Irresistible Impulses: Robert Traver\'s Anatomy

¶ … Irresistible impulses:" Robert Traver's Anatomy of a Murder

Given the sympathetic circumstances regarding the murder that takes place in Robert Traver's courtroom drama novel Anatomy of a Murder, it seems unsurprising that the defendant Lieutenant Manion is found' not guilty.' At the end of the novel, Manion is said to be innocent of the crime of murdering Barney Quill in cold blood, despite the fact that Manion admits he pulled the trigger. Quill is apparently a criminal himself: the bar owner committed the unspeakable crime of raping Manion's wife Laura. The jury, over the course of the trial, is presented with a mounting array of evidence that is not legally persuasive in terms of Manion's legal innocence, but the facts still make the Lieutenant a more sympathetic individual in the eyes of the jurors -- thus he is acquitted. Quill was widely disliked in the town, and few were surprised he came to a violent end. The sense that Quill 'got what he deserved' clearly influences the verdict, particularly since the trial's venue was not changed and took place in the midst of a community where many individuals had suffered run-ins with Quill. Manion's case symbolic reflects Traver's belief that the American justice system is based less upon truth than upon emotions and the skills of lawyers.

"I've known for years, of course, as you doubtless have, that murder juries invariably 'try' the victim as well as the killer," says the judge of the case (Traver 431). Traver's narrative suggests that the law is not above human emotions: jurors are more apt to believe that a defendant is temporarily insane if the reasons for his supposed insanity seem heroic and chivalrous. The case pits a living member of the armed forces against a dead barkeeper who lives in a trailer park. All-too-human jurors believe that the defendant is the nobler of the two individuals.

From the standpoint of legal analysis, Manion's actions were not committed in the heat of passion and his murder is not defensible like 'killing the iceman' or killing a woman's lover when a pair are unexpectedly found in a tryst. But while the standard for the insanity defense is usually based upon knowing right from wrong, at the time, in Michigan, there was also a legal addendum to the insanity defense of an "irresistible impulse." This idea suggests that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to the duress of a mental illness at the time of the killing. The 'illness' is responsible for the crime as the defendant has "lost the power to choose between right and wrong" and "his free agency was at the time destroyed" (Phelps 2006). Thus, "the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it [the mental illness] solely" and thus the defendant is innocent (Phelps 2006).

However, some of the details of the crime do not seem to be consistent with defense attorney Biegler's description of Manion being in a dissociative state. After committing the crime in the trailer park where Quill lived, Manion calmly and rationally turned the gun over to the park attendant and waited for the police. Even more damming to the case of the defense is the degree to which Biegler seems to influence Manion's recollections of what transpired. At first, even Manion does not believe that the 'irresistible impulse' concept applies to his situation, until Biegler suggests it to him. "You mean you want to find a way to give the jurors some decently plausible legal peg to hand their verdict on so they might let me go - and still save face" finally asks Manion, naively innocent of the nature of the legal system (Traver 43). The calculated nature by which Biegler shapes Manion's recollections of what transpired is one of the more shocking aspects of the narrative. Manion himself finds it ironic that if he had caught Quill in the act and killed the rapist, he would have been exculpated from any guilt. The time lag between finding out about the crime and killing Quill seems like a mere technicality to the Lieutenant and morally justifies Manion's actions in his mind, even though he knows he murdered Quill according to the law.

According to the events presented as by Biegler, despite the fact that the Lieutenant was able to search for and find Quill, have enough presence of mind to arm himself, and then turn himself over to the authorities, he had obviously 'blacked out' during the commission of the crime, and had no recollection of the action. Biegler states to the jury that the Lieutenant "while he felt considerable loathing and contempt for the proprietor he had at no point has any intention of killing or harming" Quill even though, when he went looking for Quill, he took his wife's pistol with him (Traver 361). Needless to say, this seems improbable in the extreme. The absurdity of the scenario is conveyed by Biegler's long 'hypothetical question' about a 'hypothetical defendant' submitted to the defense psychologist, testifying as to Manion's temporary insanity and the Lieutenant's "dissociative reaction" after the horrific sight of witnessing his wife's rape (Traver 362-363; 370).

Manion clearly seems to be freed based upon juror sympathies and the cleverness of his attorney. D.A. Dancer is said to be unaware of how to manipulate the legal doctrine of "irresistible impulse" in a court of law and Biegler, a former prosecutor himself, says that he had never known about the "irresistible impulse" defense until he "unearthed" it for the Manion case (Traver 370). Biegler's language suggests a clear, calculated approach to Biegler's defense that seems more like a legal chess game than an actual defense based upon reason and logic. However, the prosecutor's approach seems no less calculated. For example, the D.A. finds a psychiatrist who says that because the Lieutenant did not have a dissociative reaction while under the stress of combat, it was impossible that he would similarly fall prey to the stresses of civilian life and have such a reaction, which seems like a dubious claim in the extreme (Traver 375).