By: Richard Strohmenger
In Otto Preminger’s “Anatomy of a Murder,” Jimmy Stewart plays the
role of Paul Biegler, a defense attorney representing a suspect in a
murder case. Biegler’s client, Frederic Manion (played by Ben
Gazzara), has been accused of shooting a man who allegedly raped his
wife. The film revolves around Manion’s trial and Biegler’s
outstanding performance in convincing the jury that Manion suffered
from an “irresistible impulse” when he committed the murder. Several
witnesses watched Manion shoot the victim in a bar and his actions
seemed calculated to those present. Biegler realizes that his only
shot at absolving Manion of any guilt related to this crime is to
prove that he suffered from an “irresistible impulse” towards the
victim after learning that he had raped Manion’s wife.
Initially, Manion is a tough client who refuses to give Biegler much
information to go on, or much of a case to make for that matter. When
Biegler meets Manion in prison, he asks his client to recount the
events of the night in question in order to analyze his possible
defenses. Manion explains that he found out about the rape almost an
hour before he went to the bar to shoot the victim, and Biegler
expresses that any defense of killing to protect his wife is defeated
by this fact. Manion states that he was “mad” when he shot the
victim, but Biegler responds that that isn’t “enough.” Manion then
adds that he was probably “crazy.” On his way out of the room,
Biegler remarks, “In the meantime, see if you can remember how crazy
you were.” When Biegler and Manion speak the next time, Manion
suddenly recalls that he was overcome with rage and did not fully
comprehend or remember the events of that evening.
While Biegler’s stellar lawyering at trial is one of the highlights of
the film, his actions in the jailhouse scene call into question some
serious ethical considerations. Although Biegler did not outwardly
violate any legal rules about directing a client to lie or
misrepresent the truth, it does seem that he “coached” Manion into
rethinking the way he tells his story. In Model Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.2, entitled Scope Of Representation And Allocation Of
Authority Between Client And Lawyer, subsection (d) states “[a] lawyer
shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct
that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.”
Biegler’s conduct did not extend far enough to be considered a blatant
violation of this rule, but he did walk a fine line in how much a
lawyer can “coach” his client. One role of an attorney in the legal
process is to gather and understand the pertinent facts relating to a
client’s claim or problem, and to inform that client of the legal
implications and options relating to the facts at hand. Biegler’s
statement that Manion should see if he can “remember how crazy” he was
certainly informs Manion on what potential legal defenses are
available to him. However, it also straddles the gray area of how
much of a role a lawyer can play in spinning the facts of his client’s
case. Biegler had a responsibility to Manion, his client, to portray
the facts of his case in the most favorable light possible, but he may
have taken this role just a bit too far.
