MovieChat Forums > Luftslottet som sprängdes (2010) Discussion > Swedish court law - SPOILERS

Swedish court law - SPOILERS

posted 14 years ago by podracer96
15 replies | jump to latest

I'm American, I'm not a lawyer and I've never been arrested, sued, or otherwise entangled in the U.S. legal system. Anything I know about criminal law I learned from watching movies and TV.

Can anyone clarify if what we saw in this movie is true about Swedish law?

- Court lawyers can use any "evidence" they obtain, regardless of how they obtain it. Blomqvist gives his sister/Lisbeth's lawyer all sorts of documents that Plague got by hacking into Teleborian's laptop. If this were in the U.S., none of that would be admissible because it was obtained illegally.

- Teleborian gets arrested because Blomqvist or his sister tipped off the police that Teleborian's laptop is full of child porn. Really? So anyone can accuse another person of a crime and the police will do an arrest? Again, this is an instance where the crime is horrible, but the evidence is gained illegally. Hate to say it but, if Teleborian were American, he would have the right not to have his property searched without cause.

- Lawyers can introduce evidence at the last minute at a trial. Lisbeth's lawyer got copies (again, illegally) of Teleborian's 3 different versions of her psychiatric evaluation. In the U.S., I think there are more formal procedures for introducing evidence in a case.

Of course we know that Lisbeth is the good guy in this court trial and her side triumphs over the evil murderers/rapists/pedophiles. But the methods used to catch Teleborian in particular disturb me.

------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.

[–] HelenKeller69 14 years ago

There was a lot about the trial that bothered me. In the book, it is handled slightly differently, and there are apparent differences between the American court system and the Swedish court system. That being said, none of what you mentioned was addressed, and I can only assume that it was all just a plot hole. However, in many court systems (U.S included) you can introduce evidence in a somewhat informal manner. Surprise witnesses and the like. The movie may have taken that a little far, though.

Based on the first film, the rules regarding court in Sweden are fairly strict, as Blomkvist got a few months in prison for presenting evidence that was unsupportable. Makes you wonder how they supported the evidence in Lisbeth's trial...

Also, the thing about the trial that bugged me the most, was that Lisbeth was on trial for attempted murder and seemed to be on trial for being sane. As soon as the judge was convinced that Lisbeth had been raped, and her rights had been violated, the case sort of disintegrated. I don't even care whether or not Lisbeth was guilty (morally or legally) of attempted murder, that is not how the trial would have carried out.

In the end though, the movies were engaging and well-made to the point where I can forgive the ridiculous trial and other flaws. Still, it's a point worth noting.

[–] podracer96 14 years ago

Also, the thing about the trial that bugged me the most, was that Lisbeth was on trial for attempted murder and seemed to be on trial for being sane. As soon as the judge was convinced that Lisbeth had been raped, and her rights had been violated, the case sort of disintegrated. I don't even care whether or not Lisbeth was guilty (morally or legally) of attempted murder, that is not how the trial would have carried out.

Helen, thanks for your comments.

I suppose if Lisbeth was proven to be insane, then she would be exonerated for attempted murder (at least, that's how it would work here in the U.S., according to all the Law & Order episodes I've watched). And Teleborian was supposed to find her insane so she could be committed to his asylum and removed as a threat to The Section.

But by proving that Lisbeth's actions are all self-defense, she wasn't found guilty of attempted murder.

I'm still curious about how the Swedish system works. Apparently they don't have perjury? When Lisbeth's lawyer proved that Teleborian was lying because she had proof that Lisbeth was tied up for 300+ days in the institution, the court shrugged it off and said something like, "That's not the issue here."

------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.

[–] Weine 14 years ago

We definitely have laws against perjury in Sweden (it's called "mened" in Swedish).

As for evidence: evidence that has been obtained by illegal means are considered in the same manner as any other evidence.

The procurement of this evidence will of course still be subjected to normal legal scrutiny (i.e. no matter if the crime committed to obtain evidence uncovers another crime, the it's impossible to be exhonerated for the actions done to obtain the evidence -- though it seems as though the Swedish counterparts to RIAA/MPAA can get away with methods that are, or have at least been until recently, illegal).

The reasoning in Swedish law is that evidence is evidence, no matter how it's procured. A criminal should not walk free on technical grounds if there are indisputable proof of their guilt. Similarly an innocent person should not suffer if there's indisputable proof of their innocence.

IANAL, TINLA, various disclaimers, bla bla bla...

[–] podracer96 14 years ago

The reasoning in Swedish law is that evidence is evidence, no matter how it's procured. A criminal should not walk free on technical grounds if there are indisputable proof of their guilt. Similarly an innocent person should not suffer if there's indisputable proof of their innocence.

Wow!! That is significantly different than the U.S. system. There are many examples of American movies and TV shows where a plot point is the adherence to technicalities from different American laws, even at the expense of letting the guilty walk free. Whether someone's Miranda rights were read clearly. Whether there was a search warrant to enter and search someone's property. Statute of limitations for crimes. Double jeopardy, etc. I didn't understand all the acronyms in your post, but thanks for replying, Weine.

------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.

[–] rabbyt1 14 years ago

The reasoning in Swedish law is that evidence is evidence, no matter how it's procured. A criminal should not walk free on technical grounds if there are indisputable proof of their guilt. Similarly an innocent person should not suffer if there's indisputable proof of their innocence.

American courts should try this practice...

[–] Heybartender 14 years ago

And then Law & Order would definitely have to be a 30 minute show.

[–] TigerMountainPeasant 14 years ago

Badum tish.

Long Live the Bumbling Badger of Mediocrity

[–] daryl-b-t 14 years ago

[–] rob_sawyer 14 years ago

Since evidence, no matter how obtained seemes to be admissable in Swedish courts, why wasn't Annika allowed to use the hospital records to impeach teh doctor? He is, basically the prosecution's entire case. He says she was in retraints for maybe 30 days when it was mroe than 10 times that, 381 days. 30 days versus, say, 50 days, no big deal, but 381 days in restraints really calls his credibility (and his professionalism) into question.

[–] fishrockcarving 13 years ago

Yeah, I was kind of wondering about being able to present evidence like the DVD without the prosecution having been made aware of it. I thought the principle was to allow both sides time to prepare proper cases in light of the available evidence. So it's about determining what has really happened instead of being caught unawares.

I don't think the defense is held to same standards for discovery. I think that is on the prosecution only.

Regardless, the DVD was evidence used in rebuttal to sworn testimony, which is not subject to the rules of discovery.

Specifically, it was to refute Teleborian's testimony that the rape in the autobiography was clearly a fantasy, so it was evidence of Salander being unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, thus proof of her mental illness.

The reasoning being that they wouldn't declare evidence they did not intend to use, but decided to use later to refute testimony.

[–] starwolf 14 years ago

- Court lawyers can use any "evidence" they obtain, regardless of how they obtain it. Blomqvist gives his sister/Lisbeth's lawyer all sorts of documents that Plague got by hacking into Teleborian's laptop. If this were in the U.S., none of that would be admissible because it was obtained illegally.

Sorry, that's not exactly right. TV isn't bad, but it's entertainment for a reason. Sadly, I have too much personal experience with the law (long story involving a problem son...)

A law enforcement officer cannot obtain evidence illegally. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution (bill against unreasonable search and seizure) prevents that.

However, if the evidence were given to the police or the lawyer it can be used, even if obtained illegally. The kicker is that the person providing the evidence can be arrested for using whatever methods they used to illegally obtain the evidence.

- Teleborian gets arrested because Blomqvist or his sister tipped off the police that Teleborian's laptop is full of child porn. Really? So anyone can accuse another person of a crime and the police will do an arrest? Again, this is an instance where the crime is horrible, but the evidence is gained illegally. Hate to say it but, if Teleborian were American, he would have the right not to have his property searched without cause.

Same answer as above, with the addition that if the police have a reason to seize evidence (i.e., they are tipped off from a realiable source) they can get a warrant and seize it. Or, if they think the evidence is in imminent danger of being destroyed it can be seized.

As for surprise witnesses, the prosecution iS not allowed to surprise the defense. The Defense can surprise the prosecution, although a judge would almost certain grant the prosecution extra time to research, voir dire the witness, or check into the surprise witness/evidence.

Sorry for the edit. I hit the post button when I meant to hit Preview.

[–] dgz78 13 years ago

I think the exclusion rule is pretty much limited to the US and not Sweden.

Though having worked in law firms, I know criminal lawyers that have practiced for more than 20 years and have never won a motion to exclude. That's where Law and Order veers into fantasyland - almost every motion is granted so superprosecutors can overcome great obstacles to get a conviction.

[–] kausix777 13 years ago

"Teleborian gets arrested because Blomqvist or his sister tipped off the police that Teleborian's laptop is full of child porn. Really? So anyone can accuse another person of a crime and the police will do an arrest?"

The police were working with Bromqvist. He gets the evidence, they get the evidence.

[–] Darknessviking 13 years ago

fun fact: the laywer-dude was once a swedish pop singer

[–] polyscygyrl 12 years ago

I am not a lawyer, but based on American books and film, the prosecutor did a terrible job and would probably lose his job. He didn't vet Teleborian at all?!? Didn't read Lisbeth's original institution records and see that she was restrained for 381 days?? Maybe he was doing a "Law and Order" move and just supposedly trying to get her committed, and doing a poor job of it -- so that she would not end up in prison instead. His evidence did not even address any criminal actions she may have taken, only her mental state.

This is generally a defense move in the States!