Law on Film Jonathan Hafetz

Inherit the Wind (1960) is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial," where a local teacher is prosecuted for teaching about human evolution in public school in violation of state law. The film was directed by Stanley Kramer and is based on a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee. It stars Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond (patterned after celebrated defense attorney Clarence Darrow), Frederic March as the prosecutor Matthew Harrison Brady (patterned after famous three-time presidential candidate and renowned fundamentalist Christian spokesperson, William Jennings Bryan); Dick York as Bertram T. Cates (patterned after high school science teacher John Scopes), and Gene Kelly as reporter E. K. Hornbeck (patterned after H.L. Mencken). Fans of the TV series M*A*S*H  will also enjoy seeing Harry Morgan as the trial judge. The film not only provides a glimpse into the role of religion in public life in American in the 1920s; it also contains important messages about conformism and freedom of thought directed at the McCarthyism of its own era—messages that continue to reverberate today. My guest to talk about Inherit the Wind is film critic Nell Minow (bio  here).

Timestamps:

0.00     Introduction
4:52     The era of the Scopes “monkey trial”
8:34     The Scopes trial as a “test” case
12:25   The decision to exclude evidence of evolution
18:40   The later theory of “intelligent design”
20:30   Clarence Darrow’s classic cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan
23:27   Miracle on 34th Street and how courts resolve disputes about faith
24:40   The film as a response to the McCarthy era
26:14   The verdict and aftermath
30:10   The power and methods of the religious right today
34:22   The impact of Inherit the Wind and other “issue movies”
37:06   The film’s continuing relevance

Further reading:

Austerlitz, Saul, "Rethinking Stanley Kramer: How a message-movie humanist became an auteurist punching bag," Moving Image Source (Aug. 25, 2010)

Farrell, John F., Clarence Darrow: Attorney for the Damned (2011)

Minow, Nell, “‘An Idea Is a Greater Monument Than a Cathedral’: Deciding How We Know What We Know in ‘Inherit the Wind,’” 30 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 1225 (1996)

National Center for Science Education, “Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism” (June 6, 2016)

Sprague de Camp, Lyon, The Great Monkey Trial (1968)

Uelman, Gerald F., “The Trial as Circus: ‘Inherit the Wind,’” 30 U. San Fran. L. Rev. 1221 (1996)
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

The Caine Mutiny (1954) is based on Herman Wouk’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name. The film, directed by Edward Dmytryk and produced by Stanley Kramer, portrays the fictitious events on board the U.S.S. Caine, a Navy destroyer-minesweeper in the Pacific during World War II.  Lt. Stephen Maryk (Van Johnson) relieves the seemingly unstable Lt. Commander Philip Francis Queeg, Captain of the USS Caine, of his command after Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) endangers the ship and its crew . The ship returns to the U.S. and Maryk is court-martialed for mutiny. He is represented by Navy lawyer, Lt. Barney Greenwald (José Ferrer), who despite disapproving of Maryk’s actions, believes Maryk was misled by the ship’s communications officer, Lt. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray), into believing Queeg was mentally unfit for command. Maryk is acquitted after Greenwald exposes Queeg’s erratic and paranoid behavior. The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (2023), directed by the late William Friedkin, is based on Wouk’s adaption of his own 1951 novel for the stage. The cast includes Jake Lacy as Maryk, Jason Clarke as defense attorney Greenwald, Monica Raymund as prosecutor Lt. Commander Katherine Challee, the late Lance Reddick as the presiding judge Captain Luther Blakley, and Kiefer Sutherland in a phenomenal performance as Queeg. The films are not only gripping courtroom dramas, but also explore larger themes around military justice, ethics, and morality.  With me to discuss these films is Eugene (Gene) Fidell, a visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School and co-founder of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Timestamps:

0:00     Introduction
3:58     What's a court-martial?
9:14     The crime of mutiny
17:48   Relieving Queeg of his command
27:36   Putting Queeg on trial
29:33   Taking some poetic license with a court-martial
34:44   The defense lawyer’s post-trial critique of the mutiny
41:21   The dramatic changes in the Navy and armed forces since the original movie
47:12   More context for the two Caine Mutiny movies
50:21   Other great movies about military justice   
Further reading:

“The Humphrey Bogart Blogathon: ‘The Caine Mutiny’ (1954),” Dec. 23, 2016, https://back-to-golden-days.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-humphrey-bogart-blogathon-caine.html

Kelly, Kevin M., “You Murdered Queeg: Lawyers, Ethics, Military Justice, and ‘The Caine Mutiny,’” 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 543 (1991)

Melville, Herman, Billy Budd (1924)

Rosenberg, Norman L., “‘The Caine Mutiny’: Not Just One But Many Legal Dramas,” 31 J. Mar. L. & Com. 623 (2000)

Wouk, Herman, The Caine Mutiny (1951)

Two errata: the reference to a mutiny aboard HMS Tyger but should have been to the HMS Wager; and the unfortunate accused in the USS Somers mutiny was Midshipman Philip Spencer, not Sinclair.






Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode looks at “Law Films You Won't Want to Miss,” a recent list of "the most captivating legal themed movies," published in U.S. News and World Report.  Which movies are on the list? Which didn't make the cut? And what does the list tell us about “law movies”—and of great law movies? 
One film on the list may be something of a surprise: Miracle on 34th Street (1947) written and directed by George Seaton, from a story by Valentine Davies. In this Christmas holiday classic, the events director of Macy’s Department Store in NYC, Doris Walker (Maureen O’Hara) hires an old man named Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn, who won an Oscar as best supporting actor) to serve as Macy’s Santa Clause after the prior Santa is fired for being a drunk. Kringle not only closely resembles Santa Clause but believes he is Santa. Kringle is welcomed into Doris’s home and makes a favorable impression on Doris’s daughter Susan (Natalie Wood).  Kringle also makes an impression at work. He advises one customer to go to another store when Macy’s can’t fulfill her son’s request for a particular toy instead of trying to sell her something else. This turns out to be a public relations stroke of genius, demonstrating Macy’s concern for and loyalty to its customers. But Kringle’s success at Macy’s doesn’t last. He gets into a dispute  with another employee who insists Kringle be fired and put into a mental hospital. A civil commitment hearing takes place, where the question centers on whether Kringle’s belief that he is Santa Clause shows he is insane. Miracle on 34th Street raises timeless questions how law should treat beliefs.  I’m joined by Ashley Merryman, the author of the list, “Law Films You Won't Want to Miss.”

Timestamps:

0:00     Introduction
4:21     The top law movies
5:16     What makes a great law movie
9:19     Witness for the Prosecution and other favorites
16:16   Erin Brockovich and why great law movies aren’t always courtroom dramas
22:54   Some also-rans
29:45   Why Miracle on 34th Street made the list
31:53   A take on how politics informs courts and trials
35:34   Proving Santa Claus through a federal postal regulation
39:47   The legal realism of Miracle on 34th Street
41:40   When holiday movies were released in the spring
45:34   When courts are the arbiter of beliefs 
51:04   Fun facts in compiling the best law movies list
57:29   Introducing the new Q & A segment

Further reading:

Davis, Kevin, "The 25 Greatest Legal Movies: Expanding the Boundaries," ABA Journal (Aug. 2018)
 
Merryman, Ashley, “Law Films You Won't Want to Miss,” U.S. News & World Report
 (Feb. 1, 2024)

Minnow, Nell, “An Idea Is a Greater Monument than a Cathedral: Deciding How We Know What We Know in ‘Inherit the Wind,’” 30 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1225 (1996)

Olear, Greg, “‘Miracle on 34th Street’: Best Christmas movie ever,”? Salon (Dec. 24, 2012)

 
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Eight Men Out (1988) is a dramatization of professional baseball’s infamous Black Sox scandal, in which eight members of the Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to intentionally lose the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. The film, which was directed by John Sayles, is based on Eliot Asinof’s 1963 book, Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series. It recounts how a group of White Sox players conspired with an array of gamblers, including notorious underworld financier Arnold Rothstein (a/k/a “The Big Bankroll”), to throw the series in return for cash. After the Sox, who some consider one of the greatest baseball teams of all time, lose the series, suspicions grow that there had been a fix based on rumors and the nature of some players’ poor performances. Eight players are charged with conspiracy and tried in Chicago in 1921. Although the players are all acquitted, baseball’s new commissioner, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, banishes them all for life from baseball, a bold move that some believe saved the game of baseball, which was still in its relative infancy, and enabled it to become “America’s pastime.” Debates around the events continue to this day, including over the level of involvement of some players and the draconian nature of the punishment. With me to discuss this movie are Robert Boland and Brett Max Kaufman.  

Timestamps:

0:00      Introduction
4:19      Baseball circa 1919
10:30   Betting and game fixing in baseball
17:43   The reserve clause 
20:17   Unpacking the verdict at the Black Sox trial
22:48   Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Baseball’s first commissioner
31:35   The treatment of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and the Black Sox
35:35   Sportswriters  
40:18   The reemergence of sports gambling
50:32   A memorable John Sayles film
53:34   Class and culture in baseball
55:18   The lasting impact of the Black Sox scandal
 
Further reading:

Asinof, Eliot, Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series (1963)

Lamb, William F., Black Sox in the Courtroom: The Grand Jury, Criminal Trial, and Civil Litigation (2013)

Linder, Douglas, The Black Sox Trial: An Account (2007)
 
Pachman, Matthew B, “Limits on Discretionary Powers of Professional Sports Commissioners: A Historical and Legal Analysis of Issues Raised by the Pete Rose Controversy,”  76 Va. L. Rev. 1309 (1990)

Pollack, Jason M., “Take My Arbitrator, Please: Commissioner ‘Best Interests’ Disciplinary Authority in Professional Sports,” 67 Fordham L. Rev. 1645 (1999)


Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Anatomy of a Fall (2023) is an acclaimed French drama directed by Justine Triet, from a screenplay she co-wrote with her real-life partner, Arthur Harari. The movie centers on the criminal trial of a writer (Sandra Hüeller) who is accused of killing her husband (Samuel Maleski) in a small town in the French Alps. The film operates on multiple levels. On one level, it dissects the circumstances surrounding Samuel’s death. What caused him to fall from the window of their chalet? Was he pushed? Or did he jump? On another level, the film dissects the deteriorating marriage between Sandra and Samuel and the complex family dynamics surrounding their 11-year-old-son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner). The film offers a close look at a French criminal investigation and trial. More broadly, it raises questions about the reliability of human memory, the elusive nature of truth, and the complex relationship between law and justice. My guests to discuss Anatomy of a Fall are Fred Davis and Samuel Bettwy.
Timestamps:
0:00     Introduction
3:59     Coming up with a defense strategy
9:17     A case about doubt
11:36   Pretrial investigations in France
15:56   Victims’ counsel (partie civile) in France
18:50   The role of the investigating magistrate
22:03   The presiding judge and the other participants at trial 
26:39   Unpacking  the seeming “chaos” in the courtroom
29:07   Why defendants testify at trial in France
34:06   Liberté de la preuve and the treatment of evidence  
39:17   The treatment of juveniles under French law
43:39   Daniel’s pivotal testimony
46:13   Appeals of acquittals by the prosecution
47:15   Influences on the director 
50:37   Expert testimony
52:51   The justice system as metaphor
 
Further reading:

“Anatomy of a Fall asks the question, ‘Would you like to be judged like that?,’” Actu-Juridique.fr  (interview with Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse) (Sept. 11, 2023)

“‘Anatomy of a fall’: to judge or to administer justice?” Dalloz Actualité (Mar. 4, 2023)

Bettwy, Samuel W., Comparative Criminal Procedure Through Film: Analytical Tools & Law and Film Summaries by Legal Tradition and Country (2015)

Bordages, Anaïs, “’Anatomy of a Fall,’ the anti-trial film,” Slate (May 21, 2023)

Dervieux, Valérie-Odile, "'Anatomy of a fall' or fantasy justice," Actu-Juridique.fr (Aug. 24, 2023)

Kirry, Antoine, Davis, Frederick T. & Bisch, Alexander, “France,” in The International Investigations Review (Nicolas Bourtin ed.) (10th ed. 2020)
 
 
 
 
Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) describes the series of murders of members of the Osage Nation in Oklahoma in the early 1920s. Because tribal members retained mineral rights on their reservation, they became extraordinarily wealthy after oil was discovered on tribal land. This leads a corrupt local boss, William K. Hale (Robert De Niro), to conspire with others in the community to deprive the Osage of their wealth by murdering them. Directed by Martin Scorsese and based on the 2017 book by David Grann, Killers of the Flower Moon focuses on the plot by Hale and his two nephews, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Byron Burkhart (Scott Shepherd), to take the oil rights of one Osage family. Hale's scheme is for Ernest to marry one of the sisters in the family, Mollie (Lily Gladstone), and then kill her other family members before finishing off Mollie herself so that Ernest can inherit Mollie's headrights. Eventually, federal agents come to Oklahoma to investigate the murders and uncover Hale’s plot, saving Molly and uncovering evidence to prosecute Hale and Ernest. But this is only after many Osage are murdered and their wealth stolen in a chilling story of violence, greed, and the racially motivated devastation of the Osage Tribe. I’m joined by Wilson Pipestem, a partner at Pipestem Law and citizen of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe and an Osage headright holder, who has dedicated his career to protecting the rights of tribal governments and American Indians.

Timestamps:
0:00     Introduction
4:26     The historical context and Osage tribal rights
14:35   The stereotype of rich Osages
15:25   Legal trusts and exploitation of the guardianship system
22:17   How limits on federal and tribal jurisdiction led to violence and impunity
26:30   Fear and terror in the Osage community
29:48   The federal investigation
32:06   The level of local complicity in the Osage murders
33:55   The treatment of the Osage as “incompetent” under the law
38:33   Capturing Osage tradition and belief on screen
41:27   Mollie and Ernest’s complex relationship
45:50   How the Osage overcame a legacy of violence and impunity 
48:50   The role of law and lawyers
51:58   How Martin Scorsese listened to and engaged the Osage people

Further reading:

Bahr, Sarah, “What to Know About ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’: A Guide to the Osage Murders,” N.Y. Times (Oct. 23, 2023)

Blackhawk, Ned, The Rediscovery of America: American Indians and the Unmaking of U.S. History (2022)

Fletcher, Matthew L.M., “Failed Protectors: The Indian Trust and ‘Killers of the Flower Moon,’” 117 Mich. L. Rev. 1253 (2019)

Grann, David, Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI (2017)

Strickland, Rennard, “Osage Oil: Mineral Law, Murder, Mayhem, and Manipulation,” 10 Nat. Resources & Env’t. 39 (1995-96)


Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember.
For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfm
You can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.com
You can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz
You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm
You can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast