How should I write this court scenario?

[harmonica44]

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.

 

[mlesemann]

And the criticism of "Lincoln"'s historical inaccuracies certainly bother some people. But not me.

I've worked (in my day job) in currency and interest rate trading for more years than I'd like to admit. And I've yet to see an accurate portrayal of one, including the British movie about jailed British trader Nick Leeson (the title escapes me at the moment), which I liked.

It's a movie, and it's fiction. Worry more about that stuff if you want to make a documentary.

Of course it's up to each writer (and producer) to decide how far to be concerned with these issues.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

And the criticism of "Lincoln"'s historical inaccuracies certainly bother some people. But not me.

As an individual, you're obviously entitled to you opinion. As a filmmaker however, particularly a filmmaker who wants to make films professionally, you have to seriously consider inaccuracies and how they will affect the paying audiences and the critics who may influence them. While there are minor mistakes which slip through the net in every film, more serious inaccuracies are sometimes allowed after balancing the story telling requirements against the likely reaction of a small minority of the audience. This balancing needs to be carefully considered though, rather than ignored due to ignorance. Obviously, this is just my opinion and advice though.

G

 

[mlesemann]

you have to seriously consider inaccuracies and how they will affect the paying audiences and the critics who may influence them

I completely agree with that. But my point is simply that people who are experts in any given field view movies about that field differently than either critics or the paying audiences.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

But my point is simply that people who are experts in any given field view movies about that field differently than either critics or the paying audiences.

True but few people have any direct experience of say the job of a derivatives trader in Singapore, while many more people have direct experience of court proceedings and of the legal system of their country and more still have 2nd hand experience through news reports. Part of the balancing act I referred to is the consideration of how many of your audience (and the critics) are likely to notice or be affected by inaccuracies. I'm not particularly aware of the inaccuracies in the portrayal of legal proceedings in US dramas because I don't know the US legal system and it seems like American audiences are quite tolerant of inaccuracies, for whatever reason. Audiences in the UK and maybe many other countries too, appear to be less far tolerant of inaccuracies when their own legal systems are being portrayed. It's certainly something H44 should consider as he is based in Canada and presumably so is his story.

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

The jury of the future trial must decide the case ONLY on the evidence presented in court.

This is technically true in the US as well.

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.

Again this technically true in the US. During Voir Dire (jury selection) jurors are asked if they have been following the media coverage of the case. In this media saturated day and age the question has evolved into have you been influenced by the media coverage; yeah, right...

During the trial the jury can be sequestered and denied any media access whatsoever.

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 the US the judge can put a "gag order" on both parties, and anyone else s/he designates (police, etc.) prohibiting discussion of the case. The media is, of course, exempted under the First Amendment. They may talk all they want, and even investigate unless it interferes with the trial - especially the defense - but in this day and age most are too lazy to do real investigations and rely on leaks, and they interview "experts" who "speculate" about what's going on.


So yes, there is plenty of trial by media, but the media FUBARs a lot. Casey Anthony got out of a murder rap the media considered a slam dunk, open and shut case.


The media gives me a real PITA. They are as partisan as the politics they cover, and more concerned with ratings than with conveying neutral, honest, useful information.



Does any one remember the TV series "Max Headroom?" Edison Carter was an investigative journalist; Murray was his producer/managing editor.

Edison - "Since when has news been entertainment?"

Murray - "Since it was invented?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFFMRXGjfNI​

 

[harmonica44]

As an individual, you're obviously entitled to you opinion. As a filmmaker however, particularly a filmmaker who wants to make films professionally, you have to seriously consider inaccuracies and how they will affect the paying audiences and the critics who may influence them. While there are minor mistakes which slip through the net in every film, more serious inaccuracies are sometimes allowed after balancing the story telling requirements against the likely reaction of a small minority of the audience. This balancing needs to be carefully considered though, rather than ignored due to ignorance. Obviously, this is just my opinion and advice though.

G

I think this also depends on the tone of the movie as well. I mentioned Die Hard before as example. That movie severely tweaked quite a bit of real life's police procedures. I found out by asking a cop (who doesn't know about court scenarios as much unfortunately). But Die Hard is a popcorn action flick. My script is a thriller, but it is also a dark tragedy that deals with subject matter, that common audiences will find more sensitive than the average suspense thriller.

So with dark, sensitive material in mind, perhaps it's more necessary to portray more realism in the legal system compared to a popcorn thriller. But then again their are really dark movies like Oldboy for example, that really stretch the limits of plausibility. What do you think?

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

The reason I brought up he Grand Jury as a possibility is because so few average people really know anything about what happens behind those closed doors. As far as the media goes, they wouldn't be allowed in the room, but that wouldn't stop them from ambushing the lawyers and witnesses outside of the building.

 

[harmonica44]

Exactly I want the media to be outside the building. I was hoping not to have a grand jury, as that's more actors to hire. In Canada it's just a judge I read, but still trying to find out if that takes place in the courtroom if it's just a judge. In shows like Boston Legal, during preliminary hearings, the defense lawyer is there though to challenge arguments. I know BL is not real, but if it works for them...

 

[arrodiii]

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

This is the reason why I am saying that H44 needs to do some research:

...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...

In what judicial system can a party decline to be named in order to further their own interests at the expense of another party?

And H44, I believe that Boston Legal mainly dealt with civil cases - totally different rules and procedures than criminal rules and procedures.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. The Boston Legal episode I was thinking of specifically was a murder case where the prosecutor and defense attorney had to present arguments to the judge as to whether or not their was enough evidence to go to trial. An episode in season 2 I remember. That seems to be more Canadian too, since their is no grand juries here.

Alright, here's the best scenario I can think of for you, a Grand Jury Inquiry. The police have run down the leads and have the name of one or more of the kidnappers. the kicker is that one of the suspects is some sort of well known figure and the police can't arrest him without a warrant. The judge won't sign off on the arrest warrant because of the suspect's fame/position and the DA calls a Grand Jury Inquiry where the DA lays out the evidence in the case and the attorney representing the suspect gets to question the victim with the intention of discrediting her so that the jury will find "no true bill", which means that charges would not be filed. The vast majority of people have no idea what happens in these proceedings so you can get away with it as long as it's written well. As far as the media, yes they would really want to be there to hear if the Grand Jury comes back with a True Bill (charges filed) or No True Bill (no charges).

This scenario seems like it may work the best for me.