MovieChat Forums > A Time to Kill (1996) Discussion > "In your son's 23 years....

"In your son's 23 years....


I liked when Brigance was cross examining Billy Ray Cobb's mother and he asks her, "In those 23 years, Mrs. Cobb, how many other children did your son kidnap?" Then Buckley objects and the judge warns him. Then he asks her, "In your son's 23 years, how many other children did he rape?" The whole movie, Mrs. Cobb has this look on her face like, "My poor boy." Her boy raped a 10 year old girl and tried to murder her.

I also loved when Brigance was cross examining Sheriff Walls and he asked him if Pete Willard signed a confession that he and Billy Ray Cobb did rape Tonya Hailey. Buckley objects and the judge warns Brigance and then Walls answers the question anyway. I also noticed how when Brigance was questioning Walls about the arrest of Billy Ray Cobb and Pete Willard he says that he arrested them for the rape and attempted murder of Tonya Hailey and when he says this, he makes sure he's looking right at the jury.

And another one of my favorite parts is when Deputy Looney was speaking out in Carl Lee Hailey's defense and he says, "I don't blame him for what he did. Those boys raped his little girl." Then he starts yelling, "Turn him loose!" Another great part.



reply

yeah but I never understood how the rape wasn't allowed to be discussed in court. IT is the whole reason for the crime! Of course it is relevant. If it wasn't, why do they even bother having a trial? He killed two people, the end.










--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

I know. The defense was trying to say he was legally insane when he killed those animals. Seeing your 10 year old daughter raped, beaten, and almost murdered, would drive anyone insane. They should have been allowed to discuss it and I'm glad the sheriff spoke up after the objection and said Pete Willard did sign a confession. The rape was the whole reason for the crime. That never made sense to me either how they wouldn't allow it in the trial. I'm glad someone else noticed.

reply

it seems to me if you can't acknowledge there was a rape, it should be an open and shut case. but it wouldn't make sense. It would mean Carl Lee just shot two people for no reason. "Why are we even having a trial?" would be an attitude. Furthermore, if it wasn't relevant then why didn't Buckley object through Jake's entire summation? Was he allowed to say any of that?





--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

You can't object a closing statement, only the opening one.

reply

it wasn't allowed because it was a murder trial, not a rape trial. in their minds, two different things. had the rape not happened, there would have been no murder.

reply

Well it's obvious that the judge is as racists as the people the Carl Lee killed. I mean his last name is Noose for gof's sake. He obviously didn't want it discussed because he knew that may lead to sympathy in the jury. It would have to be the only time I've ever seen a trial, fictional or real, where the motive wasn't allowed to be discussed.

reply

Yes and yet it was okay to discuss the defendant's doctor statutory rape which had nothing to do with the case.

reply

I read the book years ago and don't remember too much but I think I remember during Jake's summation, Buckley did object. He didn't yell it, he just calmly said "Objection" . I don't have the book anymore so I can't double check that.





--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

Totally agree. Just an awesome film.

reply