MovieChat Forums > Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Discussion > Prosecutor becomes a witness?

Prosecutor becomes a witness?

posted 14 years ago by puirt-a-beul
12 replies | jump to latest

I've just watched this film for the first time. It's gobsmacking, as I'm sure everyone here will agree.

One thing I don't understand: how could Richard Widmark's character, the lead prosecutor of the case, be sworn in as a witness, and then be allowed to make a long independent speech to the court? Wouldn't that have been a breach of legal protocols?

I understand it was probably done in the script for dramatic effect, to avoid having to establish another character at that moment - it gave us an insight into Lawson's backstory, and a reason for his vehemence, and borrowed him as an established character to lend authority to what we then heard about the camps - but for me it unfortunately turned that part of the movie into a polemic, rather than letting the facts (and that ghastly footage) speak for themselves.

And - well, I'm repeating myself now - wouldn't it contravene legal court practice?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Batman0070 14 years ago

It has been done before. If the prosecutor is a relevant witness and the judge says that it pertains to the case.

[–] puirt-a-beul 14 years ago

Not sure what the correct legal terminology would be, but it seems like a clear conflict of interest to me.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] gizmomogwai 14 years ago

Possibly, but the prosecutor, unlike the judge, need not be neutral.

[–] TheManInOil 14 years ago

If he was accused of lying to help his case, it might become an issue, but otherwise I don't see the conflict of interest.

It wasn't just to avoid introducing another character though - it was to help flesh out Widmark's character and motivation. He was a man driven to see justice done after witnessing firsthand the results of the atrocities. The fact that he caves in the end to pressure from his superiors, while Tracy does not, illustrates Tracy's superior integrity and leaves Widmark's character a tragically shattered man. I think one of this movie's great strengths is that each character is plausibly and strongly motivated and has his own arc.

The evidence he entered was necessary. He could have offered it without swearing in, but he did so as a corroborative witness to verify the legitimacy of the evidence. Why look for a witness to testify when you can do so yourself?

Of course, in real life he probably wouldn't be assigned the job in the first place, but would rather be a witness. But as you said, it's more dramatic this way.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

One thing I don't understand: how could Richard Widmark's character, the lead prosecutor of the case, be sworn in as a witness, and then be allowed to make a long independent speech to the court? Wouldn't that have been a breach of legal protocols.

The entire IMT was a breach of the most fundamental legal principles:

http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Der+N%C3%BCrnberger+Proze%C3%9F/Mater ialien+und+Dokumente/Einsetzung+des+Gerichtshofs/Statut+f%C3%BCr+den+I nternationalen+Milit%C3%A4rgerichtshof/V.+Die+Rechte+des+Gerichtshofes +und+das+Proze%C3%9Fverfahren

Yours,

Thusnelda

The Ides... are Upon us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc-yg04rVw4

[–] pontevedro 10 years ago

Here in the US an attorney appearing as both a witness and counsel is generally regarded as having a conflict of interest that would disqualify him from representing his client. See ABA Model Rule 3.7. So using an attorney as a witness is to be avoided if at all possible. It was not necessary for Col. Lawson's to testify because there were plenty of others who could have introduced the film into evidence. Moreover, much of his testimony was excludable as hearsay because he was testifying to events at camps that he did not see.

But it's a movie, not a real trial.

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

Thanks for the confirmation, George E. That's how I saw it by common sense, even without knowledge of American law. Maybe the film-makers simply wanted to bolster Widmark's role, but there was no need for him to present the footage of the camps and, as you say, he couldn't attest personally to anything in the footage anyway.

But it's a movie, not a real trial.

I don't think that absolves it of needing to make some kind of reasonable sense. I know it's fictionalised to some degree, but the film does position itself as at least a dramatic representation of real-world events, so Widmark becoming his own witness appears to suggest that legal proprieties weren't adhered to. That had me going, "Wait, what?!"

As a general principle, I think that tired old "it's a movie, not a documentary" bit of sophistry doesn't hold much value to me, and strikes me as incredibly lame — even a fantasy or sci-fi movie has to have some kind of internal logic, or it's pointless. Things suddenly not making sense just because it's more convenient that way to the film-maker always distract me from the film like a smack on the side of the head.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] pontevedro 10 years ago

I don't know about bolstering Widmark's role. They probably didn't want to introduce another character simply for the purpose of introducing the concentration camp footage. Which is probably shown in the movie to remind us, the audience, of the horrors of the nazi regime, not because its essential to the case being tried.

If you're a lawyer, you pretty much have to resort to the tired old "it's a movie, not a documentary" sophistry whenever you see a movie involving a trial. There's always something wrong. Probably doctors feel the same way about medical movies...and so on.

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

I don't know about bolstering Widmark's role. They probably didn't want to introduce another character simply for the purpose of introducing the concentration camp footage. Which is probably shown in the movie to remind us, the audience, of the horrors of the nazi regime, not because its essential to the case being tried.

Yes, pretty clear it was mostly for the audience's benefit. I read somewhere that this was the first time real footage had been shown to the US public at large, but have no way of knowing if that's true. It was certainly used to make the movie's issues "real" for the audience. But there would have been nothing wrong with introducing a new character specifically to testify to the veracity of the footage and of what was discovered in the camps — there were enough other characters brought in for only a small amount of testimony and not a large role in the drama overall, and if anything it would have added to the emotional impact, and credibility of the testimony, to have someone who'd actually seen it. But I think they used it to flesh out Widmark's motivation and clarify his treating the trial as a personal mission, which is what I meant by "bolstering" his role.

If you're a lawyer, you pretty much have to resort to the tired old "it's a movie, not a documentary" sophistry whenever you see a movie involving a trial. There's always something wrong. Probably doctors feel the same way about medical movies...and so on.

You've moved it into a different context, though. I wasn't initially talking about legal factuality, but story cogency, if you will; it's a disjunct from a storytelling perspective to suddenly have the chief prosecutor swear himself in as his own witness, and testify to things that he doesn't personally know to be true. As an element of the story, it doesn't make sense.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Doghouse-6 10 years ago

...to suddenly have the chief prosecutor swear himself in as his own witness, and testify to things that he doesn't personally know to be true.

All that you and George-E have discussed notwithstanding, I believe it's established during Lawson's testimony that he was among the troops that liberated the camps and was present when the films he presents were shot.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

Ahh, I'll have to watch it again, then. I was under the impression he said something to the effect that this was footage that had recent;y been made available, or been sent to him, something like that.

I just remember when I opened the thread it was in response to being puzzled by his being a witness as well as a prosecutor, and I was under the impression that he had no personal connection to the footage he presented — though obviously I could be wrong.

Thanks for the correction!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Doghouse-6 10 years ago

That was my recollection, anyhow. Although I've seen the film many times and again just recently, I usually leave the room when that sequence begins (just too hard to watch).

To make sure I was recalling it correctly, I found a site posting what it called a transcript of the finished film (when I was in the biz years ago, it was called a "dialogue continuity," which was produced primarily for the purpose of providing guidance to foreign distributors for either subtitles or replacement foreign-language dialogue tracks), and it contained this exchange:

MAJ. RADNITZ: "Were you in command of troops liberating concentration camps?"

COL. LAWSON: "I was."

MAJ. RADNITZ: "Were you in Dachau and Belsen?"

COL. LAWSON: "Yes."

MAJ. RADNITZ: "Were you present when the films we are about to see were taken?"

COL. LAWSON: "Yes, I was."

I did notice while looking it over that Lawson sneaked some hearsay evidence into his testimony. But, as was discussed by you and George-E, y'know: movies.

Poe! You are...avenged!