Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
There were more serious instances: Easter managed to get one woman removed from the jury, and another woman took an overdose of pills after realizing that her personal secret might be revealed. Finch's team had no compunctions about breaking laws in the process of their jury tampering: they broke into Easter's apartment twice, stealing computer data the first time, and the second time stealing more information and then setting the apartment on fire.
Viewers might want to see some of the characters as individuals taking important moral stances and fighting corruption, but by the end of the movie all the major characters have been corrupted in some way. It could be argued that the defense attorney was not corrupted because he ultimately decides to not pay the price to purchase the jury decision he wants. However, he goes so far as to discuss the situation with others in his firm and to collect the $10 million made. However temporarily, he seriously considers going along with the jury-tampering.
It could also be argued that what Easter and his friend do is justified because of their motivation to put Finch out of practice...
Easter reveals at the end of the book that he didn't really do anything to affect the outcome of the trial, that all he actually did was prevent Finch from manipulating it, and this sounds at first like a highly principled young man who takes considerable personal risk in order to do the right thing. On careful consideration, however, the viewer realizes that Easter and his partner broke many laws in order to accomplish their goal. In addition, it seems clear that the jury would have decided in favor of the plaintiff whether Easter had been on the jury or not, as he did little to influence the jury vote. His goal was not to control the verdict but to remove Finch's power. At the end of the movie, Easter and his friend use the agreement Finch made with them as blackmail, forcing him out of practice. In addition, they keep the price Finch paid, which was raised to $15 million. While it could be argued that Easter simply beat Finch at his own game - jury corruption - his actions are at least as illegal as those of Finch.
In the end, the movie demonstrates that there may be multiple ways to corrupt the legal process as well as all sorts of reason for doing so. Although the jury, in the end, decides for itself, the legal process has been tampered with.
Runaway Jury -- a 2003 legal thriller based on a John Grisham novel -- does not necessarily enhance the viewer's knowledge of the law, but it certainly offers an expansive view of one way of breaking the law. The film is concerned with the rise of the contemporary "jury consultant," most often used in large-scale consumer liability lawsuits such as the one depicted in the film. The legal case in
As the negotiations became aggressive, Marlee countered Fitch's aggressiveness by unilaterally raising the price, setting deadlines ('the deal should be finalized the next time I call'), and threatening to sway the verdict against Fitch. Marlee also proved to be an adept negotiator when dealing with Rohr. She skillfully defined the value set by digging into Rohr's true motivation, and then appealed to his sense of greater achievement by offering him
Jessup shows contempt for the entire process from the time he arrives in the court, fully in keeping with his messianic belief in his own superiority and his role in protecting the country at all costs. He has no respect for the defense attorneys, as might be expected, but also none for the prosecutor or the judges in the court. His ethical standards are based entirely on a vision of
Political Science Annotated Bibliography The Purpose of a Political Court In the view of Henry J. Abraham (Abraham 1998, 55), "theoretically," just about any qualified law school graduate with ambitions for an important judicial appointment would appear to have a fair chance at being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is providing, of course, the candidate is politically "available" and is, in Abraham's words, "acceptable to the executive, legislative, and private forces
African-Americans, who made up roughly 12% of the U.S. population in 2004, held only 10% of state government policy-leader posts last year, Watson reports. The report took note of the fact that under the leadership of New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican, only 4.8% of leadership positions were held by Blacks, albeit Black citizens make up 16% of New York State's population. In fairness, the report adds