MovieChat Forums > Philadelphia (1994) Discussion > confused about the judgement (spoilers)

confused about the judgement (spoilers)

posted 10 years ago by Paul_Leger
2 replies | jump to latest

I have a problem with the judgement of the jury.

Nothing that Andrew's lawyer brought forward before court suits as satisfactory proof that the accused knew that Andrew had AIDS. As the jury you can't convict someone just because you suppose that he might have done what he is accused of, you must be sure that he has done it. Yet the jury couldn't be sure about the fact that the accused knew about Andrew's illness because there was no proof for it at all.

All that Andrew's lawyer brought forward was the testimony of the one guy who said that he assumed that Andrew had AIDS but at the same time stated that he never told anyone about his assumption so there is still no proof that Jason Robard's character and the other associates knew about Andrew's illness.

So did I miss anything? What was the great proof that led the jury to their judgement?

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

What his lawyer did do was prove that Andrew was not incompetent and was not thought of as incompetent by his bosses. That was the reason that was given for his termination from the firm. What he did was show that the partners thought of him as a great lawyer and that because he was one of their best at the firm, that he should be given this very important case.

So, if he is a perfectly capable and exceeds their expectations, there must be another reason why he was fired.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

This is a civil case, which means the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" like it is in criminal trials. It's simply a "preponderance of the evidence," which the jury felt was met. We don't see much of the jury deliberations, but we can assume they considered the totality of the evidence that led to their judgement.

We know the jury believed Andy was not fired due to incompetence, as claimed by the defense. If it's not incompetence, and no other just cause for termination was presented, they could consider the other evidence for termination, which of course was the plantiff's position it was from disability and discrimination.

You may not think there was enough evidence that they proved the partners' knowledge of Andy having AIDS, but it is easy to see how the jury thought so. Again, you chip away at the defendant's explanation for termination and consider the evidence presented for the termination, it is reasonable to believe what the partners' motives were, especially since a preponderance of the evidence is what is required.

Who knows? Maybe the partners won on appeal.