- [Announcer] Thanks to curiosity stream for keeping Legal Eagle in the air. (crowd shouting) - I'm gonna go out on a
limb and say when 100s of Ku Klux Klan members
show up to your trial, its probably a good
idea to grant the motion for change of venue. (soft upbeat music) hey Legal Eagles, its time
to think like a lawyer. Welcome back and welcome to my new set which fun fact, its actually not a new set its just against a
different wall in my office but now, with 100% more lamps. So welcome, today we are
covering A Time to Kill, the classic legal thriller
starring Matthew McConaughey and Samuel L. Jackson. I've actually never
seen this movie before, despite lots of people
recommending it to me. I think I was a little
young when this came out so its going to be a
treat for me to watch this as I'm expecting a lot
of courtroom theatrics and a bunch of constitutional questions based on the description of the movie. As always, be sure to comment in the form of an objection, which
I will either sustain or overrule, and stick around
until the end of the video where I give A Time to Kill
a grade for legal realism. So without further ado, let's dig in to A Time to Kill. (soft tense music) - Hey, who's that? - She looks a little young. Hold this. - Okay, I'm going to
refrain from showing you the graphic images in this
particular part of the movie but I think its going to set
up the rest of the narrative. It looks like those two Southern boys have sexually assaulted the daughter of Samuel L. Jackson and then attempted to kill her. So I think that that
sets up the legal premise of the show but for the sake of being safe for work, I'm going to refrain from
showing you those images but just know that that happens and is important for the story. - How many appointments
do we have today, Ethel? - Not a one. But it is the first of the month so (mumbles). - Well the checks are pouring in, we have enough money to
pay all our past debts and then some. - That will be your last drink. - Just keep us no more
than one month behind on any vendor, please. - You have been drinking. - Two months. - Well these are the most delinquent. The rents in there. - I appreciate the practice, capitan, I do but you could of left
me a couple of clients. - This is actually really interesting because the economics of
being a solo practitioner is something that you
don't really see a lot in movies. Here you can see Matthew
McConaughey is struggling to meet his bills and to pay his vendors. Which is obviously very
important when you're running your own business. But when you are the only
attorney in your law firm, you live and die by
not only having clients but having clients that pay. So its actually very common
for solo practitioners to get behind on their bills because not only do the clients ebb and flow but also the clients ability to pay changes over time. That's why a lot of law firms of this size and even bigger law firms
will get what's called a line of credit, which
is a revolving loan that allows them to meet their debts in lean times and then pay it off when the clients come back. Because obviously you don't want to have to shut your doors just because the clients have dried up
for a small amount of time and Matthew McConaughey
in this particular scene is dealing with the economics
of being a small practitioner. (laughing) - Billy Ray Carb, you and Mr. Willard need to come with me. - Hell no, I aint moving. - You know that little
girl you took for a ride? - What little girl? - I got bad news for you, Billy Ray, she didn't die. So unless there's another red neck asshole got a souped up yellow pick up with a confederate flag in the windshield. - Hey, blue gums! Why don't you take your
coal black ass out of here and grab a branch? - Unless you've got an
explanation for what this was doing in the bed of your
truck, you're going to jail. Now get up. - So this is obviously very dramatic and probably important for the story. When the police have probable cause to arrest an individual who is suspected in a capital offense, a felony like this, there's no reason to engage
in any kind of pleasantries or engage in any conversation. They're going to arrest these two guys so there's no point in
having a conversation with them. The proper procedure here would of been to avoid the conversation, go straight to arresting them, assuming that they have a verified ID of these two guys and then give them a Miranda warning so that whatever they
say can be used against them at trial. Right now, since the police officer has not administered a Miranda warning, the statements of these individuals can't be used against them and won't be admissible in court. So there's really no point
in taking out your anger against these guys. Just follow proper procedure, give them a Miranda warning, arrest them, and then get their confessions. - You go to hell, (bleep). (shouting) - Now you earned the
right to remain silent. - I mean he always had the
right to remain silent. You know the police can get
in really big trouble here because the kind of force that they used was completely unnecessary. It was sure provoked by the
statement of the individual but the police just can't use this kind of overwhelming force just because they don't like what this person has said, especially when they
haven't given this person a Miranda warning. So it can be very satisfying, I'm sure, to beat the crap out of these guys who are clearly very very bad people but that's why we have
rules that apply to everyone regardless of how you personally think about these defendants. That's the point of our judicial system. So the police really
should have administered the Miranda warning. They should not have let
this situation escalate because that's not in anyone's interest and you can get a fourth
amendment violation when you use this kind
of force unnecessarily. Not good police procedure. - What can you tell us, sir? - Can you tell us what happened? - Will you give us a statement, Sheriff? - Are you in the police department? - No, I am a lawyer. - Are you Carl Lee Hailey's attorney? Sir, are you Mr. Hailey's attorney? - Yes, I am. - I mean it should of been
up to Samuel L. Jackson to determine if Matthew
McConaughey is his attorney or not. You can't just walk
outside and decide that he's the attorney. - Alright, first things first. Brigance will file for a change of venue. - He'd be a fool if he didn't. - Why's that? - Why? Should we tell our young,
uniformed law clerk the reality of just
prudence in this county? Evelyn, give me the state
file on race statistics. - Oh boy. - See, Taylor, its quite simple. This county's 26, 30% black, give or take. Almost every other county is 40, 45, in some cases, 70% black. Blacks are more sympathetic
to other blacks. If he gets it moved, he has a greater chance
of coloring the jury box and we know what that means but if the trial stays here, its an all white jury for sure. Now Taylor, this is for you. To integrate your brain with before three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. - Yes. - He means without blacks on the jury, Hailey hasn't got a chance in hell. - Okay, so some of that makes sense some of that is constitutionally infirm. In this particular case, a change of venue is probably warranted because
this particular community is going to have lots and lots of opinions and potentially a lot of prejudice about this particular case because its going to be in the news, its going to be a hot topic. Now one racial issue that
this prosecutor has mentioned that is a big problem is he says that this community
is 30% African american but he's going to get an all white jury. A jury is supposed to be
an accurate reflection of the community and if you start picking a
jury that does not reflect the community in that way, you're likely to run into
a constitutional challenge. That may be what this prosector wants but that's not the way the
systems is supposed to work and it may present an appealable issue even if he were able to secure
a guilty verdict at trial. The appeals court might
overturn on the grounds that its constitutionally problematic. - Alright, Noose is up for reelect. - Yeah, November. - Good. Reach out to our friends
in the legislature. Have them call on Judge Noose. We're just gonna help him decide to keep this case in Canton. Also.
- Oh my god. - Send a case of whatever it
is he's drinking these days to Lucien Wilbanks. - I believe that's (mumbles). - I want to keep that old
drunk on the sidelines. - Yeah, Becky, get me Sam. - Okay, that is definitely
prosecutorial misconduct. There is no way that
the prosecutor can call friends of the judge and ask those friends to influence the judge in a sitting case. That is completely improper. That is basically bordering on bribery to ask the judges friends to intervene with the judge, engage in
ex party communications with the judge, to influence his decision on a pending capital murder case. That is definitely something
that the court of appeal would look at if evidence
ever came out about that. I think the court of appeal
would overturn this decision like that and on top of that, I
think that the prosecutor would be in real trouble
with the ethics committee of the state bar. I think that this exactly
what the ethics rules are in intended to prevent. And luckily this kind of thing
doesn't happen very often in real life. It does, unfortunately, happen but the prosector should know better, that's completely improper. That should never happen. - [Reporter] What do you
think of Mr. Brigance? - Isn't that boy still in law school? Say hey to your husband for me. That's all. (crowd shouting) - Alright. So there's the courtroom. So this particular courtroom looks like they basically just reused the set from To Kill a Mockingbird, which is to say that is
not a realistic court room. There are courtrooms that
exist that look like this but for the most part, they're used solely for ceremonial purposes. They are not used for
active capital murder cases. This actually would be not a
particularly good courtroom to try a case. Its huge. You know, you got a
lot of distance between all the different witnesses and the judge. Its actually just difficult to be heard in a courtroom like this. Its really impractical
for trying an actual case. - Now, Noose selects this panel at random. We get too many bad candidates
upfront, we're sunk. - Luck of the draw. - What you need is young fathers who want to do what Carl Lee Hailey did. - Agreed. I think we need young
men with families here. Now I would prefer no one over 50. Less bigotry as a rule with youth. - So we stay away from
women, rednecks, and old men. - So they are planning
what's called voir dire, which is the system by which you choose the members of the jury that
will form the jury at trial. You have a large panel. Many of you have probably
served on jury duty, so you've seen this process in action. You start with a large panel and then you whittle that
down for various reasons. You are allowed to have what
are called peremptory strikes, which gives you the
ability to strike a juror for any reason whatsoever and you're also given
strikes that allow you to remove a member of the jury or a potential member
of the jury for a cause. You demonstrate to the judge that they are so prejudicial
that they cannot issue a fair verdict. Often, the judge will
use his or her discretion to remove those people from
the jury panel themselves and neither the prosecutor nor
the criminal defense attorney have to use a strike to
get rid of that person. But with peremptory
strikes, you are allowed, technically, to remove people
for any reason whatsoever. There are limits to that power but practically speaking, that's what you do to try and get a jury that is favorable to your side
as opposed to the other side. Of course, both the prosection and defense are both using the same tools, the peremptory strikes to try and get the jury that they want. - Citizens, thank you. The council each have 12
challenges let's begin. - 12 challenges would
be peremptory strikes. - Your honor, the state
challenges jurors number six, 10. - Oh geeze. Okay what the movie is hinting at here is that the prosector,
played by Kevin Spacey, is striking all of the African
Americans from the jury. You're not allowed to do that. Now its true, theoretically speaking, that you can use a peremptory challenge to get rid of anyone that you want. However, there are
constitutional limits to that. In 1986, the US supreme court, in the case of Batson V. Kentucky, held that a prosecutor
cannot use his or her peremptory strikes to
strike all of the members of one race from a jury without stating a valid reason for each of the individual members who
were struck from that jury. That's exactly what Kevin
Spacey is doing here. He said so earlier in the movie that he was going to do that and here he's trying to strike all of the African
Americans from the jury. That is constitutionally infirm
under the sixth amendment under the Batson v. Kentucky case and I think that's a slam dunk on appeal. - I've totally reviewed your brief request on change of venue and I agree with you, I think its impossible to
find a fair and impartial jury here in Canton. In fact, I think its
impossible to find a fair and impartial jury
anywhere in Mississippi, and as such, a jury here would be as fair as a jury anywhere else. - Oh boy. - I've decided to deny your request for a change of venue. - I think the judge
here is probably wrong. Doesn't seem like he's really
considered the evidence or the situation at bar. The city is at a boiling point. There are Ku Klux Klan
members protesting every day. That seems really really prejudicial and there are probably parts of the state where you can move this case
and get a more impartial jury that hasn't heard as much as
everyone in this community has so on top of the entire
conversation being improper, I think the decision
that the judge has made is wrong, whether that
rises to what's called an abuse of discretion, which is generally the standard on appeal when appeals court is reviewing
the lower courts decision. I don't know but the
judge is just wrong here and given the impropriety, its probably going to be overturned. (crowd shouting) I'm gonna go out on a
limb and say when 100's of Ku Klux Klan members
show up to your trial, its probably a good
idea to grant the motion for change of venue. - Sheriff, if you would, would you please identify this weapon? - The weapon found at the scene. - Were you able to identify
any of the fingerprints found on this gun? - Yes, the prints on the gun matched those of Carl Lee Hailey. - You're sure? - Yes. - Your honor, I'd like to
enter this into evidence as exhibit S18. We have no further use of this witness. - A couple of problems of
what just happened here talking about the murder weapon in this criminal proceeding. Number one, again this
testimony may not be relevant because I'm not sure it
goes to the state of mind of the defendant. Number two, if you were
handling a physical object where fingerprints where important, it would be wrapped in plastic
in a sealed plastic bag. You wouldn't be handling
it yourself in court. Also, you would probably
not want to bring an M16 into the actual courtroom with
a magazine attached to it. You can just use pictures and
enter those into evidence. On top of that, what the
prosecutor really should be doing here is not just
identifying that this weapon was used to kill the two victims but what is relevant to state of mind is the fact that Samuel L.
Jackson had to get that weapon out of his gun safe and he
had to load the magazine and he had to put the
magazine into the gun. He had to then sneak into
the courthouse, hide, all of these things show premeditation and cognizance of what's going on to counteract the defense of insanity. That is what this prosector
should be showing. That the defendant knew what he was doing and isn't legally insane. Its not just that he used
a gun to kill people. That actually supports
the defendants side. What he needs to do is negate that and talk about his state of mind or at least show the
things that demonstrate the state of mind of the defendant. He's not doing that and as a result, he is not preventing
the defense from using their insanity plea. - Did you arrest Billy
Ray Cobb and Pete Willard? - Yes, I did. I arrested them for the
rape and attempted murder of 10 year old Tonya Hailey. - Is it true that Pete Willard
signed a written confession saying that he and Billy Ray
Cobb did rape Tonya Hailey? - Objection your honor,
that's inadmissible and Mr. Brigance knows it. - Mr. Brigance, I've spoken to you before. We are not trying the
rape of Ms. Hailey today but the murder of two young men and if you continue in this performance I'll hold you in contempt. - Okay, the prosector was way way late in objecting if that is inadmissible then he should of objected to the fact that the policemen arrested
the two men before. Its not just the confession but all of the evidence of bad acts that would be inadmissible. But as I pointed out before, number one I think it is admissible because it goes to the state
of mind of the defendant. What he thought those people did and again, ironically, its the prosection that would want that information in. It shows that the defendant
acted in a premeditated way because of the sexual
assault of his daughter. So I am skeptical that number one, that information is inadmissible and number two, its the prosecution that would want that in in this courtroom. So some weird perverse arguing here. - My name is Dr. Wilbert Rodeheaver the chair of psychiatry of
Mississippi state University and clinical director of
the Whitfield facility for the criminally insane. - Thank you doctor, your
credentials speak for themselves. - No they don't. Okay when you are trying
to use expert testimony on the stand it is very
very important to bolster that witness credibility. Often you will spend
half an hour, 45 minutes, an hour just going over the credentials of your witness, to demonstrate that your witness is entirely credible and that their opinion is based on science and experience. In the federal court
systems you go through what's called the Daubert Standard for ensuring that your witness meets the standard for admissible evidence and being able to opine because regular witness, lay witnesses, are not allowed to offer their opinion. They are only allowed to talk about what they actually saw themselves and what's within their
own personal experience. Experts, on the other hand, are allowed to offer their opinion. That is what they are there to do is to give their scientific opinion based on the evidence
that you put before them. So it is incredibly important to make sure that not only you demonstrate the foundation that your
witness, your expert witness, knows what they're talking about but that their credentials
really are impeccable and simply stating that
your expert psychologist is in fact a psychologist is not gonna get it done. Number one, that doesn't demonstrate to the judge that their opinion is valid and number two, it doesn't show to the jury that they
should trust this person and as this movie has pointed out, credibility of an expert
opinion is very very important. - Now, doctor, can you please explain, as you do so eloquently in your book, the M'Naughten rule for the jury? - Certainly, the M'Naughten rule states that a person must be unable
to tell right from wrong and or be unaware of the
consequences of his actions to be termed legally insane. - Okay that is actually a
reasonably good statement about what the M'Naughten rule is. Now a couple problems with that. Number one, that's a legal standard so its not really up to
the expert psychologist to opine as to the ultimate issue about whether the defendant
meets the legal standard for legal insanity. That's for the lawyers to
do based on the witnesses testimony about their opinion
about the mental state. The bigger problem is that no one has used the M'Naughten rule in 60 years. The M'Naghten rule actually is based on English common law in the 1850s where someone attempted to kill
the British prime minister, well M'Naughten tried to kill
the British prime minister. He missed and killed the
prime minister's secretary. A man named Peale, I believe. Now based on the circumstances, I think it was the court of Exchequer said that M'Naughten was legally insane and could not be found guilty as a result. He was then put in a insane
asylum for the rest of his life. Most US courts replaced the
M'Naughten rule in the 1950s with what's called the Durham rule and at least regarding
federal courts in the 1980s, the Durham rule was
replaced with a definition of insanity laid out in the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. So the M'Naughten rule hasn't been used in a very very long time. In most jurisdictions now, the defense has to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence which is a very high standard. Its not quite as high as
beyond a reasonable doubt but its still a very high burden. To demonstrate that the
defendant at the time of the alleged wrongdoing
did not understand the nature or quality
of his or her actions and did not understand the
wrongfulness of the act. So its a much higher
standard than that laid out in M'Naughten. - Doctor, who do you work for? - State of Mississippi. - In your 11 years of
working for the state, how many times have
you testified in trials where the insanity defense was used? - This is my 46th trial. - 46th trial. Well of those 46 trials, how many times did you testify that the
defendant was legally insane? - Objection, your honor, the good doctor cannot be asked to recall all of his testimony
at these previous trials. Its absurd. - Overruled. - Yeah, that's a really bad objection. One of the most common questions you will get as an expert witness is how many times you've testified, how many times you've
testified for one side versus you've testified on the other because people know that there are experts that are going to testify
on behalf of the defendants or largely on behalf of the prosecution. Often, a good witness will
intentionally have cases where they have testified on either side, purposefully to avoid seeming biased in this kind of context where you have only testified for one side instead of the other. - I can't remember. - Could it be, doctor, that
the reason you can't remember is that in 11 years and 46 trials you never have seen a defendant whom you have found insane. - I can't recall at this time. - That's another way to
screw up your testimony is to say that you know definitively that you've testified 46 times but you can't remember
how many times you voted on the other side. That's opening yourself
up cross examination and destroying your credibility
as an expert witness. You don't do stupid things like that. - You never have seen a defendant whom you have found insane. - I can't recall at this time. - Can you recall testifying
at the trail of one Dan Baker? - Objection, your honor, this has nothing to do with the proceedings here. - Overruled, this better
be good, Mr. Brigance. - Thank you, your honor. - This better be good is
not a reason to overrule someone's objection. The prosecutor should
have stated his grounds for objecting and gotten a response from Matthew McCognaughey but yeah there is no legal
standard that evidence can come in if its going to be good. Doesn't work that way. - In 1985, you testified that
Dan Baker was legally sane. The jury disagreed with you and Mr. Baker was found not guilty
by reason of insanity. Since that time, he has been
a patient in your hospital under your care as a
paranoid schizophrenic. Is that correct, doctor? - Yeah. - Do you normally admit
patients, keep and treat them for 10 years if they are
of sound mind and body? - Of course not. - Then it would be fair to say that you find insane people
sane for the purposes of trial. - Objective your honor,
this is argumentative. - Yeah, so that is argumentative but the points that he was
making were perfectly valid points and as a good way to show the bias of a particular expert in this case. Matthew McConaughey has done a good job of impeaching this witness credibility by showing that he testified
previously that a man was legally sane but
then admitted that person to his mental institution
as an insane person and has kept him there for over 10 years on the basis that he's insane and that actually raises
a really interesting part of the insanity defense. Most people get really
upset when they think about a murderer being found not
guilty by reason of insanity thinking that they just go free. They don't. When you find someone legally insane, they go to a mental institution. They do not go into the public and its true that there is no set time that they have to be kept
in that mental institution but that really cuts both ways. Its true that they can
be let out immediately upon finding that they are legally sane but what happens most of the time is those people are kept in that place for the rest of their lives and in fact, M'Naughten who gave the name to the M'Naughten rule after he was found not
guilty by reason of insanity spent the rest of his life in a mental institution. So don't think that just because someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity it means that they're going scot free into the public at large, on the contrary, they might spend more time in a mental
institution then they would if they were found guilty
of the underlining crime. - Mr. Hailey. Before you stepped outside of yourself to watch yourself shoot
Mr. Willard and Mr. Cobb, were you aware that if
convicted they might be freed in only 10 years? - Yes, I heard people say that, yes. - Okay, goes to his mental state. - No. - Do you think two men who rape a child should be free in 10 years? - Its starting to get argumentative. - Hang a child.
- Object. - Should be free in 10 years? - Object. - Well what do you think
should happen to them, what would be a fair sentence? - Object. - Do you think they
deserved to die, Mr. Hailey. - Your honor.
- Now, Mr. Buckley. - Carl, don't answer that question. - They deserved to die? - Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell! - Yeah, so this is such an obvious trope in legal dramas. The prosecutor doesn't get to do that. You don't get to slowly
approach the witness as your asking more
argumentative questions after argumentative question. Number one, you don't get
to enter the well like that without permission of the judge. The bailiff will tackle you. On top of that, you don't
get to raise your voice and yell at the defendant
and get this Perry Mason moment where the defendant
basically admits that he wanted to pre
meditatively kill someone. Like, that's, that's not
how these things work. The defendant has a 5th amendment right not to take the stand and there is nothing in that
testimony that he just said that helped his case and in fact, I think legally speaking, he showed that he had the mental
state required for murder and not the mental state required
for the insanity defense. So that's a classic
reason why you don't put a criminal defendant up on the stand. There's just no reason for it. - Soaked in her blood. Left to die. Can you see her? I want you to picture a little girl. Now imagine she's white. - Okay that is a very
eloquent closing argument. The problem is that in closing arguments you are not allowed to
put improper emphasis on the victim's race. Historically it has been the prosecution who has put too much emphasis on the race of the victim in order
to drum up high emotions against the defendant
but I think the same rule applies to the defense. The system is supposed to be colorblind and the race of the victim here is not strictly relevant
as to whether or not the defendant in this particularity case is more likely or not to
have committed the crime that he's accused of. So I think that that's
probably an improper closing argument to make and it is likely to be an issue on appeal. (upbeat music) Okay now it is time to
give A Time to Kill a grade for legal realism. (gavel pounding) This was a heavier movie than we are used to dealing with on this series but I think its important
to address these dramas because these kind of issues do show up in real life courtrooms from time to time and I would be remiss not to talk about these subjects and I think this movie does a good job of talking about some issues
that you don't really see. The economics of being
a solo practitioner, the issues of race that show up constantly in our judicial system,
regardless of our efforts to try and stamp those outs and even some technical things like the M'Naughten rule, while its not the right standard, it was the right standard
at a certain point in time and they did deal with
some of the nuance there. Unfortunately, the movie dealt a lot with over dramatizations they left out a lot of
the proceedings that would normally occur and often oddly the prosecution was
arguing 100% the wrong way. They were arguing for
things that would help the defense and the
defense was arguing things that would help the prosecution. So all in all, I give A
Time to Kill a B minus. It is definitely a
worthwhile drama to watch but some of the nuance is plainly lost. A Time to Kill shows us what happens to our institutions when
they are at a breaking point. I'm currently enjoying a documentary on how that kind of stress
effects the presidency on Curiosity Stream. Its called Presidents in Crisis. Its a great piece about
how presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson
were all transformed by personal trauma and how that affected the way that they governed. If you're looking for
the best documentaries and nonfiction movies out there, you should definitely
check out curiosity stream. Legal Eagle's get a
free account for 31 days by clicking on the link below or using the promo code legal eagle. So click on the link below, check out the greatest documentaries on the planet and until next time, I'll see you in court.
