opinion, this is one of the few Grisham books that ends up translating well to the big screen.  The young inexperienced attorney representing the poor family unable to speak for themselves up against the big bad insurance company. How do you not get sucked into Matt Damon’s character? The young attorney with no money trying his first case, up again the big time corrupt defense firm.  Are there any courtroom movies out there that put defense firms in a positive light? The only people in this country who do not want to put a whop ass on a big bad insurance company are the people who work for the insurance company.   By the time the movie is over you want to go hire a lawyer to sue an insurance company, any insurance company.

A Few Good Men:

You have to get past the fact that the plot hinges on the star witness, a Marine Corps General played by Jack Nicholson suddenly collapsing like a used air bag under cross examination, handing the defense its’ case.  The odds of this happening in real life?   Play the Powerball Lottery this week.   You have a better shot.  Jack had to give it up under cross to make the movie work.   It’s still a great movie.  One of those movies worth watching just to watch every scene with Jack Nicholson.  A serviceable performance by Tom Cruise as the under-dog unappreciated and initially apathetic military defense attorney.  Watch it for Jack though.

A Civil Action:

Based on the book “A Civil Action”.  It is a true story. Real life attorney Jan Schlichtmann up against the big bad corporate giants who are spilling toxic substances into the drinking water of Woburn, Massachusetts causing cancer clusters in the children.  I don’t want to give away the entire story but you have an attorney coming to understand himself at the cost of everything he once was, morally, financially, emotionally. I warn you that this is a SLOW movie. It is very deliberate as is the very long book.  It needs to be to work.  It works in that it is deliberate but never boring. You will come away from this movie with a better understanding of the frustrations that many attorneys face in trying to do the right thing and getting so sucked into to trying to do the right thing that you lose sight of what the right thing really is.  John Travolta gives a great performance as Jan Schlichtmann He brings you right into his character to such a degree that you hang on each work and move quickly through any slow parts of the movie. Interesting paradox here. Robert Duvall is portrayed as an honest defense attorney for the corporate giant when in reality the defense firm involved was found to have engaged in less than ethical conduct.

Amistad:

This movie is not for everyone. It is slow. It is hard to follow. It involves a mutiny on a slave ship traveling towards the coast of the United States. The story revolves around the trial of the slaves who led the revolt. I can sum up my review this way: Did watch the HBO mini-series John Adams? Then watch this movie. Why? John Quincy Adams, the son of Second President John Adams Jr. was the lawyer who defended the slaves who had revolted and killed their captors.  Good performances by Matthew McConaughey and Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams. This slave controversy in this case became a prelude to The Civil War.

Philadelphia.

This is the first big star motion picture that I am aware of that addresses AIDS discrimination.  Great performance by Tom Hanks as a big city Philadelphia lawyer with AIDS. His law firm discovers his condition and cans him.   Denzel Washington is great as the stereotypical ambulance chaser who finds a conscience and a cause. I don’t think this is a very good movie from a technical standpoint.  Both lawyers make too many speeches The court testimony about Hank’s characters sexual orientation and sexual habits would probably never come into evidence.

Miracle on Thirty Fourth Street (The 1947 Original)

The existence of Santa Clause on trial? How could this not be on my list?

Ghosts of Mississippi:

A movie about the 1994 trial of  Byron De La Beckwith for the 1963 assassination of the 60s civil rights leader Medgar Evers.  De La Beckwith had been tried twice with each trial(with all white juries) ending in a mistrial.  He is tried for the third and final time 30 years later.  He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. De La Beckwith died in prison in 2001. He was 80 years old.  The trial made national news as one of the longest delays between arrest and final trial in United States history. It is also widely regarded as historically symbolic of the transition of Mississippi to more progressive views on racial equality.  This is an unappreciated movie with an under-appreciated performance by Alec Baldwin as Bobby Delaughter, the district attorney determined to get justice but facing huge evidentiary obstacles and  initial resistance by Medger’s widow, Myrlie Evers, played by Whoopie Goldberg.  Evers later went on to become the national head of the NAACP.   In a strange twist of the “Ghosts” arising, the real  Bobby Delaughter, now disbarred,  is currently serving a prison sentence for  Obstruction Of Justice.

Judgment at Nuremberg:

The first film to address the trial of the Nazi’s accused of war crimes after World War II otherwise known as The Nuremberg Trials.

Primal Fear:

This movie has absolutely absurd courtroom dialogue but the story line and performances by Edward Norton and Richard Gere are so good that you really don’t care.

Music Box

This is one of the few movies dealing with the issues of aging former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers who committed war crimes living in the United States.  Jessica Lange and Armin Mueller-Stah give great performances. The movie is loosely based on the true story of John Demjanjuk who is currently being tried in Germany for alleged Nazi war crimes.

While the premise of a daughter representing her father on trial with such high stakes is a stretch, it works well here.  Jessica’s emotional opening statement is also unrealistic and inadmissible. The movie is incredibly moving on all levels. You are torn between her father as a loving grandfather and a brutal murderer guilty of terrible war crimes. In an interesting twist of life imitating art, the father of Joe Eszterhas who wrote the screenplay, was accused of writing anti-Semitic propaganda before and during World War II. Like the character in Music Box, his father denied being the person who wrote these materials. Mr. Ezterhas denies knowing anything about his father’s past at the time he wrote the screenplay.

Class Action:

This movie is based on the Ford Pinto Rear End End Explosion cases. Gene Hackman is great as the both idealistic and cynical plaintiff’s attorney going after the huge car maker. Once again a defense firm is portrayed as as unethical. They hide then destroy key evidence in the case. The conduct of the character played by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, while portrayed as noble in the movie would have probably resulted in her disbarment in real life. She knows a partner in her firm has destroyed evidence. She tells the other side(who happens to be her father) about it. She also gives them a corroborating witness not previously known about.  Noble maybe, but probably career ending.

Presumed Innocent:

This is one of the great courtroom movies of the last 20 years both in style and drama. Great performances by both Harrison Ford and Brian Dennehy. A show stealing supporting performance is turned in by the late  Raul Julia.

And Justice For All:

Al Pacino’s great courtroom flick. (I refuse to put The Devil’s Advocate on there) The movie is technically ludicrous and it is supposed to be!  That is the whole point. The point is that the legal system is ludicrous and often forces attorneys to choice between morality and victory. While the drama is exaggerated the message is right on. The closing scene is one of the most over-the-top yet great endings in the annals of courtroom movies. The below video says it all.

Inherit The Wind:

As strange as it would seem today, at one time it was illegal in many states to teach the theory of  evolution in the class room. Today with the separation of church and state we have come 180 degrees.  It can be argued that there is a similar controversy present day regarding the  teaching of  Intelligent Design in public schools.  Inherit The Wind is a dramatization of the real life Scopes Money Trial. Great performance if not over the top by Spencer Tracy.

That’s my list. Are there other good courtroom movies?  Of course. These were the ones that I can watch over and over. Some other courtroom movies I found entertaining but didn’t make my watch over and over list are,

Rules of Engagement

Hart’s War:

Red Corner:

Now for the ugly. Ugly is tougher.  It is much easier to agree on what constitutes good art than bad art.  When a movie is bad you try to forget it. Some movies are so bad as to become “cult classics”. Bad art has become an art form in itself.   Here is my list of bad courtroom movies. They are nonredeemable in areas of legal reality, legal form and suspension of disbelief.  I say this understanding that no one sets out to make a bad movie. Some of these movies are entertaining as a whole but sub standard from a courtroom perspective.

Suspect:

This is No 1. on my list as the worst courtroom movie of all time. Start with the unbelievable story line of a sitting juror helping a public defender solve a case. Move on to completely moronic courtroom dialogue from Cher. She sounds like she never finished high school let alone law school. End with a judge who murders people to protect a biased ruling in case. Throw in Liam Neesom as a wrongly accused homeless mute.  His entire dialogue is about 10 grunts.  You need more than suspension of disbelieve to enjoy this movie. You need to be on LSD. This movie has no courtroom validity, terrible acting and a ludicrous story line. Suspect is hands down the worst courtroom movie of all time. A death sentence for Suspect.

Body of Evidence:

If you have never seen a lawyer give someone a handjob in an elevator this is the movie to see.   Despite lack of any redeeming value as a movie, it has  achieved cult status for that scene alone. This movie was so bad I could barely sit through it and I was on my couch. Madonna should have been convicted of public lewdness for making people pay hard earned money to see her naked in this clunker. I laughed every time she opened her mouth and it was not a comedy. She is a terrible actor. The film was so bad that the author, Patricia Cornwell, attempted to get all reference to the book removed from the credits. This movie has an overused story line, no courtroom validity and terrible acting.  I find Body Of Evidence guilty of Indecent Exposure.

The Jagged Edge:

This is not a terrible courtroom movie. Jeff Bridges saves it from being a complete mistrial. There is no doubt attorneys have had sexual relationships with their client during the course of case. The character played by Glenn Close does not seem to have a care in the world about the ethics of sleeping with her client in the middle of his murder trial. He is on trial for the brutal killing of his wife.   Her character has not practiced criminal law in years. Her firm is going to let her handle a high profile murder case? This movie has decent acting but no courtroom validity. Check this flick out to see Glenn Close in court in a dress so tight that the judge never looks at the defendant or the other attorney.

Find Me Guilty:

Based on the true story of Jack DiNorscio, a mobster who defended himself in court for what would be the longest mafia trial in U.S. history. I am not a huge fan of Vin Diesel. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan and Boiler Room and not much else. He does ok here. He could play the role of pretty much any mobster. He has that look. The movie itself is tedious and boring. It should have been cut by 30 minutes or done as a television mini-series. I know some critics liked it but I felt like I was reading a book. Apparently the general public found this movie tedious and boring as well. It made 1.1 million dollars on a 13 million budget. There are numerous books written on this trial. Go that direction instead of the movie

The Devil’s Advocate:

I am not sure this is even a courtroom movie. I am including it because a great deal of the movie does revolve around courtroom dialogue. The courtroom scenes are so ludicrous as to be comical. Are they supposed to be comical? The counter argument is that the courtroom scenes are structured to give context to the overall plot which is that the Devil is the father of the character played by Keanu Reeves. Could they have not made the the legal aspect even a little believable? I understand that this movie did great at the box office and has an entertaining premise. It is still a stinker legally speaking.

Runaway Jury:

I view this book as one of John Grisham’s weakest efforts. Translating it into a watchable movie was an uphill battle. The problem with this movie is that all of the standard Grisham plot twists and sub plots that work on a decent level in the book have a completely artificial feel. It tries to move in so many different directions so frantically that none of it works. Is this supposed to be a study in jury dynamics? If you are looking for that watch Twelve Angry Men. This movie has no idea what it wants to be. The dialogue between the judge and jurors is ridiculous.  Runaway from this movie.

High Crimes:

The movie starts out with with a fun premise. A military wife(Ashley Judd) and lawyer whose husband(James Caviezel) is arrested for war crimes. The problem is that she never even knew he was in the military. The writers should have just run with that. The movie morphs into an absurd military courtroom drama. The courtroom dialogue rivals Suspect. We are supposed to suspend our disbelief that that the wife who is supposed to be a seasoned criminal attorney would actually be stupid enough to represent her husband who is facing the death penalty.  I love Morgan Freeman as an actor but he is terrible in this movie. His performance feels as if he took the role because he had nothing better to do. High Crimes is guilty of High Treason.

True Believer:

This is a great drama but a terrible courtroom flick. It is based on the true story of Chol Soo, a Korean immigrant wrongfully convicted for the 1973 killing of Yip Yee Tak, a San Francisco Chinatown gang leader and sentenced to life in prison. While in prison, he was sentenced to death for the self-defense killing of another prisoner. The part of the movie dealing with the actual incident is great and worth seeing. The movie falls off the believability cliff when for dramatic purposes, it adds a bizarre conspiracy culminating in a an equally bizarre closing argument and courtroom confession by the District Attorney of San Francisco .

James Woods gives a great performance as a disillusioned former civil rights attorney who attempts to expose the conspiracy. This movie works wonderfully right up until the courtroom scenes. The zany, unrealistic dialogue and courtroom maneuvers propel this movie right into the crappy courtroom flick zone. You actually have to see it to be a “True Believer” in how idiotic the these scenes are. See the movie but try not to laugh to hard at the courtroom antics.

The Juror:

Demi Moore was better in Striptease. What does that tell you?

.

I have seen Burck in his guitar playing “nakedness”.  There is always a crowd around him.  Some get their photos taken, get serenaded, gawk at his physique, even get married.  I have always drifted to the other side of the street. Even letting my eyes fix for a millisecond would be the equivalent of a trip to a male strip club and possibly necessitate years of counseling about my sexual inadequacies.  That being said, I rarely see any guys getting their photo taken with him.

Until this day however, I had no idea that there was also a Naked Cowgirl who, for the last 30 years, has been pandering her wares and “talent” in NYC in much the same manner as the Cowboy.  Apparently in too much the same manner as she has allegedly been accused of trademark infringement by Burck.

According to a cease-and-desist order Kane received from Burck, the Cowgirl’s name and act infringes upon the Naked Cowboy trademark.  Burck is asking Kane to pay him $5,000 per year or $500 per month to use the trademark as part of a franchise agreement.

I don’t know how the legal battle will resolve but I support the right of anyone to get naked in Times Square with or without guitar.  That’s the naked truth!

At a 1993 conference at the University of Chicago Law School she spoke on the benefits of regulating certain “classes” of speech, specifically referring to pornography and hate speech.   The video of the speech was reviewed by Politico. She stated:

“those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation” and told participants that “a great deal can be done very usefully” to crack down on such evils.

She further stated:

“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence”

While Kagan appears to be focusing more on conduct based regulation when it comes to hate speech, one has to be concerned when we start talking about  a categorical balancing of the costs and “value” inherent in certain speech.  This takes us into a legal form of “social engineering” that has no place on the court.

If speech leads to imminent lawless action or fits a few other very narrow categories  we already can regulate it and we do. Even these types of laws, however, have been subject to moral flexibility. The use of child pornography laws to prosecute sexting is an example.  What about hate speech? Who sets the bar?   Are we going to criminalize Holocaust Denial?  That’s low value speech to me.  Why not?  If she gets hers, I want mine.  It’s ad hoc right?   What about inflammatory political speech?   We tried that once. It was called Sedition. Didn’t work out well.  Certainly not for those who went to prison for criticizing the government.

I am not contending that Kagan is going to go off the “free speech deep end” but to even consider any type of “value balancing” approach to hate speech even with the best intentions could take us down a free speech rabbit hole that will be hard to climb out of, setting the 1st Amendment back decades.

Is there low value speech?  I agree with Kagan that there is.  That does not mean the court should start adding ad hoc categories designed to tell me what it is. I can decide for myself and make my personal decision if I want to view it, engage in it or debate it.  There is already enough subjectivity to go around without opening up a Pandora’s Box of  moral interpretation.

The really sad thing is that law firms whose websites and blogs suck in the first place will convince themselves that by having an iPhone app, their social media presence is now credible.  If your going to throw 3k away on gimmicks, give it to a lawyer turned Social Media Guru who will in turn recommend that you should immediately get your own iPhone app.  Maybe a law school course in iPhone apps should be required in 1L along with Torts and Con Law. You have your virtual office, your blog,  your iPad and your iPhone app. Your a real lawyer now…

Byrd was targeted and murdered because he was black.  A hate crime by any definition. What about when white supremacist James Von Brunn stormed the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum  with the intent to kill Jews and killed  African-American security guard Stephen T. Johns?  Are these not the type of heinous targeting that comes to mind when we think of hate crimes?  Prosecutors in Queens New York have a different definition.

Queens prosecutors have been using the vague New York hate crimes enhancement statute to prosecute financial crimes against the elderly.  They charged two women with stealing more than $31,000 from three elderly men they had befriended separately. The women, Gina L. Miller, 39, and Sylvia Johns, 23, of Flushing, were charged with grand larceny as a hate crime.

“This approach, which is being closely watched by prosecutors across New York State, has won Queens prosecutors stiffer sentences, including prison for criminals who could otherwise go free, even after draining an elderly person’s savings. Without a hate crime, theft of less than $1 million carries no mandatory prison time; with it, the thief must serve for a year and may face 25″

This is a terrible strategy.  If the penalties for large scale financial fraud against the elderly are not stiff enough, go to the legislature.  Do not bastardize the primary weapon to deal with the James Von Brunn’s of the world.  To do so delegitimatizes the impact of laws that were paid for with the blood of James Byrd Jr, Matthew Sheppard and others targeted for their race, sexual orientation etc.   To do so will water down the perception of hate crimes statutes.  It will, in the long run result in weaker sentencing and jury reluctance to apply hate crime enhancement because society and jurors will  become  desensitized to the significance and intent of the law.

We should prosecute and get the stiffest sentences possible for financial crimes against the elderly, a vulnerable targeted group, but not on the backs of those who paid for hate crime enhancement with their blood and lives.

** appreciate Jill J. Weinberg of the Weinberg Law Firm for alerting me on to this issue.