Why didn't the parents get a better lawyer?? He's out on bail walking around town then gets only 10 years for killing? How unfair is that?
shareMatt and Ruth should have called the police right away after Richard gave Frank that black eye, then there would have been a record of violence against Frank. It might have helped to prove that Richard was guilty of more than just manslaughter.
shareIt's explained really well in the FAQ section:
"In the police report, when Natalie (Marisa Tomei) was first questioned about the incident, she claimed that she saw Richard (William Mapother) shoot Frank (Nick Stahl). On further questioning during the bail hearing, however, she admits that she did not witness the actual discharge of the firearm, only heard it. On the other hand, Richard claims that there was a struggle and the gun went off accidentally. With no eyewitness to the shooting, it would be difficult disprove Richard's account. Charging him with first- or even second-degree murder would risk the chance that the jury might find Richard innocent, and he would do no time at all. By charging him with manslaughter, to which Richard admits, he would certainly be found guilty and sentenced to anywhere from 5-15 years in prison."
Richard didn't get 10 years. He was murdered by Dr. Fowler while on bail and before the trial. Read the FAQ's ....there is a good explanation of the legal concept of why he would likely only get 10 years.
shareHow can he kill their son and then the next day go to the Dairy Mart like nothing happened walking around town? He just murdered someone! How is he not in jail?
I just can't see this really happening! He would be locked up!
Roses888 .....did you miss the bail hearing scene? Richard had been in jail for some time after the shooting and was let out on bail. Presumably his family put up the bail bond (they owned the cannery shown in the opening scene ....Strout) So he was not walking around town the day after the shooting. The story takes place over several weeks, if not months. The justice system moves rather slowly.
shareOkay, sorry, I got the impression he was out on bail very soon after the killing. But still he should not be out at all walking around town rather soon after killing their son. He should not have gotten bail at all.
Thanks.
It's understandable that the parents got emotional about Richard being released on bail, but the movie does a fairly good job of explaining why it happened. Put yourelf in the position of the authorities, none of whom were there when the murder happened. The police get a call of a fatal shooting, which appears to be the result of a domestic disturbance. They arrive on the scene, and presumably find Richard, Natalie, the kids, and the body of Frank, who was fatally shot in the head. The cops analyze the scene, take fingerprints, photographs, take statements from the witnesses, etc. Natalie (falsely) tells them that she saw Richard shoot and kill Frank in cold blood. Meanwhile, Richard claims that he and Frank struggled and the gun went off accidentally as a result. Based on the strength of Natalie's supposed eye-witness testimony to the murder, the police arrest Richard and charge him with first-degree murder. Richard is given a date for his bail hearing, which the prosecutor explains to Matt and Ruth is "just a formality." After all, since Richard is being charged with first-degree murder, bail will most likely either be denied or set at an amount that is too high for Richard's family to post.
Unfortunately, during the bail hearing, Natalie changes her story while testifying. This time, she tells the truth, which is that she did not actually witness the murder. She only heard the gunshot, after which she raced downstairs to see that Frank had been shot. The fact that she didn't actually witness the murder, as she had earlier claimed, casts reasonable doubt on the allegation that Richard murdered Frank in cold blood. The condition that the house was in when Frank arrived makes it almost impossible to disprove Richard's account, which is that the gun went off accidentally during a struggle.
Due to the absence of any evidence that Frank's death was the result of premeditated murder, the state had to acquiesce to the lesser charge of manslaughter. While these events are heartbreaking for the characters and the audience, bear in mind that it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime. The unfortunate circumstances surrounding this incident conspired to make it almost impossible to prove Richard guilty of first-degree murder.
Even if Natalie didn't witness the actual shooting of Frank because she was upstairs with the kids, who else would it be that killed Frank then? There was no one else in the house but Richard and he had motive - Frank was cheating with his wife and they had had a physical fight before over it. It only makes sense that Richard was the killer of Frank. There is no reasonable doubt.
shareI don't think there was any doubt that Frank was killed by a gunshot wound to the head which was inflicted by Richard. What IS in doubt is whether the killing was an act of cold-blooded murder, or whether it was the result of accidental discharge of the gun during a struggle. Richard claims that it was the latter; if that were the case, the charge against him would likely be manslaughter, not murder. Without any proof that it WASN'T an accidental discharge, the state would most likely have to charge Richard with the lesser offense of manslaughter. The audience knows that Richard is lying, but the state has no such evidence of that fact. Natalie did not see the killing take place, so she cannot offer testimony to disprove Richard's story that the gun went off on accident. From upstairs, she could hear the two men yelling, the sounds of a struggle, and then the gunshot. This is all that she could truthfully state in her testimony, and none of it contradicts Richard's story of accidental discharge.
What the movie DOES neglect to mention is how the prosecution chose to address the issue of the gun being present during the incident in the first place. It seems to me that a good prosecutor could have made the case that, by entering the house armed with a loaded gun, Richard was demonstrating intent to commit murder. This never appears to be brought up during the trial, and the audience never gets to hear Richard explain to the court/authorities the reason why he entered the house armed with a pistol. However, the movie also takes pains to point out that the prosecuting attorney does not seem to be giving his best effort to this case. In all of his interactions with Matt and Ruth, he comes across as someone that would rather take the easier route of charging Richard with the lesser offense; for this case, a conviction of manslaughter would be a slam dunk, while trying to convict him of first-degree murder would be less of a sure thing. I think to him, this was just another case that didn't hold any particular interest to him other than it being a part of his job. While speaking with the D.A. in his office, Matt sees a framed photo of the D.A. and his wife holding their dogs. Matt takes notice of the fact that the D.A. clearly does not have children and probably doesn't empathize with the tragedy of a parent losing a child to a violent act.
Richard would still have gone to prison, but his sentence would be less severe than it would have been if he were convicted on a first-degree murder charge. This is what Matt and Ruth were upset about, that Richard would not be receiving as long a prison sentence as he deserved.
1. Why didn't Natalie just stick to the story that she WITNESSED the murder? Who was going to prove she was lying? That is probably why Sissy Spacek slapped the mess out of her. Because she knew Natalie probably (still) had feelings for Richard and didn't want to see him go to prison. Natalie is the reason that deadbeat didn't do prison time.
2. People keep saying the gun accidentally discharged?? Please. Look at Frank's dead body. He was shot in the FACE. Eye missing. The gun was clearly pointed at his face- not discharged. Richard sitting with a blank look on his face means he knew he did it and didn't care. Accidental would mean Richard would be already protesting to the cops "It was an accident!"
3. The lawyer was horrible. There's even a key scene where Matt notices in closeup the lawyer explaining why the case hasn't been examined anymore. Him jingling his keys, and talking a bunch of filler nonsense. No one cared anymore and that's why Matt had to get rid of Richard on his own. The town was on Richard's side because of his father owning the big business. Horrible, but true.
Better lawyer? The DA prosecutes. There was no proof of murder. No witnesses. Unarguanly there is reasonable doubt! The only chance they had of getting a murder 1 charge, is if the woman stated she saw the shooting. I just wish the good doctor would've made him confess before killing him. But as he said "I couldn't wait"!
share