Dancer does that, and Dancer is supposed to be a super smart lawyer.
Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.
[deleted]
Remember O.J. and the gloves that didn't fit?
shareCourse not but this was a movie and it was priceless!!!!!
shareShe was a last-minute surprise witness, so he was caught off guard without time to research. Also, the prosecution was getting a bit desperate at that point (which is why they put the ex-convict on the stand), so it's not so far-fetched that he would ask a question without confirming the facts.
He WAS a super smart lawyer but he was also arrogant and thought he knew everything, which bit him in the ass when he questioned Mary Pilant.
It's also implausible that Dancer ends his questioning immediately after his big question backfires on him. A super-savvy trial lawyer would probably continue with a bunch of dull, anti-climactic questions, in the hopes that everyone would forget how his earlier questioning went fubar. Nevertheless, it's my favorite scene in the movie; I wouldn't change a thing about it, implausibility and all.
shareI guess then that this exchange never happened in the 1952 trial?
I guess I can try to look it up but I have my doubts about being able to get answers about specific exchanges...I'd love to know if anyone has a definitive answer but I'll assume until then it was a dramatization (which, like the other poster, I wouldn't change).
Takes two to tumble it takes two to tango
Speak up don't mumble when you're in the combo