MovieChat Forums > A Few Good Men (1992) Discussion > The court scene was dramatic but highly ...

The court scene was dramatic but highly inaccurate

posted 9 years ago by A-zone
10 replies | jump to latest

Yeah I get it that it's a movie and filmmakers often sacrifice accuracy for drama. I don't mind that and that is why I really like this movie. But if t his movie was made today, most people would tear apart the inaccuracies in the trial.

So I would like to point out a few facts that bug me, mostly with the medical aspect of the case:

1. The defense would have brought their own medical expert to refute the testimony given by Dr. Stone, which they did not do. They just allowed the jury to be influenced by Dr. Stone, basically making everything he said the absolute truth.

2. Kaffee only mentioned the one report in which Santiago complained of chest pains and fatigue but failed to mention the numerous times that Santiago had fallen behind on runs, fallen down, passed out, collapsed etc. That would have made his case stronger on Santiago suffering from a medical condition.

3. (And this is the biggest flaw!) Kaffee did not grill the doctor more on the whole "poison theory". If there was poison involved, which the doctor said could not be detected by chemical tests, then first he should have asked the doctor to list such poisons. Then he should have gone on to point out that none of the poisons mentioned on the list were ever found in Dawson or Downey's possession.

If you ask me, this was a really big blunder. The doctor is saying that no poison was found in Santiago's body or on the rag or anywhere in Dawson or Downey's room and yet it was poison that killed Santiago.

That's like saying that Dawson and Downey shot Santiago, but there was no witness, no bullet was found in Santiago's body and no gun was found either. That right there is enough to set them free for lack of evidence, and that is what Kaffee whould have argued more, rather than hoping that Jessup would confess.

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you!"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] A-zone 9 years ago

You make a good point djewell715. Honestly I never thought from that point of view, but I see what you mean.

However, if Kaffee's incompetence was intentional, and it is what the filmmakers had planned all along, then they sure didn't do a good job of showing it. Yes, Kaffee's expertise was plea bargaining and he really didn't want the case to go to trial.

But once the case did go to trial, he looked and behaved very confidently and intelligently. He acted like he had years of experience being a trial lawyer, often giving advice to Sam and Jo on what to do and what not to do. He knew exactly what they can and cannot use in the trial.

Jo was the one who was shown to be completely incompetent at being a lawyer. Maybe they should have shown Kaffee as being a bit less confident and making mistakes during his meetings with Sam and Jo. Then perhaps it would have been a bit clearer as to why he made so many errors during the trial. What do you think?

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you!"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 8 years ago

I think Kaffee was someone who was incredibly talented, but never really put it to use because he didn't care all that much. Then comes along Dawson and Downey and, for the first time in his career, he cares enough to put in the effort.

What really "made" Kaffee, however, was his personality. In the beginning, he's an utterly unlikeable character and pathetic to a certain degree. But once he decides he will defend the two Marines, it is this very personality that allows him to challenge the Jessups and Kendricks of the world. That *beep* attitude is precisely what allows Kaffee to puncture the walls of silence and hierarchy and successfully defend his clients.

Sometimes, it takes a bully to defeat a bully.

[–] rldalton 9 years ago

It bothered me that more wasn't made of the missing log entry for the earlier flight that Markinson claimed there was. Surely there'd be some way to prove the flight actually occurred by somehow tracking down whoever was on that flight. I can't imagine Jessup having that much power to order such a coverup without it eventually coming to light - as I'm sure it did at HIS court martial.

[–] captain-bryce 8 years ago

1. The defense would have brought their own medical expert to refute the testimony given by Dr. Stone, which they did not do. They just allowed the jury to be influenced by Dr. Stone, basically making everything he said the absolute truth.

I disagree. For one thing, Dr. Stone was the attending physician who actually examined Santiago. Another doctor could not refute Stone's findings because no other doctor performed the examination on Santiago except Dr. Stone. I don't think it was necessary to bring in another doctor (Kaffee did a pretty good job at refuting the doctor's testimony on his own. The doctor freely admitted to the fact that there are other conditions that could have caused accelerated lactic acidosis other than poison. So there was nothing for another doctor to refute.

2. Kaffee only mentioned the one report in which Santiago complained of chest pains and fatigue but failed to mention the numerous times that Santiago had fallen behind on runs, fallen down, passed out, collapsed etc. That would have made his case stronger on Santiago suffering from a medical condition

There is no evidence (presented on screen) that Santiago had ever passed out or collapsed before. His letters only said that he had previously fallen out of runs. But that alone does not indicate injury or illness, and could simply been lack of conditioning. And as far as we know, Santiago had only been admitted to the ER the one time where Dr. Stone put him on PT restriction for one week.

3. (And this is the biggest flaw!) Kaffee did not grill the doctor more on the whole "poison theory". If there was poison involved, which the doctor said could not be detected by chemical tests, then first he should have asked the doctor to list such poisons. Then he should have gone on to point out that none of the poisons mentioned on the list were ever found in Dawson or Downey's possession.

Now this I actually agree with, and you're right, it would have made a stronger argument. But remember, from Kaffee's point of view, he didn't need a stronger argument. Everything was going fine up until Jo screwed it up by "strenuously objecting". Remember, the defense doesn't actually have to prove anything, all they have to do is plant the seed of "reasonable doubt". And they succeeded by pointing out A) that there was no evidence of poisoning, and B) that the doctor has an obvious motive to lie about the supposed "poisoning". The burden of proof is on the government. The government must prove that there was poison in order to establish intent. And so long as the doctor has a motive, and there is no evidence of poison, they have no case!

Unfortunately Jo's repeated objection ruined Kaffee's cross examination because now the seed of doubt shifts from the doctor back to the defense. Why would the defense "strenuously object" UNLESS they feared there was actually poison?

This artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPvcgejKpw

[–] Doc80 8 years ago

1. What good is medical expert when the person they would be testifying on is dead? The point of a medical expert testifying is that the doctor in question examined the person in question. Since the heart condition was never diagnosed, not even before he joined the Marines, no doctor could testify any differently than Stone.

2. He did mention that he fell behind multiple times, you should probably pay attention next time.

3. The prosecution could just say they dumped the chemicals before they were arrested. Kaffee had no way to prove the doctor was lying and no expert on his side could prove it either.

[–] dl4060 (58) 6 years ago

The prosecution could put forth the theory they dumped the chemicals, but they would have no evidence. It would weaken their argument. They would still be claiming there was poison with no evidence.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 7 years ago

Another problem is that the attorneys get to make long speeches that are not questions. That would not be allowed, normally.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 6 years ago

It's Hollyweird, A-zone.

😎