Want to financially support the makers of a documentary about "Anatomy of a Murder"?

State Bar of Michigan blog has news that the makers of a new documenary about the classic film, Anatomy of  Murder, need some financial help to buy rights to use clips from the movie. A mere $15 gets you listed in the credits of the documentary; $500 makes  you an "executive producer."

Comments

[Nicole Hyland]

One of my favorite movies!

[Monroe Freedman]

Mine too. But very misleading about "The Lecture."

[Underwood]

I have an irresistible impulse to donate in the name of the late Barney Quill.

[John Steele]

Professor Underwood, I will return tomorrow and see just how crazy you were.

Anatomy of a Murder

Most discussions of the ethics of witness preparation make mention of Anatomy of a Murder, the Robert Traver novel that became an Otto Preminger film. ("Robert Traver" was a pseudonym for a Michigan appellate court judge.) The case concerns the murder defense of an Army officer, Lt. Frederick Manion, who admittedly shot and killed Barney Quill. The defense attorney, Paul Biegler, is out of town when the story breaks. Upon his return, and before Biegler talks to any witnesses, he learns from the newspaper and from his associate, McCarthy, that Manion killed Quill because he had allegedly raped the Lieutenant's wife, Laura Manion.
During the first meeting between Manion and Biegler, Manion says that he has the "unwritten law" on his side (i.e., a husband has a right to kill his wife's rapist). Biegler says that the unwritten law is a myth. Biegler asks Manion how much time elapsed from learning of the rape until he drove over and shot Quill. Manion replies "about one hour." Biegler is visibly disappointed at the answer.

Biegler goes to have lunch at a food stand with his associate, McCarthy, and has this dialogue:

McCarthy: Did you give the Lieutenant the well-known lecture?

Biegler: Well, if you mean did I coach him into a phony story, no.

McCarthy: Maybe you're too pure for him. Too pure for the natural impurities of the law. Could be that you owe the Lieutenant a chance to find a defense. Could also be that you might guide him a little, show him the way and let him decide if he wants to take it. Want some salt [for your food]?

Biegler: No. I'm not ready [for the salt]. Anyway, I'm not the right lawyer for this boy. He's insolent, hostile.

McCarthy: You don't have to love him; just defend him.

Biegler goes back to visit Lieutenant Manion at the jail, and quickly launches into "The Lecture."

Biegler: Oh. Well. I bought you some cigarettes.

Manion: Thanks.

Biegler: Peace?

Manion: Oh, sure.

Biegler: Fine. Fine. Now, Lieutenant there are four ways I could defend murder: number one, it wasn't murder suicide or accidental; number two, you didn't do it; number three, you were legally justified, like the protection of your home or self-defense; number four, the killing was excusable.

Manion: Where do I fit into this rosy picture?

Biegler: I'll tell you where you don't fit in. You don't fit any of the first three.

Manion: But why? Why wouldn't I be legally justified in killing a man who raped my wife?

Biegler: Time element. Now, if you'd caught him in the act the shooting might have been justified. But you didn't catch him in the act. And you had time to bring in the police. You didn't do that either. You're guilty of murder. Premeditated and with vengeance. That's first degree murder in any court of law.

Manion: Are you telling me to plead guilty?

Biegler: When I advise you to cop-out, you'll know.

Manion: Cop-out?

Biegler: That's plead guilty and ask for mercy.

Manion: Well, if you're not telling me to cop-out, what are you telling me to do?

Biegler: I'm not telling you to do anything. I just want you to understand the letter of the law.

Manion: Go on.

Biegler: Go on with what?

Manion: Whatever it is you're getting at.

Biegler: You're very bright Lieutenant. Now, let's see how really bright you could be.

Manion: Well, I'm working at it.

Biegler: All right. Now because your wife was raped, you'll have favorable atmosphere in the courtroom. The sympathy will be with you, if all of the facts are true. What you need is a legal peg so that the jury can hang up their sympathy on your behalf. Do you follow me?

Manion: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Biegler: What's your legal excuse Lieutenant? What's your legal excuse for killing Barney Quill?

Manion: Not justification, huh?

Biegler: Not justification.

Manion: Excuse. Just excuse. Well, what excuses are there?

Biegler: How should I know? You're that one that plugged Quill.

Manion: I must have been mad.

Biegler: How's that?

Manion: I said I must have been mad.

Biegler: Well, bad temper's no excuse.

Manion: I mean I must have been crazy. Am I getting warmer? Am I getting warmer?

Biegler: Well, I'll tell you that after I talk to your wife. In the meantime, see if you can remember just how crazy you were.

Biegler returns to his office and has this discussion with McCarthy:

McCarthy: You're not gonna take the case, huh?

Biegler: Well, I don't know. That depends on what Manion has to tell me tomorrow. He's thinking things out.

McCarthy: Oh. Well, that's more like it.

When Biegler visits Manion the next day, the interview runs smoothly:

Manion: [I] try remembering; there was still some pieces missing. I remember going to Quill's bar with a gun and remember Quill's face behind the bar. But I don't remember anything else, not even going home.

Biegler: But don't you remember firing the gun? That's five shots. That's a lot of noise to forget.

Manion: Yeah. I remember five shots, but they don't seem to be connected with me. They seem far away, like somebody else was doing the shooting.

Biegler: Lieutenant Manion, I'll take your case.

From that point, the normally sharp-eyed and focused Manion lapses into a foggy dream-state whenever he discusses the shooting. An Army psychiatrist diagnoses "disassociative disorder" and "irresistible impulse."

[Monroe Freedman]

That part of the plot turns on what, for dramatic purposes, is the "truth" of Manion's original story. But no experienced defense lawyer would have made that assumption. Interestingly, we are expected to disbelieve Manion's assertion (as Jimmy Stewart clearly does) that when his first wife divorced him for cruelty, it was for "eating crackers in bed, that kind of thing."

It's not uncommon for a client to withhold the truth in the first interview. Here, Manion might well have been lying, e.g., he believed that what he said gave him an absolute defense. At a panel discussion of client perjury some years ago, Jim Brosnahan was asked how you know when your client is lying. His response was, "If it's the first interview, he's lying."

With regard to coaching, the Restatement summarizes "litigation practice uniformly followed in the United States." Included in witness preparation that is ethically permitted and almost certainly required, the Restatement includes explaining the law that applies to the facts of the case.