“A Time to Kill, based on the first novel by John Grisham, is a skilfully constructed morality play that pushes all the right buttons and arrives at all the right conclusions.”
Preface
A Time to Kill can be awfully tough to watch due to the nature of the offences that are at the heart of the film. Thus, while I recommend watching it, please do so at your own discretion. This article will look at a few selected scenes and legal issues as portrayed in the film, and will then compare them to the legal realities.
Plot
Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) is a struggling solo practitioner who barely makes ends meet. He agrees to defend Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) who is charged with the murder of his 10-year-old daughter’s rapists. The two know each other because Brigance had previously defended Hailey’s brother. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty whereas the defence is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Set in Mississippi, a Southern U.S. State, complex issues around race, bias and bigotry arise. The film also raises important questions regarding morality and colour-blind justice.
Voir Dire
One of the legal processes shown in the film in detail is voir dire, more commonly known as jury selection. Most criminal cases are heard before a jury because crimes are offences against society. You can also see this in the way that criminal cases are cited: The State v X (example U.S.) or R v X (example England).
The panel of twelve jurors are supposed to represent society. Therefore, in the U.S. defendants have a constitutional right to be tried by a jury of their peers. This becomes very important in the context of race as shown in the film. During the jury selection, the prosecutor uses his peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from the jury pool. The judge actually allows this despite the decision in Batson v Kentucky that the removal of jurors of the same skin colour based on the colour of their skin is unconstitutional.
Apart from this inaccuracy, the film does a good job at showing the preparation that goes into voir dire. In reality, and in Hollywood, both the prosecution and the defence try to select the jurors in such a way that it is more favourable for their case. As Brigance so eloquently puts it: “It all depends on the jury.” In one scene, Brigance and his legal team are talking about who would be the perfect candidate as a juror for them. In this instance, the team prefer young fathers as they can relate to the defendant and might be less bigoted than the older generation.
Objections & Witness Examination
As in many legal films, there are plenty objections in A Time to Kill for the dramatic effect. Unfortunately, they are not always utilised properly. At one point in the trial, the defence attorney asks the sheriff if one of the two murder victims had signed a written confession admitting the rape. This question is followed by the prosecution objecting on grounds of inadmissibility. The objection is sustained. There are two problems with this particular objection. Firstly, it should have happened sooner if the prosecution believed the evidence to be inadmissible. Secondly, it does not make sense for the prosecution to object here at all as the information shows that the defendant acted in a premeditated way. It is quite ironic that in reality the prosecution would want that information whereas the defence would try to argue against it.
Another misguided objection happens when Brigance asks the prosecution’s expert witness, a psychiatrist, how many times he has given testimony in cases regarding the insanity of defendants. This is actually a very common question for opposing counsel to ask in order to discredit the witness. In this instance, Brigance successfully manages to do so by showing that the witness is biased.
In addition to that, the decision to put the defendant on the stand is very questionable in this case. Of course, a defendant may testify; however, they are under no legal obligation to do so and it is often recommended to avoid it. Here, the prosecutor manages to antagonise the defendant, and to cause an outburst as one can expect.
Closing Statements
After all the evidence has been heard, it is practice for prosecution and defence to make closing statements, in the U.S. often referred to as summation. These are, if at all, the appropriate time for attorneys to get theatrical. Brigance asks the jury to close their eyes, and to imagine what happened to the defendant’s daughter. He describes what happened in great detail, stirring the jury’s emotions. He then makes a very powerful argument about bias. He asks the jury to imagine everything had happened to a white girl in order to fully empathise with the defendant. However, it could be argued that this is inappropriate as you are not permitted to put improper emphasis on the defendant’s race. Justice is supposed to be colour-blind after all. The reason for this is the historic abuse of such arguments against African American defendants.
Final Thoughts
The film discusses the issue of race in a supposedly colour-blind justice system in a unique and interesting way. It invites the audience to think about the differences between legality and morality; what is legally wrong may be morally right and vice versa. A supporting character states during the film that justice would prevail both in the case of a conviction and in the case of an acquittal.
Comments