In the Article, Defending the Guilty: Lawyer Ethics in the
Movies,[i]
author J. Thomas Sullivan takes the reader on a journey through the legal and
moral dilemmas faced by a criminal defense attorney when the guilt of his
client is known, and the implications of such knowledge, using an interesting
twist.[ii]
The Article discusses these complicated and intense topics by using various
motion pictures with relevant and relating topics within. The Article first discusses a defense
attorney’s obligation to his client and the preserved moral dilemma of
representing a client whom is believed to be guilty. [iii] Sullivan uses the movie, To Kill a Mockingbird[iv]
and the attorney in that film, Atticus Finch, to show that an attorney has
a duty to zealously advocate for his client, despite a perceived notion that
the client is guilty.[v] The Article goes on to discuss the
differences between moral guilt and legal guilt, and the difficult task for
criminal defense attorneys to separate the two in their representation of
clients.[vi] Films like Path of Glory,[vii]
Judgment at Nuremberg,[viii]
Tom Horn,[ix]
Primal Fear,[x] A Reasonable Man,[xi]
and The Exorcism of Emily Rose,[xii]
are used to demonstrate this conflict and provide relatable examples for
readers.[xiii]
The article then moves to
considering the previously discussed topics in light of a central pillar in our
criminal justice system, that of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel.[xiv] The Sixth Amendment of the United States
Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel,[xv]and
this right was extended to felony cases in the landmark United States Supreme
Court decision of Gideon v. Wainwright.[xvi] In Defending
the Guilty: Lawyer Ethics in the Movies, the importance of the right to be
represented by counsel is illustrated by Sullivan’s examination of the film, The Ox-Bow Incident.[xvii] While the outcome of the “trial” in The Ox-Bow Incident, was not up to the
requirements of justice that we are now accustomed, the importance of our
current standards was all the more exemplified by the injustice that the three
main characters experienced.[xviii]
After using several films to
demonstrate a client’s expectation of effective assistance of counsel, the
Article moves to debating the merits of a defense attorney’s knowledge of his
client’s culpability.[xix] The Article discusses both the pros and the cons
of a lawyer knowing his client’s guilt, including the ability to argue his
innocence, a client’s desire for his attorney to think he is innocence because
he believes the attorney wont fight for him if the attorney knows he is guilty,
and understanding realities when negotiating plea bargains with the prosecutor.[xx] Using the film, Young Mr. Lincoln,[xxi]the
Article demonstrates that when an attorney does not know the guilt of his
client, he is in a better position to advocate for his client’s innocence and can
be more creative with his arguments.[xxii]
Defending
the Guilty: Lawyer Ethics in the Movies[xxiii] provides its readers with an
interesting and original medium for discussing and viewing a cornerstone topic
for lawyers – ethical behaviors. The
Article’s use of films to posit hypothetical situations and then provide
insight into the moral and ethical dilemmas presented in the film’s plots is
both refreshingly original and intellectually astute. The analysis and thought on a wide array of
ethical situations that lawyers are faced with in representing criminal
defendants, “discussed through the lens of film,”[xxiv]
was a fresh perspective on the frequently discussed, but incredibly important
topic of legal ethics, specifically the moral dilemma of representing a “guilty”
criminal defendant.
-
Cameron A. Beaver
[i] J.
Thomas Sullivan, Defending the Guilty:
Lawyer Ethics in the Movies, 79 Mo.
L. Rev. 585 (2015).
[ii]
Id.
[iii]
Id. at 585-90.
[iv] To Kill a Mockingbird (Universal Int’l
Pictures 1962).
[v]
Sullivan, supra note 1, Introduction.
[vi] Sullivan,
supra note 1, Part I.
[vii] Paths of Glory (United Artists 1957).
[viii]
Judgment at Nuremberg (United
Artists 1961).
[ix] Tom Horn (Warner Bros. 1980).
[x] Primal Fear (Paramount Pictures 1996).
[xi] A Reasonable Man (African Media
Entertainment 1999).
[xii] The Exorcism of Emily Rose (Screen Gems
2005).
[xiii]
Sullivan, supra note 1, Part. I.
[xiv]
Sullivan, supra note 1, Part II.
[xv] U.S. Const. Amendment VI.
[xvi]
372 U.S. 335 (1963).
[xvii]
The Ox-Bow Incident (Twentieth
Century Fox 1943).
[xviii]
Sullivan, supra note 1, Part II.
[xix]
Sullivan, supra note 1, Part IV.
[xx]
Id.
[xxi] Young Mr. Lincoln (Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp. 1939).
[xxii]
Sullivan, supra note 1, at 629-31.
[xxiii]
Sullivan, supra note 1.
[xxiv]
Sullivan, supra note 1, at 590.
