I am a little bit offtrack
Why was Arthur Keats surprised when Kyle Sackett declared his client guilty then changed the plead
could anyone please tell me what happened in that court?
2 wrongs don't make a right but it damn sure makes us equal
[deleted]
i wonder the same thing.. please anyone help us
JeSkuNk
a whole lot of non-existant law happened!!! there was no evidence for anyone for either of the charges apart from the confession from one party but anyway, and him getting the gas chamber at the end?! for what for a road accident? no evidence - no charge!!! ANYWAY
but what happened in the court scene was defense lawyer makes (sorry can't remember everyones names!) the girl plead guilty to stop the court 'instantly' going into a proof trial trying to prove her guilty by use of witnesses etc, that wouldn't give the defense lawyer a chance to talk to her to tell her what to say, and most importantly she doesn't trust him enough and would probably dig her own grave by the things she would say or blurt out in court.
so he does the whole phony confession thing to prove to her he's got it all under control.
when the court adjourns he changes the pleas to not guilty, he convinces the district attorney he has no evidence and won't be able to convict her of murder or attempted murder so he should drop the attempted murder and change the murder charge to manslaughter which she'll plead guilty to (which he wants because it'll get the long process of a proof trial out the way, saving money and time, and he doesn't think he'll be able to convict of murder anyway)
as a condition for her pleading guilty the DA has to ask for leniency in her sentence.
they ask for sentencing immediately (ridiculous) and the DA asks for leniency, she gets it and get's probation and a suspended sentence, so as long as she does nothing wrong for a few years she'll be fine.
there we go, it all makes sense.
it's just ashame there's no evidence it's ridiculous it wouldn't ever make it to court, the DA is going on a whim, his only piece of evidence is the confession of an injured and biased man, and the fact the DA saw her carrying her handbag - sure proof that she murdered and attempted to murder someone!!! NOT!!
And spoiler alert:
the whole ending was ridiculous as well, him on death row, guilty of murdering her. where's the proof? he didn't confess. the other car hit them, that's all they know.
and the DA revealing the note at the end going, yeah if you ask for an appeal (a few hours before getting executed?!) you'll probably get off (what?! what sort of original judgement was it then if it's that easy?!) but this letter briefly indites you to killing her husband. just because a note says that doesn't make it evidence enough to charge someone with murder, or manslaughter.
aah i loved the film i could happily ignore the court scenes silly laws, but the christian justice ending was so so annoying
There wasn't another car where lana turner is killed. He crashed into a bridge pylon. Possibly deliberately (as as court is concerned).
The whole court episode thoughout was laughable and embarrassingly bad. But in whatever year it was made they probably gauged the legal sophistication of it's audience well, and knew they didn't have to go to the trouble of making it legally believable, but believable to joe-hack in the audience at the time.
ah that makes sense then not sure why I thought there was a car.. maybe mixed that up with the Reckless Moment or Out of the Past or something
shareAnother silly 'law' interpretation was Franks assertion that if they (the law) were to find the ladder up against the house they'd surely be found guilty of murdering the husband in the bath tub. Why ? Everyone knew Frank was hired as a handy man.He was painting and fixing all over the place. A simple explanation that he was looking at the wiring ..whatever, and what could the DA say ? Its proof that he or Cora killed the husband in the bath tub ?? LOL ! The best point this movie made I think is that, as OJ found out, just a simple 'chance' thing such as the motorcycle cop pulling up at an unpredictable, inopportune time is all it takes for any well planned caper to unravel. You can never plan out or make contingencies for every scenario - what Professor Marcus in
'The Ladykillers' calls the 'the human element'. Jaffes character in 'The Asphalt Jungle' made this point too when he ponders the reason the alarms went off just as they break into the safe: 'Who could ave figured the explosion would have tripped the alarm system...?' (or something close to that).
In this movie the ex 'dick' who worked for the defense attorney also thought he had it all figured out - that he thought he had 'size/weight' advantage over Frank. Little did he know that our man John was one tough SOB and made the ex dick cry like a little girl !! Garfields 'smack down' was as good as any 'tough guy' I've ever seen in a movie !! Sitting here now, I can't think of any better (although Bogie came close).
The bit in court confused me too, why the suspended sentence? I know he asked for leniency but surely that's going a bit far?
I did find the film entertaining though, I can ignore certain flaws but some do just stick in your mind.
http://www.silentfilmstars.weebly.com
I just can't help/stop myself so here I go again...
Movies were spit out back then like tv shows are today. They never anticipated the VCR/DVD/Tivo. Never had to worry that the audience would be watching the movie again for the up-teenth time dissecting every bit of dialogue,rewinding/pausing/fast forwarding, catching plot holes etc. People enjoyed the movie one evening then back to work the next day and on to the next movie... recalling dialogue ('cept for classic lines) wasn't something spent time on. Fast pace, action, steamy passion - roll it all up and
'resolve' all in the end so as the audience walks out satisfied. Not saying people never discussed the movie they had just seen at one of the Main St theaters over a cup 'o joe at the local diner what have you, but if the movie was fast paced, basically on target, few people would have even noticed many of the things we do - or if they did, they had to get past it quickly so as to pay attention to the next scene.
The average person doesn't have a photographic memory, an attorney to ask about the finer points of the law/courtroom strategy/procedure (as well as physicians,detectives etc.) as we do these days on 'net forums. Rewind puts a whole lotta pressure on movie makers these days - at least ones with integrity.
And often they don't spot an error(s) or inconsistencies etc., until after the movie has been completed.
[deleted]
Cronyn knew that the DA had no real proof that they murdered Nick. The prosecutor was banking on Cora pleading guilty for the crime so he didn't have to provide proof - proof he didn't have...
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share