Runaway Jury - Movie Review Example

Runaway Jury Section Teacher August, 2006 Runaway Jury Based from the legal thriller book written by John Grisham, Runaway Jury is a movie about a widow named Celeste Wood, who sued a gun company in an effort to seek truth and justice in the wrongful killing of his stockbroker husband, Jakob Wood (Dylan McDermott), in an office rampage of a crazed and at loss day-time stockbroker and the irresponsible selling of semi-automatic firearms. Wood hired Louisiana lawyer Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) to handle the prosecution while the gun company took the high-profile lawyer Durwood Cable (Bruce Davison) in their defense. To be able to buy themselves out from a huge settlement, moral responsibility, and bad publicity, the defense also hired the services of Rakin Fitch (Gene Hackman), an expert jury consultant who will take any means just to get a “runaway” jury who will sway, favor, and sympathize with the gun company. Although the original book was written about a widow who sued a tobacco company for the death of her husband who died of lung cancer, the critical change of the film’s plot to gun control somehow tests each and every person’s standpoint on guns and gun control. Unknown to Fitch, Rohr, and Cable, Nicholas Easter (John Cusack), and his accomplice Marlee (Rachel Weisz), whom Fitch mistook as an unwilling person to serve the jury, has another agenda in this trial. Just as both counsels prepare for their respective strategies, the trial suddenly took a different turn when Marlee sent a note to the opposing lawyers to announce that the jury’s verdict is up for sale. With a secured position in the jury intact, Easter worked his way by intending to “own” the jury through an “investment of trust” (gain each of the panelists’ trust) and bring out the verdict he desires. To gain a favorable verdict, the counsel who can provide $10 million shall win the case. As a professional jury consultant who has handled various cases related to gun violence, Fitch decided to play his own game of predator and prey. He victimized, hounded, and even threatened the private lives of the panelists just so to make a clear point that these people must adhere to the powerful gun company. He even bought out Rohr’s star witness to the trial. Fitch was also able to trace Marlee’s contact within the jury (Nick), and wasted no time to unearth his background as well as burned Nick’s apartment. On the other hand, Fitch also sent an assassin to eliminate Marlee in her apartment. Luckily, Marlee survived and raised the offer to Fitch in an outstanding $15 million. The day of the jury’s deliberation arrived, Marlee initially contacted Rohr for his bid. In the movie, it was clearly shown that Rohr made such a struggle of conscience whether to pay the money and win the case or stay true to the law and let justice take its “blind” course. Being true to his principles, Rohr finally decided not to buy the verdict. When Fitch got wind on it, he wired the money as an assurance he would get the verdict he wanted. But as the story unfolded, it was later revealed that Marlee and Nick were not their real names but were aliases used to get even with Fitch, who was instrumental in winning a case in defense of another gun company. This gun company was sued previously by a small town because of the violent massive shooting spree of children brought about by a child who showed off guns in school. Marlee’s sister was one of those who died and given an unfair justice. And as an act of revenge, Marlee and Nick devoted their lives to hunt down Fitch. Before this information has come to the knowledge of Fitch, the verdict was already handed down in favor of Celeste Wood, with the special damages amounting to $1 million and general damages to the tune of $110 million. Despite the mixed reviews received by the movie, most especially on its theme (gun control), Runaway Jury was able to show the differing facets of its main characters. When Wendell Rohr’s star witness did not appear in court, he realized that he had lost footing in having the chance to win the case. And as a pre-emptive measure, Rohr attempted to take Marlee’s offer and use their firm’s reserve money to buy the verdict. Clearly, such act is against the highly principled Wendell Rohr as initially, he took the case neither because he might win nor have some publicity but because he believed in the criminal justice system and its impartiality with the exploiters and oppressed. But as the movie took its course, Rohr’s conscience overweighed his intention to win the case. He took the risk of not buying the verdict as he still firmly believed in America’s justice system rather than taking justice in the palm of his hand. On the other hand, Fitch is a highly amoral character who doesn’t give a damn about the rule of law and the lives of the people that his client destroyed. He even managed to subvert the jury process, blackmail some of the members of the jury, and make his client lie under oath just so he could meet his self-serving means. As Machiavelli would put it, “the end justifies the means.” Fitch is the perfect embodiment of a person who thinks that “trials are too important to be left up to jurors” and that it is better to buy the jury’s decision than lose the case. And much to the surprise and turn of events, Marlee and Nick which can neither be described as highly immoral nor moral. Although both characters only intention is to bring justice to the wrongful death of Marlee’s sister, their high moral ground can be questioned by their tactic of jury manipulation. Meanwhile, such act cannot be contextualized as highly immoral as they did it for the betterment of all gun violence victims. Winning the jury’s nod against gun control, despite the blackmailing efforts of Fitch, is deemed as a precedent for other people to seek justice against unlawful gun companies. Although they took Fitch’s bribe money, Nick swayed the jury from their pain and sufferings and freed them from the shadows of Fitch’s blackmails. Nick and Marlee did not meet their end of the bargain as an act of self-justification that the law is on their side, and not with Fitch. Overall, the main characters’ dilemma was resolved by Nick through his direct contact with the other panelists. It can be initially seen in the movie that the jury’s deliberation was swaying in favor of the gun company, as some of the jurists think that Wood’s death is not the fault of the gun company but that of the killer itself. But as soon as Nick got the signal that the money has already been wired, he immediately allowed himself to be heard and make the jurists realize the social and moral responsibility of gun companies not only in selling their guns but as well as for its proper distribution and use. Rohr’s idealism and principles was equally highlighted in the story. But much of its outcome is influenced by Nick who is willing to do what Rohr’s conscience is against with. Hence, Nick and Marlee took vengeance in the palm of their hands in the betterment of society and those that constitute it. Based from the outcome of the story and the way Nick and Marlee handled the situation, the conflict raised in the movie served the ethical action provides the most good or does the least harm for society (Sta. Clara University, 2006). By having the gun company responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, Nick and Marlee opted to increase the good done and reduce the harm done swaying the jury’s decision and making them realize the need for a society that has safety regulations with regards to gun distribution and control. The utilitarian approach of ethical standard may not be the best approach to solve the problem but it is the most realistic approach in providing an ethical action that favors the greatest good for the affected victims of gun violence. The means to reach the end may not be an ideal scenario to bring justice, but the consequences of such action is enough to meet the desired results in favor the gun victims as opposed to the harm being done by irresponsible gun companies. In today’s modern society and the way man has been handling the criminal justice system, there would not have been neither any better approach nor ethical framework that would create a better outcome. Having an antagonist like Fitch to contend with, Nick and Marlee had no other choice but to play Fitch’s dirty game. As intelligent individuals, Nick and Marlee may have had an option to join a non-government organization or a civic oriented group in support of gun control but instead opted to do things the dirty way and pretend that they are only some bunch of individuals who would do nothing for money. Both characters knew that rallying and organizing mobilizations would do nothing to stop Fitch’s wits from sabotaging the jury’s decision. Fitch’s unfair practice of the law enabled Nick and Marlee to devise ways and means to stop him whatever the cause. With the legal system filled with injustices and inconsistencies, justice does not serve blind to those who are bound to take hold of it. In conclusion, legal dramas such as Runaway Jury never fail to sparkle the interest of viewers mainly because of its twists and turns. It may only be fiction but such incidents may not be far from reality. The movie may have some disturbing moral standing, but it is up to the intelligent viewer to judge and criticize for what the movie stands for. In the end, the movie never failed to glorify the oppressed and seek justice from the wealthy and powerful. In a positive light, the common saying that the “the end justifies the means” gave viewers a sense of freedom to seek the truth and justice. References McConnell, Terrance. (2006). "Moral Dilemmas." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved August 2006 from website: . Sta. Clara University. (2006). A Framework for Thinking Ethically. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved August 2006 from website: . Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. (2006). Ethical Dilemma. Retrieved August 2006 from website: . Read More