header-logo header-logo

14 July 2020 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7895 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Reasonable doubt & the movies

24172
Mark Pawlowski looks at the meaning of reasonable doubt against the backdrop of one of the most iconic Hollywood films depicting jury trial

In Twelve Angry Men (1957), acclaimed as one of the best films dramatising the imperfections of the jury system, the fate of a teenager accused of the murder of his father rests on the verdict of 12 jurors locked inside a steamy jury room. The evidence seems overwhelming and 11 of the jurors are ready to convict in what they see as an ‘open and shut’ case. Only one brave juror (played by Henry Fonda) refuses to vote and wants to talk about the case. What follows is an intense examination of the prejudices that each juror member brings to the jury room.

Fonda’s character is the great unifier throughout the film seeking to dispel bias and faulty reasoning by demanding that his fellow jurors scrutinise the evidence carefully and come to a reasoned verdict. Critics of the jury system say that it works against justice

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll