Archive for March, 2011

Student’s Choice Award: “The Story of Qiu Ju”

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

My vote goes to a Chinese movie that was part of the 30th New York Film Festival back in 1992.

It took me 19 years to find out about this film and I just love it!

The Story of Qiu Ju” is a simple story, although developed in China it may not be different from the quest of others around the world, a quest for justice.

Qiu Ju is a peasant in rural China. Her husband wants permission to build up a shed to dry chili peppers but the village’s chief deny the permission without further explanation. Frustrated and angry with the permit’s denial the husband mocks the leader for “raising only hens”, in reference to the fact that the chief have only daughters. In a one child policy China sons are preferable to daughters. The chief’s pride was injured and he beats Qiu Ju’s husband and kick him in the groin.

Qiu Ju take her husband to the doctor then goes to talk to the village’s chief, but the chief does not acknowledge any wrongdoing and says “there is nothing to be done”. His indifference not only hurts Qiu Ju but leaves her with a sense of injustice. This is the beginning of her quest.

When her desire for justice is not fully realized she kept looking at different levels of the legal system, hoping for the right thing. Unfortunately the legal system failed to meet Qiu Ju expectations.

How is justice achieved for Qiu Ju?

From a legal point of view we can start by asking the following question: Does she really has standing to make the claim? As a matter of fact she did not suffer any physical harm; her husband was beaten up and physically injured, not her.

Even if she has standing, why she kept appealing her case and moving through different levels of the Chinese legal system? After all, what was held at the first level seems fair.

Her husband suffered a physical injury she seeks compensation for the damage and got paid. If a remedy was given, why she kept appealing? Was she stubborn? Maybe, or maybe we need to look at it with from a different point of view.

If we look at it from a moral perspective, the fact that she was not hurt physically does not imply that she was not hurt. Her injury was not physical, her injury was intangible. That is probably why she never understood that getting paid would be an implicit way of recognizing she was right and the head of the village was wrong. Along the story she kept asking for the right thing to be done hoping for a real apology, for an explanation from the village leader but never gets it. His apology would have been a profound moral relief but the chief never intended to apologize because he never understood his wrongdoing. His wrongdoing did not operate in a void, he was also offended by Qiu Ju’s husband.

The acknowledgment of the harm was the remedy she was looking for. She did not care about the money, she wanted an apology. She just wanted the right thing to be done.

Although she wanted to believe “that there is some justice” there is a moment when Qiu Ju and her sister in law wonder if her search for justice has been fighting for nothing. Sadly enough, she did not get what she was looking for ending up with a totally different outcome.

Just as Officer Li suggest to the parties: “I want both of you to do some self-criticism”, we, as lawyers, should do some self-criticism also. Do we really pay attention to what people is asking for? Do we think in moral remedies? Do we have to divorce the legal from the moral or do we have to engage a righteous position and complement the legal with the moral?

-G.Irizarry-Colberg

Student Choice Award: “The Accused” Gets It Right

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

When television and film portray the law, the audience usually sees
stirring courtroom drama.  The defendant jumps out of his chair and
screams “that witness is lying!”  The judge bangs his gavel and says
“I’ll have order in this courtroom or I’ll clear the place!”  A
witness breaks down on the stand under the severe stress of a
cross-examination and cries while reluctantly telling the truth.
However, what these films ignore is that by most calculations, only
two to three percent of cases actually go to trial (not to mention the
fact that even at trial, most of the action is mundane and not nearly
as dramatic as one would expect).  Granted, the world of settlements
and plea bargains does not make a good show, but that is the reality
for most cases.  While “The Accused” ends with a climactic courtroom
scene and satisfying verdict, the film understands the reality of plea
bargains and how they deprive victims and society of justice.

The makers of “The Accused” understand The Myth of Moral Justice.
Plea bargains are a sham.  Defendants accept a false amount of guilt,
and victims are left knowing that their attackers are not in jail for
the true crimes they committed.  Society is also deprived of the
historical justice of storytelling and a legal record.  Thus is the
set up that will bring us to the big courtroom scene in “The Accused.”

The movie begins with the gang rape of Sarah Tobias (played by Jodie
Foster, who won the Oscar for this role) at a grungy bar.  The
Assistant District Attorneys find several of Sarah’s attackers, but
decline to prosecute them at trial because they fear Sarah would not
be a convincing witness.  Sarah was seen as a drunk, drug-user, who
went to the bar in a revealing outfit, and therefore it would be hard
to convince a jury that she was truly raped.  The ADAs meet with the
rapists’ lawyers and settle on a plea bargain: the rapists will plead
guilty to reckless endangerment, and not any sexual offense.  They
will go to jail, but for a much shorter sentence than a rape
conviction would have required.

In a brilliant manner of showing how the criminal justice system often
ignores the victim, Sarah learns of the plea deal by watching TV,
seeing her story on the news.  Sarah knows that she was raped and that
reckless endangerment is not the crime that was committed.  So she
goes to the home of ADA Kathryn Murphy (played by Kelly McGillis) and
confronts her, screaming that she “sold her out.”

Kathryn knows that the plea bargain was not true justice, but once
accepted, there was nothing more she could do to Sarah’s attackers.
She knows that a large part of justice for Sarah would have been the
storytelling that a trial provides.  In order to get Sarah the
opportunity to tell her story in court, Kathryn decides to prosecute
other patrons of the bar who witnessed and encouraged the rape that
night.

This is a risky legal move, and Kathryn’s boss tells her she may be
setting herself up for disaster.  But Kathryn knows that no matter the
outcome of this trial, justice will be served by telling Sarah’s story
in a public forum that will be recorded for posterity.  Now we get to
the stirring courtroom drama, and frankly this drama is the least
important part of the film.  Kathryn has done the right thing and
Sarah gets justice no matter what the outcome of this trial.  Even if
the witnesses/encouragers are acquitted, her rape will be on record,
and her rapists’ crimes will go down as sexual assault and not just
reckless endangerment.

That is what makes “The Accused” stand out as a legal film.  We have
our exciting trial, but no matter the verdict, justice has been
served.

-Matt M.

25 Greatest Legal Films

Saturday, March 19th, 2011

As the public’s fascination with the law and judicial process increases so does the curiosity to study those legal films thought to exhibit the quintessential trials and tribulations of the legal profession. The ABA Journal satisfied this curiosity, in 2008, when it published its top 25 greatest law films ever made. The Forum on Law Culture and Society complements our culture’s inquiry by featuring pertinent legal films during the annual Forum Film Festival at Fordham Law. The Forum and ABA Journal are definitely in agreement about the existential appeal that exists to the drama, morality, curiosity, and honorable side of lawyers. Many heads despondently shake when “lawyer” and “honorable” are used in the same sentence, but alas, the legendary Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, nominated by the ABA Journal as the best classic legal film ever produced, and the Forum’s 2007 feature movie. Atticus Finch depicts a morally sound lawyer fighting for unadulterated justice free of prejudice for his client. Since 2006, the Forum has featured 30 films depicting the transformative power of the law. From Atticus Finch to Vincent Gambini, My Cousin Vinny, different characters have demonstrated various aspects of the law that has intrigued the interest of consumers.

However, the real question here is…does the Film Festival at Fordham Law hit the mark according to the ABA Journal when choosing films considered classics?

(In rank order)

1. To Kill a Mockingbird – check.

2. 12 Angry Men – check.

3. My Cousin Vinny – check.

4. Anatomy of a Murderer – check.

8. Philadelphia – check.

9. Erin Brockovich – check.

12. Judgment at Nuremberg – check.

17. The Paper Chase – check.

18. Reversal of Fortune – check.

20. And Justice for All – check.

22. A Civil Action – check.

24. Amistad – check.

I think it’s safe to say the Film Festival has done an exceptional job representing the most classic legal films of all time.

For the complete list of 25 visit: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_25_greatest_legal_movies/

The Film Festival at Fordham Law combines classic legal films while still reflecting the ever-changing culture by featuring new documentaries.

For a complete list of all the films shown at the Film Festival visit:

http://www.forumonlawcultureandsociety.org/film-festival/2010

-Erica Zaragoza

Student Choice Award: The Social Network As A Law Film

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

The Social Network is a film about a number of trending topics.  The
founding of Facebook, the emergence of social networking in society,
and the powerful and continued development of online commerce, amongst
others.  However, it is also a film in which the law is a meaningful
component.  After all, much of the film focuses on two primary
lawsuits that were born from Facebook’s founding, and the story is
told through the eyes of two separate depositions being taken in
connection with these suits.  As a result various notions of the law
and the legal system are pervasive throughout the film.

One in particular that jumps off the screen is a consideration of
whether or not suing is honorable.  When the Winklevoss twins and
Nivya Narendra learn of Facebook’s growing popularity and are
contemplating their options, Tyler and Nivya want to sue, but Cameron
does not. He feels that legal action is not the right thing to do,
that it is not the “Harvard way”, and that it is not an honorable way
to settle this dispute.  This disagreement between the three on how to
proceed illuminated this question of lawsuits and honor in the film.

Yet another is the relationship between trust and the law.  When
Eduardo Saverin was asked at the deposition why he signed the contract
in California without having anyone look it over, he replied simply
that Mark Zuckerberg was his best friend.  He was intimating that he
trusted Mark, and that as a result did not feel the need to perform as
much due diligence as he otherwise might have.  Since their friendship
and this contract were a big part of the lawsuit, it is clear that
trust and friendship are not divorced from the legal system.  Which
begs the question, to what extent should the legal system regulate
these two essential and omnipresent human entities?

One slightly subtler observation of legal commentaries evident in this
film is seen through Mark and Eduardo’s demeanor during the
deposition.  At various points throughout the film while the
deposition is taking place, both Eduardo and Mark are facing sideways
in their chairs, looking out the windows, into space, or anywhere but
at each other for the most part.  On some level this probably speaks
to the deterioration of their friendship.  However, it seemed that
they were also disinterested with the deposition itself, and bored
with the entire legal process.  It was as if they were submitting to
this process because it was necessary, not because they felt it was
overly important despite the amount of money on the line.

There are certainly numerous other legal overtures present in this
film.  However, just those aforementioned are enough to show that The
Social Network is, in addition to its other primary purposes, a film
containing many elements about the law.

- Patrick Featherston