Did anyone else have a HUGE problem with the way the judge stated that "snickering" was not allowed in the trial of "a man accused of murder"...but made no mention of the fact that someone may have been F'ing RAPED?
I know, I know, old film=old morals...but damn, man...they just glossed over it...
Small point, but to me the members of the audience did not "giggle" "snicker" or even "titter". Those were full blown guffaws.
"It's Time for DODGER Baseball!"
I thought the whole fuss over the word "panties" was hilarious.
"Can't we find another word for them?"
The word "panties" is kind of amusing in a silly, immature way, but for this judge to be compelled to say the word out loud in his awkward, begrudging manner was the part that made me smile. It was like a Pavlovian response. "Panties" = distasteful = embarrassed = big laughs
It was a murder trial, not a rape trial. The rape was an element that may have contributed to the defendant's temporary insanity. So the judge could not introduce evidence about it. If he said anything about rape, the jury would take that as the judge believed the rape happened. If he said alleged rape, they would think he didn't believe it happened. Either way, it could bias the jury. A courtroom is not a place to stroke the sensibilities of the easily offended. It is a place to apply the law and try to achieve justice. Remember the book Anatomy of a Murder was written by a lawyer who was in private practice and was also a prosecutor.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/