“With a career-best performance by Richard Gere (…) and a story that is full of dark twists and turns, Primal Fear stands as one of the best legal films of its era.”
Disclaimer/Warning
Before you read this article, please watch the film. You will get the best experience out of the courtroom thriller if you don’t know anything about it. While I will try to keep this article as spoiler free as possible by concentrating on the legal aspects and moral issues of the film instead of on the actual plot, it is impossible to do so without being specific to the film.
The State v Aaron Stampler
Primal Fear follows a murder trial in Chicago, in which former state attorney prosecutor, Martin Vail (Richard Gere), is seen on the other side of the courtroom, as a defence attorney. Being well known for relishing in the media attention his notorious cases attract, Vail doesn’t want to miss out on this particular high-profile case after seeing it on the news. He even offers his services pro bono to altar boy Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton), who is accused of butchering Chicago’s archbishop. Due to the heinous nature of the crime, the prosecution, lead by assistant state attorney Janet Venable (Laura Linney), is seeking the death penalty.
In the Courtroom
When it comes to the proper court etiquette, the film is overall quite realistic. When the judge enters, everyone rises and the judge is addressed with ‘Your Honour’. The prosecution is always followed by the defence, for example, the prosecution is first to call their witnesses to the stand before any defence witnesses are questioned. In addition to that, the movie accurately portrays that cases can occur over multiple days, if not weeks or longer, in court, whereas many other films often convey the perception that cases are done and dusted within a few hours.
However, the film does have some inaccuracies. In one particular scene, the prosecutor is acting out of line during the cross examination of a witness by talking about herself and the defence should have objected on multiple occasions during that examination. It is also questionable if some of the judge’s rulings would have been upheld in a real court. For example, at the beginning of the court proceedings a motion by the defence is denied which causes the defendant to plead the fifth on any and all questions until the motion is granted. Strangely, the judge complied instead of threatening to hold the defence in contempt of court. Despite the few mistakes, the courtroom scenes are highly enjoyable and entertaining.
Morality and Legal Ethics
In the beginning of the film, Richard Gere’s character comes across as extremely cynical. In fact, the very first sentence the audience hears is:
“First day of law school, my professor says two things: First, ‘From now on, when your mother says she loves you, get a second opinion’ – And? – ‘If you want justice, go to a whorehouse. Wanna get fucked, go to court.’”
While studies suggest that the average lawyer is 90% more sceptical than the norm, this quote goes beyond mere scepticism. The question arises as to why a person practices law if they do not believe in the notion that justice can be achieved in court.
Another issue with the defence attorney’s attitude is that he does not care whether or not his clients are guilty. While he is correct in stating that every defendant has a right to the best defence their attorney can provide, it is questionable how good a defence can be if you have serious doubts as to the innocence of your client. In such instance, a lawyer is ethically obliged to recuse themselves from the case. It is important to note that the law assumes the innocence of defendants until proven guilty. People however, and this includes lawyers, often assume the guilt of a defendant. It is no wonder then that defence lawyers have a comparably negative reputation as it is also assumed that they must surely know whether or not their client is guilty.
The morals and legal ethics of the prosecution are also questioned in this film. It is shown that the state attorney doesn’t care if they have the right suspect. Indeed, motivated by having a good conviction rate, their only interest appears to achieve an easy conviction. The case is a ‘slam dunk’ after all. If lawyers on both sides are really more interested in winning the case than in the life of a person – in this case literally as the death penalty is on the table – it is not so strange anymore why Richard Gere’s character doesn’t believe that justice can be achieved in court.
Final Thoughts
First and foremost, Primal Fear encourages you to think about morality vs immorality, optimism vs pessimism, innocence vs guilt and about what is real vs what is not. Particularly, the film’s approach on the perception – or perhaps deception – of innocence, is what makes this thriller one of the most intriguing legal films.
Comments