How can I write this scene so it does not come off as forced?

[harmonica44]

I showed a script to some fellow filmmakers to get their opinions and there is one scene that does not make sense they said. In the scene a detective comes to question a witness about a case. The witness is going to testify against a defendant who is arrested. However, the defendant's lawyer is there, when the detective comes to question her.

The detective sees them talking and observes from a distance. He cannot hear what they are saying cause they think that they are alone and are talking about something much more sinister. The detective has a hunch that the witness knows the lawyer on more personal terms, than just a lawyer coming to ask questions about the case. He takes this hunch to his superiors saying that the lawyer and the witness looked like they know each other and are may have a set up in the works as part of a bigger, diabolical plan.

The superiors act on this, and set up a sting operation to smoke them both out. However, I was told that this comes off as forced, as the detective would not get such a hunch, just from looking at two people talking without being able to hear anything. Also, the hunch itself is a bit of stretch, and the superior officers, would not launch a sting, on the defendant's lawyer in the case, because of a mere stretched hunch, from one cop, and nothing else to go on.

What do you think? Does this not work, and I have to rewrite it?

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

Give the detective more evidence to build his "hunch" from.

It does seem unlikely that the police would act on one person's hunch (is that even legal?).

Is the detective's hunch meant to be wrong? (i.e. the lawyer isn't involved in the crime) Then make him misheard something, read something in the wrong context etc.

If the hunch is meant to be correct, then make the evidence legitimate.

Doesn't seem like a difficult rewrite.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. The reason why it's difficult is because I do not want the audience to know what he is thinking. I want the audience to not know what the hunch is, until after the sting happens, and then they are surprised and understand it. But it's difficult to write a scene where the detective acquires evidence, that he himself understands and becomes alarmed, but yet I have to keep the audience in the dark.

He is suppose to be correct.

I remember an episode of Columbo, where Columbo had a hunch that a man and woman were the villains working together because he saw on the guy open the front door of a car, for her. He said it was strange how he knew to open the front door for her, instead of the back, and that the opening the back door for her, would have been normal. They must know each other!, he said. This was enough for him to proceed to build more of a case, so perhaps a hunch can be plausible in some aspects?

 

[WalterB]

read their lips :-p

 

[Sweetie]

Time for more popcorn while it takes 5 pages to figure out that H44 didn't ask the right question and has only included one tenth of the information required to give any useful advice.

 

[WalterB]

I think on page 6...

 

[oneminutetomidnight]

Maybeeee, and bear with me here...

Rather than go to the witness that is going to testify, the detective can bring the witness to the police station, or some sort of questioning room with a camera in it. The detective goes in and sees the defendant's lawyer and the witness in the room, asks his questions. He gets some pretty cookie cutter answers, so he suspects something happened before he got into the room. LUCKILY, there's a hidden security camera in the questioning room that records everything that happens in the room. He goes through the tapes, sees the witness and lawyer talking about it, and brings his video evidence to his superiors. They have enough evidence to set up a sting operation, and they can go through with it.

Just an idea, it wouldn't be too terribly hard to do.

 

[rayw]

Put these pages into a PDF, upload to Google docs, share, lettuce actually read the pages.

TY.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I made some changes and uploaded to google docs. It's a rough draft so it may not be all worded the best yet.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Xsh5O2ZFssWlJpMnQwYkR3MVU&authuser=0

 

[harmonica44]

Maybeeee, and bear with me here...

Rather than go to the witness that is going to testify, the detective can bring the witness to the police station, or some sort of questioning room with a camera in it. The detective goes in and sees the defendant's lawyer and the witness in the room, asks his questions. He gets some pretty cookie cutter answers, so he suspects something happened before he got into the room. LUCKILY, there's a hidden security camera in the questioning room that records everything that happens in the room. He goes through the tapes, sees the witness and lawyer talking about it, and brings his video evidence to his superiors. They have enough evidence to set up a sting operation, and they can go through with it.

Just an idea, it wouldn't be too terribly hard to do.

Okay thanks. I thought about that already and researched it. However, when a lawyer goes to ask questions about a case, the cameras have to be turned off in a lot of legal situations, so any evidence for a sting would might not legally fly though. Plus wouldn't a lawyer be smart enough to know he could be recorded if in an interrogation room, so he wouldn't want to talk to her there? I had some trouble with google docs and will figure out how to use it properly.

What if I wrote it so that the witness is brought to the station, but the detective, does not hear what the lawyer says to her, but it looks suspicious, because the detective wonders how the lawyer new the witness was there. I could also write it so that the lawyer says that he never talked to the witness yet, where as the witness says different, and says that the lawyer did speak to her before. Would this be enough to get permission to do a sting, or does recording it, while in interrogation work better?

 

[joejohn123]

Instead of making witness and lawyer being together , watched by detective....
it's better to make lawyer commit mistake as INSTINCT PART in front of detective.

Lawyer uses witness's NICK NAME/friend circle familiar name instead of her real name.


Not bothered about what simi says.
person : simi ?
I meant , svethlana

 

[harmonica44]

Well the lawyer and her, even though they are involved in the same shady illegal activity, have only had contact through email and phone. They do not know each other well at all, and keep their distance for safety reasons.

I would like to do the plot where the lawyer goes to interrogate her, I just need a reason for him to do it that way, since he knows he can be listened in on.

 

[underthegun]

Would the not being forced rest upon the actor(s) more than the script?

 

[joejohn123]

quote
"have only had contact through email and phone."


If dependent on modern technology way, case ends more easily.

Detective got reason to bug her phone line / internet line .

In result which leads to person known close to lawyer or lawyer himself.


The modern day suspense story always ends so easily , because of technology intrusion.

How do you know he surely was there?
Security guard said it.
How much sure are you that , security guard is not involved in it ?
(old day reply) ????? : (MOdern day REPLY) Checked CCTV footage. SO , Security guard is not lying!!!


While writing suspense stories , you would love to emerge as clever writer as much as possible and also to make one of your character clever as possible. I try a lot to create situation being challenge to character , than character himself.
Some writers choose matter of coincidence as possible way to end the story their way.

Hope you find one or the other way.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I emailed a cop about it, and asked his advice, and he says that he can't think of any scenario in which you can use evidence from a conversation with a lawyer. Investigation of a lawyer in the same case is 'fruit of the poisonous tree' he says, and lawyers of the witnesses are exempt from becoming part of the same case, that is already being investigated.

How much do audiences care about legal accuracy though? I know that a lot of movies do change things for dramatic license. Even hit movies such as The French Connection and Point Break, and many others throw certain technicalities out the window, in order to have a story, so how much would the audience care, especially if the story is about serious subject matter? I mean one common thing you hear about screenwriting is to 'write what you know', but the writers, of those cops movies, didn't know either, and just wrote what they wanted to entertain the audience, and the audience did not mind.

 

[maz]

As the protected relationship between client and counsel is one of the cornerstones of most western justice systems, then yeah, I think audiences will probably care. You're right that here are lots of technical issues in lots of subjects that can easily be glossed over, but probably not one that is quite so fundamental.

 

[nefilmgroup]

As a viewer, I would be turned off by such blatant disregards for the rules of our criminal justice system. It would make you look like a very amateur writer to just assume the audience wouldn't care.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I am trying to find a loophole in which it would work for my script. Since the lawyer is involved in illegal activity and may be complicit in a crime with the witness based on what he would be overheard saying, could that make the relationship between client and counsel void, if the lawyer is suspect of being involved more himself?

 

[maz]

I think I misunderstood the setup with my last comment. So the lawyer is not the witness's lawyer, but is conspiring with the witness rather than the defendant? In that case can't you just have them seen talking in a different setting altogether, rather than in the legally protected confines of a police station, as they have no formal connection anyway? Even then, though, a "hunch" is unlikely to be enough to start a sting operation.

You need to relax/remove the permissions on your Google Drive file, by the way.

 

[harmonica44]

Yes, that's right. The lawyer is not the witnesses lawyer. The witness saw the defendant commit a crime. So the lawyer is going to ask the witness questions, as it's his job, but he's actually working with the witness in collusion of a crime they are both part of. I can write so that it's not in a police station, but since I am on a tight budget, I was hoping to use the station to double for other scenes, so I won't have to use more locations. I can have it be more than a hunch but the lawyer and witness are not going to be dumb enough to talk about it, when others can hear.

Also I don't want the audience to find out that they are working together until after the sting, later on. I need the cop to figure out that they are working together, but I do not want the audience to know. Then later, when the audience sees that they are working together, they will say "Ohh, so that's what the cop was thinking when he was suspicious of the witness and the lawyer". But it's hard to write a scene where the cop discovers enough to launch a sting, in a way, in which the audience cannot figure it out. That's why I wanted to make it a hunch, so it won't be obvious, but again, a hunch is still just a hunch legally.