Anatomy of the Truth

Trials are ostensibly about truth. Yes, lawyers always tell their clients to tell the truth. And as all trial lawyers know, the preparation of one’s client for such truth-telling can take many hours and sometimes even days. Of course an ethical lawyer cannot knowingly tell his or her client to lie. To do so is to suborn perjury, a criminal offense in its own right.

But what happens if the lawyer decides to educate his or her client on the law before asking the critical words, “What happened?” The information the lawyer will obtain is likely to be much more useful and pliable than had the client simply been invited to account the events from the onset.

On this point, consider the classic film Anatomy of a Murder made by Otto Preminger in 1959. The film is based upon an actual murder that took place in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and which was successfully defended by attorney John Voelker. Voelker wrote the novel under the pen name of Robert Traver. It is noteworthy that Voelker went on to become a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. The book and film are now considered to be American classics.

So what is the case in Anatomy of a Murder about? These are the facts beyond dispute:

1. Frederick Manion is an army lieutenant with a short fuse.
2. He is married to an attractive young woman, Laura, who blatantly flirts with other men. They live in a trailer.
3. One night, while the lieutenant stays in the trailer, Laura dresses seductively and goes to a bar.
4. At the bar, she flirts with Barney Quill, the bar’s owner.
5. Later, somehow, Laura winds up in Quill’s car.
6. Laura eventually arrives home.
7. Thereafter Lt. Manion goes to the bar where he shoots and kills Barney Quill, in front of witnesses.
8. When police arrive at the couple’s trailer, Laura has been beaten.

The defense is temporary insanity: the lieutenant killed Quill the result of an “irresistible impulse” because Barney Quill had raped Laura in his car. (Apparently “irresistible impulse” was a recognized form of temporary legal insanity in Michigan at the time of the trial.)

The prosecution’s theory is that there was never a rape and that the lieutenant killed Quill in a jealous rage.

What about the bruised Laura? Well the bruises were obtained either (a) as a result of resisting the rape or (b) inflicted by the jealous lieutenant. But a physical examination of Laura reveals the presence of no semen.

Although some of the courtroom scenes often seem unrealistic, theatrical and contrived, there is still much to be observed in this film, most significantly that neither the prosecution nor the defense seem very concerned about the events as they actually occurred.

Of course the defense attorney knows from the beginning that insanity is the only possible defense in this case. And so he informs the lieutenant of this from the onset and then suggests that they meet the following day to discuss the facts. When he returns the next day, what do you suppose he hears?

But the prosecution is no better. At one point the prosecution appears to have the case in the bag. But instead of resting, the prosecution calls an extra witness or two to guild the lily – almost always a mistake. Needless to say, the prosecution’s case unravels which forces the prosecution to take desperate measures. And so that same evening the prosecution interviews other prisoners who have been in contact with the lieutenant, looking for a jailhouse snitch. Of course they find one. The snitch then testifies the lieutenant confided in him that his insanity defense was all a sham. On cross-examination the snitch is asked if he has been promised leniency by the prosecution for cooperating in this case. Oh, of course not.

Leaving the film and returning to reality: An effective preparation tool for trial lawyers is a method that has come to be called psychodrama. Initially developed as a form of mental health therapy, psychodrama involves elements of theater and role-playing. Events that give rise to the trial are recreated during preparation with the lawyer and others, perhaps even the client, playing roles of the participants. This inevitably leads to new and useful insights, the discovery of trial themes and “the story” of the case. But is it truth?

Perhaps Pontius Pilate was ahead of the curve more than 2,000 years ago when he presided at the trial of Jesus. According to the Gospel of John:

Pontius Pilate: Are you a king then?

Jesus: You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.

Pilate: What is truth?

It’s a good question. What is truth?