Comparisons between Fictional Courtroom Dramas as Compared to Its Contemporary Courtroom Reality - Coursework Example

Fiction vs. Reality The purpose of this paper is to provide some comparisons between fictional courtroom dramas as compared to its contemporary courtroom reality. The format that this paper will be to highlight some classic examples from films and television with particular focus on the role of the prosecution, defense, courtroom participants, ad the handling or implementation of rights for the defendant and victim. Following this point, the paper will draw parallels with the real world example then identify how these fictionalized roles agree (And disagree) with our modern courtroom protocols. Next this paper will give an opinion based on the aforementioned information regarding whether or not the fictional courtroom is a reliable source of information pertinent to the understanding of the actual court system, as well as postulated what effect a fictional account of courtroom protocols would have on an average citizen’s perceptions of the real life courtroom process. When making an examination of a criminal trial on television the first startling fact that jumps out at a casual observer is that the trials seem to last only a matter of days. On a typical episode of Law and Order one observes just a handful of outfit changes which may make the scenes look quite dramatic but the reality is that criminal trials typically last for months and months. This issue is compounded when the legal issue at hand is based on a relatively complex and requires the testimony from a number of expert witnesses, and the defense teem needs time to review the authenticity of claims. By contrast to a typical Law and Order episode which makes most criminal trials look as though they typically last a few days, the OJ Simpson murder trial according to Jones (2010) was the longest lasting criminal trial in California at its time, lasted over nine months. Building on this point one could argue that the time needed to prepare for trial is also underrepresented on television programs insofar as it could be the case that crime technicians and detectives may need months to compile the evidence for the trial period. The next major issue that comes to mind is the frequency of dramatic courtroom confessions. The famous line in Rob Reiner’s film a Few Good Men (1992) when LTJG Daniel Kaffee portrayed by Tom Cruise demands to know whether or not Col. Nathan R. Jessep portrayed by Jack Nicholson ordered the ‘Code Red’. After a lengthy monologue from Jessep about how important his role within the armed forces is, Jessep declares that he had indeed ordered the ‘Code Red’. While I don’t doubt the existence of a confession at a trial I believe they typically are not nearly as dramatic or as frequent as one would see in a film. Building on this point Kevin Bacon’s character (Capt. Jack Ross) had numerous opportunities to raise an objection before the judge throughout this trial. For example many of the expressions brought up by Kaffee could be considered ambiguous and as such Ross could object to the questions being ‘ambiguous’. Next it is the case that Ross could object to questions being already answered as Jessep had answered frequently that he did not ‘Order the Code Red’. There is also the case that there were numerous speculative requirements from Kaffee which could be considered a speculative objection. Lastly there is little question in my mind that many of the questions were argumentative which could lead to a ‘Badgering the witness’ objection. One could conclude that these objections were not peppered into the movie because it would detract from the storyline and take away from monologues. One further concern from this film that comes to mind is the relative inexperience that Kaffee has. The character is given a lead council position without any trial experience and being a year out of law school. According to the California Bar Background Information (2009) it is the case that any person who has passed law school and has successfully pas the bar examination is entitled to practice law in California (By extension this probably host true for most other states). However, it could be argued that it is extremely unlikely that any lawyer would be given such a prominent position as to be a lead council position in a murder trial without any trial experience, this would ordinarily be common sense. The next issue is the role of the defense team in a typical trail. In the 1979 film “…And Justice For All” the character Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino) plays the defense lawyer to Judge Henry T. Fleming (John Forsythe). During his dramatic closing speech in which he makes reference to his client voluntarily taking a lie detector test to which the prosecution loudly objects, however according to Sunu (2007) it is the case that as long as closing speeches do not ‘get out of hand’ there can be no objections. However it should be noted that shortly after this objection, Kirkland has a near breakdown in court and accuses his own client of being guilty. Next comes the issue of the defendant. In almost all movie and television courtroom scenes that I have observed I don’t believe I have ever seen the defendant ever utter so much as a single word to their defense council (The notable exception is when the defendant stands up and starts shouting after a wild accusation), however it may be that during a typical trial a defendant may frequently lean over and mutter some words to their defense council or answer questions that they might have. The next question that should be answered is whether or not the fictional courtroom is a reliable source of information pertinent to the understanding of the actual court system? In the opinion of the author I believe it is not. The problem is that whilst some films may have accurate information and accurately document what a real trial process may look like there is simply so much media out there that does not accurately represent a real trial process. In this regard the average observer who does not have a background in law would not be able to accurately discern what is real and what is fake. Furthermore, most movies and television programs greatly dramatize the events in a courtroom and anybody who has actually observed a trial would recognize that it is typically not nearly as exciting. The last question that remains is how this fictionalized account of courtroom practices may impact a citizen’s perception of the real life courtroom process. In the opinion of the author, the average citizen is likely to believe that the courtroom process resembles that of a circus, in which prosecutors and defenders shout wild accusations across the room, surprise witnesses are frequently called to give evidence, trials last a matter of days and the accused frequently make confessions whilst on the stand. In reality there is a very systematic and set process to any trial in which people must adhere to strict protocols, evidence must be systematically presented and analyzed and the courtroom is orderly. Once this is effectively presented in an entertaining way in the media, perhaps average citizens will get a better understanding of the courtroom process. References Jones, T. (2010) Analysis of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial. Trutv.com [online] Available at http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html Accessed on March 4th 2010. The State Bar of California (2009) California Bar Examination: Information and History. [online] Available at http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Bar-Exam-Info-History.pdf Accessed on March 4th 2010. Sunu, H.W. (2007) Closing Arguments Boston Style. National Conference for the Minority Lawyer. [online] Available at http://www.tribler.com/closing_arguments_boston_style.pdf Accessed on March 4th 2010. Read More