Many law-trained people have trouble watching lawyer flicks. Things like Law & Order become so wildly inaccurate once you have an idea of the real thing. (I haven't watched the show since I started law school.)
I just saw the classic Jimmy Stewart film, Anatomy of a Murder. It was pretty good, and pretty legally accurate. The theatrical trailer was great. But there was one thing that bothered me.
The film involves a man accused of murder claiming temporary insanity after learning that the victim raped his wife. Much of the trial is devoted to proving that his wife was, in fact, raped. Those familiar with the typical "blame the victim" tactics can imagine what form this took.
But it seems to me that there's really no reason to prove that she was actually raped, that she was telling the truth. That's not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the defendant's state of mind at that time. In other words, if a prosecutor wants to show that I had motive because I believed my wife was having an affair, all he has to show was that I believed my wife was having an affair, not that I actually was.
Of course, proving that the wife was actually raped enhanced the dramatic possibilities, and maybe in real life it would get more sympathy from the jury. But still, it didn't quite ring true, legally.
Leave a comment