• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How should I write this court scenario?

So the script goes, that a cop spots a kidnapping in progress. The kidnappers have already held the woman hostage for some time and are moving her. The cop spots this in progress, saves her, and the kidnappers get away as he protects her.

So I wanna write it, so she testifies in court, and the prosecutor and defense attorney, are cross examining her, each attorney, trying to beat the other. The only problem is, is that no one has been arrested since they do not know who the kidnappers are. Is it legal procedure to get a witness on the record, just to see if you have enough evidence for a future arrest, for when that future arrest comes? Or will they not have a court hearing about it, and just wait and see what turns up, while protecting the witness? Another thing is the defense attorney who plays a part in trying to get the case so it does not go any further. Since no arrests have been made, who is this lawyer representing? I have a strange scenario here.

Basically I want to write it so their is a hearing to here the potential evidence of the witness, but at the same time, do not want the kidnappers to be arrested, so therefore, they are free to commit crimes during the hearing.
 
Last edited:
There's an awful lot of "I did it my way" films out there. And a 100,000 writers with a million scripts and and a million directors with 8,000,000 films in the can collecting dust

If he can't please an audience, then he's just playing garage band, and I refuse to believe that's what he's after.

Audience's like things they can relate to, and although they are willing to suspend belief, their are lines they won't cross. If your court doesn't function more or less in a normal fashion, the story is lost in the re-interpretation of a normal thing forced upon the audience, leaving them confused and bothered when their girlfriends keeps saying, "Why'd that happen?" the whole freakin' scene!

Even the court in Thunderdome is essential standard.

That "it's my film" attitude is a glue that keeps one back 99.99999999% of the time.
Besides, it's settling.

unless its a non-fictional film, i dont see the relevance..

and not trying to start an arguement or anything but every film i have watched does not stay within the realms of reality, infact more far from it! people want films with controversy not ones that are predictable with a boring outcome.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117913/

this is an example of one.

everyone expects black man to be put away after he shot dead the white men that raped his daughter, he clearly was charged and committed murder, he even admitted it, in your theory if im correct, he would have gone to trial defended his case thus would have been sent to jail regardless of the situation, making this film crap

thats not what happened, instead a passionate story was told about the story of the young girl what would have happened to her, then he flipped it on the jury, imagine if she was white - controversial - sold the film

but if you have an example of a film where it was typical etc please share the link so that we can all see different types of films and learn from them
 
unless its a non-fictional film, i dont see the relevance..

and not trying to start an arguement or anything but every film i have watched does not stay within the realms of reality, infact more far from it! people want films with controversy not ones that are predictable with a boring outcome.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117913/

this is an example of one.

everyone expects black man to be put away after he shot dead the white men that raped his daughter, he clearly was charged and committed murder, he even admitted it, in your theory if im correct, he would have gone to trial defended his case thus would have been sent to jail regardless of the situation, making this film crap

thats not what happened, instead a passionate story was told about the story of the young girl what would have happened to her, then he flipped it on the jury, imagine if she was white - controversial - sold the film

but if you have an example of a film where it was typical etc please share the link so that we can all see different types of films and learn from them

You are totally misinterpreting what I thought was obvious, so I guess the Writer failed to make his point.
I'll try again, but it's like explaining how to shoot craps. Hard to explain, but easy to understand.

You're talking about outcomes. That's the results of story. A different thing entirely.

I understand the OP's question to be about premise.

And the premise MUST meet the criteria as stated or it'a another movie altogether.

A Time to Kill took place in a stock courtroom with a standard set-up as a starting point. Exactly my point.

A film about a person on trial who has not committed a crime is fine. A person being on trial (essential the OP's premise) for merely being a witness in Western society is also fine, as a movie, SET, in itself.

However, using either one of those story premises as a common SETTING shared by the audience and the film in which the story is SET, assumes the audience has prior knowledge of the deviation of common SETTING (witness on trial), which it doesn't. In the SETTING we live, witnesses are not put on trial prior to arrest.

Jackson was dragged off to jail, got a lawyer, fought the case and won. Standard stuff.

Details of the law are not germane unless they are gross violations of the SETTING in which we all live and watch movies, and then they require prior explanation-- Lucas understands this well, hence the start of Star Wars, which is devoted to an explanation of the SETTING in which the story is SET, because it's not the SETTING in which the Audience lives.

I know that sounds confusing, but it's not, as soon as you understand the difference between the SET of the film and the SETTING in which it is SET

Think of A Time to Kill like this:

The OP's protagonist has just witnessed the kidnapping of the little girl. And now, before the bad guys are arrested and shot, our Hero the witness is put on trial, although no charges have been filed against anybody.

This is a movie about a society in which witnesses are blamed for the things they witness.
[Sounds like a Philip K. Dick story. Probably is.)

In any case, that's a different film altogether.
 
Well the Grand Jury idea was my original idea, but I did research and their are no grand juries in Canada. The judge has to make that decision, but not sure if the judge would have a hearing just for the witness when no arrests have been made, and the witness does not even know who the culprit is.

I could write it so that the cop arrests the kidnapper in the process, but then that means that the kidnappers identity will be known to the police, and his plan is less likely to succeed if they know who he is. I suppose I could write it that way, if I have to, but then his succession of his crime is more far fetched, in how he gets away with it. It has to be written so that he gets away with it for certain twists to fall into play. Since the police would know who he is, they can keep tabs on him of course. But I could write it that way, if I have to.
 
Well the Grand Jury idea was my original idea, but I did research and their are no grand juries in Canada. The judge has to make that decision, but not sure if the judge would have a hearing just for the witness when no arrests have been made, and the witness does not even know who the culprit is.

I could write it so that the cop arrests the kidnapper in the process, but then that means that the kidnappers identity will be known to the police, and his plan is less likely to succeed if they know who he is. I suppose I could write it that way, if I have to, but then his succession of his crime is more far fetched, in how he gets away with it. It has to be written so that he gets away with it for certain twists to fall into play. Since the police would know who he is, they can keep tabs on him of course. But I could write it that way, if I have to.

Let me lay one thing to rest: Having had the displeasure of dealing with a Grand Jury (in the US at least), there are no defense lawyers and the Jury members ask most of the questions, not the prosecutor seeking the warrant. Nor does the Judge have the ability to quash a decision made by the Jury. The Prosecutor just states his case and calls witnesses, the judge keeps order.

With regard to your story, I think you know what you want, but you don't KNOW what you want-- a common problem.

I would ask you to state a Theme. Boil things down to their essence. What is your story about?
The injustice of justice?
The inherent weakness of the Justice System?
The frustration of the police in the face of legal restrictions?
What? It's ultimately about something fundamental or it's not a story.

When you can state the theme concisely, then flesh it out with as high a concept logline as you can manage. Keep it to a single sentence.

Perhaps that will help. It sure helps me.
 
Okay thanks. The themes of the story are pretty much all the above that you have listed. I am thinking about how to rewrite this. I would like to use a defense attorney cause their needs to be a character that is connected to the villain that can get to the witness while she is in protection. What if an attorney shows up and says he wants to be present at the deposition? He says he wants to cross examine the witness, and that he represents a party, that does not wish to be named. He says that the party hired him to find out more, fearing the party may be arrested later, and wants to see what the witness is saying. Is this legal?
 
Last edited:
I think you need to do some research on your courts system.

IMO, you can either have him known to police (and possibly arrested) and therefore go to court, or you can have him unknown to police and therefore nothing in court. I certainly wouldn't buy court proceedings without police having any idea who the killer is.

But it's your movie.
 
Okay thanks. The themes of the story are pretty much all the above that you have listed. I am thinking about how to rewrite this. I would like to use a defense attorney cause their needs to be a character that is connected to the villain that can get to the witness while she is in protection. What if an attorney shows up and says he wants to be present at the deposition? He says he wants to cross examine the witness, and that he represents a party, that does not wish to be named. He says that the party hired him to find out more, fearing the party may be arrested later, and wants to see what the witness is saying. Is this legal?

The only way a defense attorney gets to question a witness is if someone's on trial.

So lose the Flashback. if the story is about the witness and the way they're treated by the system, then the kidnapping itself is a Flashback, a catalyst if you will, and not part of the story proper.
Besides, if the audience saw the crime go down, the trial itself is going to be watered down.
No reveals.

Go watch a real trial. When the DA speaks, he'll convince you the defendant is scum. Then when Defense gets his turn, you'll marvel at the corruption that allows the police to arrest an innocent man. Back and forth you'll go... it's inherently ripe with drama.
 
But doesn't a defense attorney get to ask the witness questions, in order to make the grand jury see a different light? If the perp has been arrested that is. I could write it so he is caught and booked.
 
But doesn't a defense attorney get to ask the witness questions, in order to make the grand jury see a different light? If the perp has been arrested that is. I could write it so he is caught and booked.

No. That's a trial.

And remember: Google is your friend.
There's tons of articles about this stuff.
 
But doesn't a defense attorney get to ask the witness questions, in order to make the grand jury see a different light? If the perp has been arrested that is. I could write it so he is caught and booked.

Where is the story going to take place? What time frame?

You already mentioned that you understand that Canada doesn't have a grand jury system (anymore...), so are you now going to write this during the time that Canada had a grand jury system or are you going to write this in current time in a country whose judicial system allows for grand juries?

I'm sorry if this comes out harsh, as I really don't mean it to, but whatever you do you need to do some real research i.e. more than just google searches and reading wikipedia. Some of the questions you have posed have shown that you have no understanding of basic fundamentals of the role of the parties in the judiciary. If you continue on down with this type of plot, I would suggest buying a textbook or two on the judiciary in the country/province/state in which this will be set so you can learn about what yo are trying to write, as well as what geckopelli mentioned and go watch a trial or two.
 
Okay thanks. What if it's not a trial and a hearing though, and the crook has been arrested, and they are determining if it can go to trial?

That particular procedure doesn't even require the defendants presences.
Only the prosecutor and HIS witnesses.

There is no real life scenario in the US that doesn't involve a Trial short of a Congressional Hearing or family court hearing or possibly some nazi-like patriot act stuff.
 
But doesn't a defense attorney get to ask the witness questions, in order to make the grand jury see a different light? If the perp has been arrested that is. I could write it so he is caught and booked.

OK
Reveal: I got popped on a Grand Jury warrant once.
First I heard of it, Two Guys in dark suits and wearing Aviators showed up at the door...
 
Where is the story going to take place? What time frame?

You already mentioned that you understand that Canada doesn't have a grand jury system (anymore...), so are you now going to write this during the time that Canada had a grand jury system or are you going to write this in current time in a country whose judicial system allows for grand juries?

I am wanting to set it in modern times, for budget reasons mostly.

I'm sorry if this comes out harsh, as I really don't mean it to, but whatever you do you need to do some real research i.e. more than just google searches and reading wikipedia. Some of the questions you have posed have shown that you have no understanding of basic fundamentals of the role of the parties in the judiciary. If you continue on down with this type of plot, I would suggest buying a textbook or two on the judiciary in the country/province/state in which this will be set so you can learn about what yo are trying to write, as well as what geckopelli mentioned and go watch a trial or two.

Okay thanks. Where I live, it's difficult to get into trials, and no lawyers want to give out advice so far. I will look for books. I will research more and ask around. And I am wanting to set it in modern times.
 
Last edited:
That particular procedure doesn't even require the defendants presences.
Only the prosecutor and HIS witnesses.

There is no real life scenario in the US that doesn't involve a Trial short of a Congressional Hearing or family court hearing or possibly some nazi-like patriot act stuff.

Okay thanks. I don't want the defendant to be present. Basically I just need it so the media is scheduled to question the witness when she comes out, and for someone who is connected to the defendant that can legally be there, to turn things to his advantage. If not a lawyer, than maybe someone else...
 
Last edited:
Basically I just need it so the media is scheduled to question the witness when she comes out, and for someone who is connected to the defendant that can legally be there, to turn things to his advantage. If not a lawyer, than maybe someone else...

We come back to the same thing, research! I don't know what the the laws are in the US but they seem to be extremely liberal when it comes to what can be asked, answered and printed/broadcast by the press before a case is heard in court. In the UK, the laws are much tighter because the defendant's lawyer is not allowed to say anything to the press (and the press is not allowed to report anything) which would influence the outcome of the case. The jury of the future trial must decide the case ONLY on the evidence presented in court. If the jury read or see anything in the press/media which would influence (prejudice) their decision, the judge can declare a fair trial impossible and throw the case out or if the case reaches a verdict, the verdict can be challenged and overturned. The judge can also declare that the press which printed/broadcast the information and the layer who gave the information be charged with "contempt of court", the media outlet can be closed down and a sentence of up to 2 years in prison can be imposed. In the US the first amendment takes precedence, in the England the right to a "fair trial" is a basic tenet of the rule of law, was originally enshrined in the Magna Carta and takes precedence over pretty much everything, including the freedom of the press! The US system appears to essentially allow for "trial by media" which seems rather bizarre in comparison to what many other countries are used to. In practise in the UK this means that any statement to the media, before or during a trail (by the defence or the prosecution), would be prepared by a lawyer to avoid the possibility of contempt of court. What happens in Canada though might be different to both the US and English legal systems and there may even be differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

In my experience, when making a film which includes this sort of thing, a lawyer or legal expert is consulted either during/after the screenplay is written and may even be employed during production, to ensure authenticity. Even with considerable research, unless you are an experienced trial lawyer (barrister) you're likely to make significant mistakes, so an expert consultant is essential. Again in my experience, it's often possible to find a lawyer or legal expert cheaply or even free, as being listed in the credits as the legal expert/consultant might be payment enough for some.

G
 
I take a somewhat different view on the need for complete authenticity, which is why I pointed you toward a google search.

My dad is a retired judge and my sister is a lawyer, and both of them consider court/police scenarios as presented in popular TV (I.e., Law and Order, NYPD Blue) and most popular movies to be ridiculous and impossible. BUT they are close enough to the broad brush view of what happens that the average viewer wouldn't notice.

As I think someone said earlier in this thread, you don't want to take the average reader/viewer out of your story. THAT I think is why you need to do some basic research, watch lots of procedurals (cop and lawyer) tv shows and movies, and let normal people read it to see if it's reasonable. If a lawyer or maybe a recent law school grad will help, great. But you don't need technical perfection.
 
I take a somewhat different view on the need for complete authenticity, which is why I pointed you toward a google search....BUT they are close enough to the broad brush view of what happens that the average viewer wouldn't notice....But you don't need technical perfection.

With all due respect, US TV and film is well known (outside the USA) for it's frequent liberties with the facts. That's not always the case elsewhere and this liberal approach could easily backfire in a different country. The UK for example has a rich tradition of highly accurate modern police dramas/thrillers and the critics will gleefully trash a police or courtroom drama if it's inaccurate.

G
 
Back
Top