Runaway Jury

[beet1e]

...that's the other movie I saw over the weekend. It's about a gun manufacturer which is on trial for their compliance in the shooting deaths of about 10 office workers, as it was one of their products that was used in the killings. The setting is a normal sort of day - folks go into the office on a normal workday, and a killer bursts in and starts shooting people.

I am unfamiliar with the US jury selection process, but it looked as if both sides (prosecution - Dustin Hoffmann, defence - Gene Hackman) were engaged in some sort of jury rigging exercise. On more than one occasion, a spokesman for the gun company reminds Hackman that they "have paid for the verdict they want". But the Hoffmann team goes one better, and the end result is that the prosecution wins its case. Result: Gun manufacturer guilty as charged!

Wow, don't know if even I would go that far. Anyone else see this movie?

[-tronski-]

The book was better, but I really enjoyed the movie...thought Hackman was excellent as usual, and am a big fan a John Cusak who I thought did a good job....Rachel Weisz is a total babe!

Not sure about the realism but no doubt money plays a large hand in those type of cases...

 Tronsky

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e e.

I am unfamiliar with the US jury selection process, but it looked as if both sides (prosecution - Dustin Hoffmann, defence - Gene Hackman) were engaged in some sort of jury rigging exercise.  [/B]

  The jury selection process in high profile cases envolves a lot of behind the scenes work from a lot of outside people. Profilers are paid by each side to scrutiniize each prospective juror. Each side is trying to figure the odds on which way their vote will go even before they are selected . Both sides are trying to get an edge before a high profile case goes to court.
  It`s not even close to what an every day, low profile case is handled though. In these cases, as a matter of routine , the decision is made before it ever reachs the court room. It usualy boils down to which side has the most bucks. The rest is just a waste of time by all envolved . Rarely is justice actualy served or considered.

[lazs2]

The book was about the tobacco industry but since every actor in America gets a bonus to smoke in movies from the tobacco industry... they couldn't make a movie that was true to the book.

  they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them and hooking/killing a few gullible yungsters into smoking their way to cancer like their heros is a small price for us to pay to pad the salaries of our underpaid entertainers.

Nice of them to save the whales and tibbett and such tho while helping the benevolent tobacco industry.

Bet they all got a self rightious woody at the thought of sticking it to the firearms industry.

just curious... how did they make it seem to be the gun manufaturers fault?

lazs

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by lazs2
The book was about the tobacco industry but since every actor in America gets a bonus to smoke in movies from the tobacco industry... they couldn't make a movie that was true to the book.

  they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds them and hooking/killing a few gullible yungsters into smoking their way to cancer like their heros is a small price for us to pay to pad the salaries of our underpaid entertainers.

Nice of them to save the whales and tibbett and such tho while helping the benevolent tobacco industry.

Bet they all got a self rightious woody at the thought of sticking it to the firearms industry.

just curious... how did they make it seem to be the gun manufaturers fault?

lazs

Its Hollywood....

[jEEZY]

This movie does not reflect, in any way, the jury selectrion process.  Trust me I have been involved in many "high" profile cases.  While some jury tactics are used, those depicted in the movie are fictitious and illegal.  

The most common tactic to day in high dollar cases is to use a shadow jury that will sit in the gallery and report back tot the side that employs them

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
just curious... how did they make it seem to be the gun manufaturers fault?

lazs

I can't recall the exact legal argument - not that it wasn't really explained anyway since the real story was whether Cusak would get the verdict or not, and what his motivation was for trying to rig the verdict in the first place - but it was along the lines of "its the manufacturer's fault for offering to sell a high-power semi-automatic weapon to the public."  

Hoffman's examination of a gun company exec was along the lines of how easy it was to militarize a sport rifle that was original designed to military specifications, thereby placing the public at an unnecessary risk of harm.  So, therefore, it was the company's negligence that allowed a psycho to shoot up the office of a former employer.  The lawsuit was brought as a wrongful death claim by the widow of a man killed in the workplace shooting.

My wife read the book and saw the movie.  I only saw the movie.  It was better than I thought it would be.  Lots of action outside the courtroom, lots of drama inside the courtroom.  Good acting by Hoffman, Cusak, Hackman, and Rachel Weisz.  Has some great veteran character actors, too, like Nick Searcy ("Seven Days") and Bruce McGill (the sheriff from "My Cousin Vinny").  Hoffman and Hackman always turn in solid performances, but Cusak really tops himself as the action hero this time around.

Worth a rental for yourself, or as a date night movie.  Some violence, some gore, Weisz gets beat up but its a plot device and works well in the end.  I can't remember if there was any female nudity; probably not as I usually remember things like that.