The Lincoln Lawyer vs The Life of David Gale - Movie Review Example

The Lincoln Lawyer and The Life of David Gale – Realism and Fantasy Introduction Hollywood movies very often present the criminal justice system in ways that are not realistic. However, for the most part, most of the procedural dramas are overall true, with some Hollywood flourishes added for good measure. This would mean that most movies combine realism with mythology, to show the criminal justice system in a realistic manner, while also keeping the audience engaged with details that would never happen in the real world. The Lincoln Lawyer is an example of this, for the overall life of Mickey Haller rings true to life, but the details in the courtroom tend towards silly theatrics. The Life of David Gale, which is about a death row inmate, however, is overall realistic and there is nothing that is really silly or Hollywood in this film. That said, it was less of a procedural, in that it does not show the courtroom, which is where many of the popular mythologies come to light. This paper will compare and contrast these two films about the criminal justice system, showing how each is realistic and each is unrealistic. The Lincoln Lawyer and The Life of David Gale In the movie Lincoln Lawyer, there were a number of realities and a number of myths that was portrayed. This movie was basically realistic, although there were a few touches that were definitely “Hollywood,” that increased the tension and drama, but were not realistic for the real world. This film centers around a criminal defense attorney named Mickey Haller, who is played by Matthew McConaughey. Mickey is a typical defense attorney in many ways. For instance, the beginning of the film shows Mickey shaking down one of his clients for more money. When the client says that he doesn’t have the money, Mickey goes into court and says that he was looking for a witness named “Mr. Green,” and the judge gives him an indefinite extension. This is realistic – criminal defense attorneys typically have problems getting paid, and they come up with any number of subtle hints to the judge that this is what is going on, and the judges typically allow the criminal defense attorneys to get more time to get the money and sometimes allow them to withdraw if they are owed money. Sometimes the attorney invoke the “Rule one” in court, and sometimes they are looking for “Mr. Green.” At any rate, it is realistic that the attorney is having problems getting paid and therefore need to drag the case out. Another major realistic part of the movie is the fact that the attorney, Mickey, finds out that his client is not only guilty as sin of the crime for which he is charged, but also is guilty of a brutal murder of somebody else. The realism comes in the fact that Mickey cannot give his client anything but a vigorous defense. A good example of the vigorous defense that Mickey is obliged to give his client comes in a crucial scene with a witness that the prosecution has produced. This witness, DJ Corliss, testifies that Mickey’s client bragged to him about beating the victim. Mickey then brings up a news report that implicated Corliss in another case, where Corliss also was an informant against a man who was accused of rape. The accused man in that other case got convicted, however, DNA evidence soon cleared him Corliss was accused of perjury. This shows that, even though Mickey knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that his client is guilty of that assault and of murdering another woman earlier, he still must put on the best defense that he can. This is realistic. What is not realistic are some of the details. One of the most unrealistic things about this movie is that, after the judge finds out that Corliss perjured himself in an earlier case, he threatened to do a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. In other words, the judge threatened to dispense with the jury and find that the defendant was not guilty. This is completely unrealistic. First, the cross examination that Mickey gave to the defendant simply made the witness seem unreliable. That is what defense attorneys do, and this is something that happens in court all the time. That is the purpose of cross examinations, to make the witness seem that he or she is lying by showing earlier statements or actions that show that the witness is dishonest. This is not, nor has it ever been, a cause for a judge to throw an entire case out. The judge could possibly give the jury instructions about the testimony of Corliss, or could even declare a mistrial if the judge thinks that the testimony is egregious enough, in which case the defendant will be tried again. But directing a verdict because of one scumbag informant? Not going to happen. Period. The second unrealistic issue with Corliss is that Corliss was freely allowed to talk about another crime that the defendant possibly committed. This would be inadmissible in court, as it would unduly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The judge has to weigh the prejudicial and probative value of any evidence that comes into court, and this is evidence that would prejudice the jury for sure. If anything, this kind of evidence getting into court without objection would be grounds for a mistrial, not the fact that Corliss testified in a previous case. Yet the fact that Corliss testified in a previous case was what the judge was angry about. The judge should have been angry about the testimony about the murder, but he was not. Another unrealistic aspect is that the defendant was allowed to directly address the jury. He was also very unresponsive to the questions that were asked him. Instead of answering the questions that were asked of him, he went on a tangent where he addressed the jury and plead with them directly that he was innocent. The prosecutor should have objected to this grandstanding by either calling him out for giving non-responsive answers, or could have objected to his direct jury address. Also questionable is the fact that Mickey was going behind his client’s back, looking for clues and evidence that he killed another woman. He had his investigator looking into Mickey’s background, trying to find evidence that Mickey killed a woman named Donna. He did find it, or his investigator did, as Mickey got a parking ticket outside Donna’s home on the night of the murder. This is questionable, because it would seem that this is undermining his own client, which would seem to be a breach of ethics. If Mickey would have gone about these actions after the defendant was acquitted, or, in this case, the charges were dismissed, then it would have been a problem. Doing this while representing him, however, is ethically questionable. The other movie that was reviewed was The Life of David Gale. This movie was much less procedural, so there was less to criticize. That said, there was a realistic portrayal of the death penalty system, and the inequities of the system. In this movie, David Gale was a well-respected philosophy professor who is charged with raping and murdering his colleague. Ironically enough, Gale was also a death penalty abolitionist, who wants to have the death penalty completely abolished. Gale went to Harvard and Oxford on a Rhodes Scholar, but, after being falsely accused by a student of raping her – he had sex with the student in a bathroom, but the student was bitter of not getting a good grade in his class, so she accused him of rape – his life unravels. He loses his job, and loses his family. He has nothing left to live for. Meanwhile, his colleague in the death penalty abolition movement is dying of leukemia. The two hatch a scheme where Gale will be accused of murdering her, only there is a tape of the “murder,” and it is clearly shown to be a suicide. This tape will be released only after Gale is executed, thus exonerating him, and then it will be clear that the state executed an innocent man. This would presumably mean that it would be easier to abolish the death penalty. Gale goes along with this, because he wants to be a martyr, he wants to make his life mean something, and he has nothing to lose because he already lost everything. Plus, he was going to lose his colleague anyhow, because she was dying. That was his only connection to the world, and he knew that when he lost her, he would have nothing. So he volunteered to go along with the scheme, in the hopes that his execution would be the catalyst for abolishing the death penalty forever. What is realistic about this film is that it shows the inequalities of the death penalty, and how it is unfair to many defendants. For instance, Gale states that one of the reasons why he wants to get rid of the death penalty is that it unfairly tilts towards minorities, who are more likely to get the death penalty than whites. Also, Gale states that many of the men and women on death row have had ineffective counsel, as some of the attorneys that these men and women have had literally have fallen asleep in court. What is unrealistic about this, though, is that iut seems that these defendants whose attorneys fall asleep would win on appeal and would get a new trial. Death row inmates have a very good system of appeals, and, because they are given the ultimate punishment, judges are likely to overturn verdicts where the attorney was blatantly ineffective, such as when they fall asleep in court. Also realistic is that Gale selected a lawyer for himself that would be a lawyer who was not very effective. This was deliberate – Gale wanted to lose his trial, and he wanted his lawyer’s effectiveness to be a part of the reason why he lost. This would bring attention to the case, and attention to how poor lawyering can result in an unfair verdict. Gale also knew that his celebrity, as being a Harvard educated philosophy professor, who is also a Rhodes Scholar, would bring attention to the cause, because he is not the average person on the street getting the death penalty. He is somebody. The movie is also grim, showing his last meal, his last shower, showing him being brought to the cells that will take him to his final destination. There is nothing sugar-coated about any of this, which makes the movie effective. Conclusion The two different movies reviewed are very different movies, and each has different messages and each has different reasons for being made. Each portrays the criminal justice system, although one is overall realistic and one is partially realistic and partially Hollywood. Lincoln Lawyer is overall realistic, in that the attorney in that movie acts like a typical defense attorney, chasing down money and giving his client a vigorous defense, despite the fact that he knows for a fact that his client is guilty. He is obliged to do this, and this is realistic. What is downright silly is the notion that a judge would direct a verdict for the defendant just because the informant is shown to be a dishonest scumbag. If every judge directs verdicts for this reason, there would a lot of criminals being let out on the streets through directed verdicts. The Life of David Gale, however, is less Hollywood in its details. There was nothing overtly silly or unrealistic about this film, although it is possible that there would be a problem with publicizing the videotape of the suicide, for fear that somehow it was doctored or tampered. The media might not accept the tape as authentic as easily as they did. Other than this, however, it is realistic – defendants do have bad attorneys, which cause them to lose their case, although this would be grounds for an appeal. One would think that if somebody really had an attorney who slept through the proceedings that this defendant would have grounds for a new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. And blacks and Hispanics really are more likely to get the death penalty than whites. It is unfair, and this movie makes this very clear. Sources Used The Lincoln Lawyer. Dir. Brad Furman. Perf. Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillipe, Francis Fisher, Josh Lucas and Bryan Cranston. 2011. Lionsgate Entertainment, 2011. DVD. The Life of David Gale. Dir. Alan Parker. Perf. Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet and Laura Linney. 2003. Universal Studios, 2003. DVD. Read More