MovieChat Forums > Flash of Genius (2008) Discussion > Question about the trial

Question about the trial

posted 15 years ago by Vukota12
5 replies | jump to latest

Possible spoilers.......

I do not know much of the real story, and obviously hollywood takes a lot of creative license when doing stories that are "based on true events". As well, I do not know much about trial procedures. However it struck me as odd that Kearns did not call his former lawayer (Alda) or Charlie Defao to the stand to testify that on several occasions Ford had offered Kearns money to drop the case. It seems to me that offering a substantial amount of money would have clearly showed the jury an "admission" of fault, as there is no way anyone would offer that much money to somebody that had no credibility in their case, as Ford claimed.

[–] nettesboy 15 years ago

I agree, Vukota. I made a similar comment to my wife that Kearns should have at least told the jury that Ford had offered him increasing sums of money on several occasions. Only a guilty entity/person would do that if thought there was a chance to lose their case.

Move along! There's nothing to see here.

[–] rg29tx 15 years ago

Evidence of an offer to settle a lawsuit is not admissible at trial as proof of liability/guilt under the Rules of Evidence. If this were not the case, no cases would ever be settled as a defendant would have no incentive to offer to settle as the plaintiff could always refuse and then prove up the offer at trial as an admission of liability/guilt.

[–] lakealice 14 years ago

Also wondered why Kearns couldn't call his former partner Gil or one of the other men to testify that they were present when a Ford person told Kearns he had won the windshield competition.

[–] amsdragons-2 14 years ago

Gil refused to testify against Ford and all the others at the meeting worked for Ford--they'd stick to the company line.

Oh, there's just one more thing... - RIP, Peter.

[–] dlbach1 13 years ago

First of all, it wasn't a Hollywood movie, it was Canadian. I find that Canadian productions stay closer to the facts than Hollywood productions. As mentioned by others, Gil had already refused to testify against Ford. As for the others, we apparently didn't see the entire trial since it lasted weeks and the movie far less. It is possible that those people had been called to testify. The only way to know exactly what was said and who was called is to get a copy of the original court records which in most cases are public documents.