Law on Film

This episode examines I Just Didn't Do It, a 2007 Japanese film written and directed by Masayuki Suo. In the film, 26-year-old Teppei Kaneko (played by Ryo Kase) is traveling to a job interview on a packed Tokyo commuter train when a 15-year-old school girl, who was standing in front of him on the train and whom Kaneko hardly noticed, wrongly accuses him of groping (chikan). Kaneko is  arrested. He is advised by a lawyer to plead guilty and pay a small fine, after which he will be freed. But Kaneko maintains his innocence and decides to fight the case, even though he is told that nearly everyone who takes their case to trial in Japan is convicted. The film then documents Kaneko's nightmare odyssey through the Japanese criminal justice system, where he is detained for months and ultimately convicted despite significant problems with the prosecution's case. I Just Didn't Do It provides important insights into the Japanese criminal justice system and a critique of how it operates, including its treatment of the presumption of innocence.Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction2:52     Background on the Japanese criminal justice system5:19      The crime of groping (chikan) in Japan8:57      The pressure to plead guilty17:12     The interrogation of suspects18:46    Criminal defense lawyers in Japan22:31    Why defendants tend to testify at trial23:52    The prosecution's disclosure obligations28:30    How bail operates in Japan31:04    The rotation of judges in Japan34:06    The incentives in favor of conviction38:44    Finding the defendant guilty despite reasonable doubt43:20    The lay judge (saiban) system in Japan46:54    A critique of Japan's treatment of the presumption of innocenceFurther reading:Aronson, Bruce E. & Johnson, David T., “Comparative Reflections on the Carlos Ghosn Case and Japanese Criminal Justice,” 18 Asia-Pacific Journal 24(2) (Dec. 15, 2020)Doi, Kanae, “Inquiry Needed into Japan's Flawed Criminal Justice System,” Human Rights Watch (Nov. 4, 2024)Japan Federation of Bar Associations, “The Japanese Judicial System”Keiichi, Muraoka & Toshikuni, Murai, “Citizens on the Bench: Assessing Japan's Lay Judge System,” Nippon.com (June 26, 2019) Meehan, Susan, “I Just Didn't Do It,” The Japan SocietyLaw 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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode looks at On the Waterfront, the celebrated 1954 American film directed by Elia Kazan and written by Budd Schulberg. The film stars Marlon Brando as the ex-prize fighter turned New Jersey longshoreman Terry Malloy. Malloy struggles to stand up to mob-affiliated union boss Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb) after Malloy is lured into setting up a fellow dockworker whom Friendly has murdered to prevent him from testifying before the Waterfront Crime Commission about violence and corruption at the docks. The pressure on Malloy rises as he falls in love with Edie Doyle (Eva Marie Saint), the murdered dockworker's sister, and as Edie, along with local priest Father Pete Barry (Karl Malden), urge Malloy to do the right thing. Malloy ultimately testifies against Friendly and challenges Friendly's leadership at great personal risk. While the film is about a courageous fight against a corrupt power structure and injustice, it is also influenced by director Elia Kazan's own controversial decision to act as an informant against fellow directors, writers, and actors during the McCarthy-era Red Scare.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction2:20      Corruption on the docks9:18       Boxing: I could have been a contender17:07     The priest on the waterfront23:44    Testifying before waterfront crime commission32:10     Informants34:48    Elia Kazan and the House Un-American Activities Committee47:04    The film's relevance today48:39    Some people who stood up to HUAC50:40   Separating the art and the artistFurther reading:Demeri, Michelle J., “The ‘Watchdog' Agency: Fighting Organized Crime on the Waterfront in New York and New Jersey,” 38 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 257 (2012)Murphy, Sean, “An Underworld Syndicate': Malcolm Johnson's ' On the Waterfront' Articles,” The Pulitzer Prizes Archive (1948)Navasky, Victor S., Naming Names (Viking Press 1980)Rebello, Stephen, A City Full of Hawks: On the Waterfront Seventy Years Later—Still the Great American Contender (Rowman & Littlefield 2024)Pjevach, Julia, Note, “A Comparative Look at the Response to Organized Crime in the Ports of New York-New Jersey and Vancouver,” 6 Cardozo Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 283 (2022)Smith, Wendy, “The Director Who Named Names,” The American Scholar (Dec. 10, 2014)                  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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Muhammad Ali is widely recognized as one of the greatest athletes of all-time and one of the most important figures of the 20th century. In addition to his long and celebrated career as a boxer and three-time heavyweight champion of the world, Ali changed the conversation about race, religion, and politics in America. Ali's refusal to be inducted into the U.S. military during the Vietnam War on religious grounds—a profound act of resistance that resulted not only in Ali's three-plus-year exile from professional boxing, but also a criminal conviction and five year-prison sentence that Ali almost had to serve until it was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court—represented a pivotal moment of the 1960s. Ali has been the subject of numerous books and documentary films, including the Oscar-winning When We Were Kings (1996) and The Trials of Muhammad Ali (2013). He is also the subject of the 2001 Hollywood biopic, Ali (co-written and directed by Michael Mann and starring Will Smith as Ali), which focuses on the ten-year period from Ali's capture of the heavyweight crown from Sonny Liston in 1964 to Ali's fight against George Foreman in Zaire in 1974 (the famed “Rumble in the Jungle”). Once a sharply polarizing figure, Ali became one of the most celebrated and eulogized individuals in America, whose rich, if not incomparable, legacy reverberates around the world today.  Timestamps:0:00    Introduction2:22      Formative experiences5:00     From Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali10:26    Opposition to the Vietnam draft13:16     Ali's loss of his prime years15:42     The broader significance of Ali's opposition to induction 18:08    Ali's legal challenges and the U.S. Supreme Court22:48:   The Fight of the Century24:06    From a symbol of resistance to reconciliation27:50     Becoming a global icon: The Rumble in the Jungle35:30    Ali and Howard Cosell 36:57    Ali and Malcolm X41:08    Some problems of the Ali biopic44:12     Ali's post-boxing career47:53    Sports and resistance: Ali's legacy      Further reading:Hauser, Thomas, Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times (1991)Kindred, Dave, Sound and Fury: Two Powerful Lives, One Fateful Friendship (2006)Lederman, Marty, “The story of Cassius Clay v. United States,” SCOTUSBlog (June 8, 2016)Lipsyte, Robert, Free to Be Muhammad Ali (1978)Marqusee, Mike, Redemption Song: Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties (2017)Remnick, David, King of the World: Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero (1998)Zirin, Dave, Muhammad Ali Handbook (2007)Zirin, Dave, The Kaepernick Effect: Taking a Knee, Changing the World (2022)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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Syriana is a 2005 geopolitical thriller written and directed by Stephen Gaghan, based loosely on former CIA case officer Robert Baer's memoir, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism. The film weaves together multiple storylines that involve a CIA agent, a U.S. energy analyst, a major transnational law firm, and an oil-rich Persian Gulf kingdom. It tackles complex themes of corruption, power, and terrorism from a distinctly post-9/11 vantage point. The film also suggests how law operates in transnational settings and how it seeks—but often fails—to tame the forces of ambition, greed, and power that drive the oil industry and America's role in it. Joining me to talk about Syriana is Margaret (Peggy) McGuinness, a professor at St. John's University School of Law and a leading scholar of international law.  Timestamps: 0:00      Introduction 3:00      The context and setting 5:24      The film's multiple storylines8:28      Former CIA agent Robert Baer and the George Clooney character 19:22     Capital markets and energy derivatives25:26    Big oil in the early 2000s and today 28:28    Big law and the Jeffrey Wright character33:43   DOJ's investigation 37:14     The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 42:40    The illusion of due diligence 47:40    Radicalization 53:06   Gulf monarchs 55:10    Targeted assassinations 1:01:14  The next movie: big tech and AI 1:01:52  The outcome  Further reading: Alyson, Brusie et al., “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” 61 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 713 (2024) Baer, Robert, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism (Crown, 2003) Cohen, Kfir, “Narrating the global: pedagogy and disorientation in ‘Syriana,'” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media Lewis, R. James & Awan, Akil N. eds. Radicalization: A Global and Comparative Perspective (Oxford Univ. Press, 2024) Stiglitz, Jospeh E., Globalization and Its Discontents (W. W. Norton & Co. 2002)  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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

The Goldman Case (Le Procès Goldman) (2023), is a French courtroom drama based on the real-life 1976 trial of Pierre Goldman, a far-left Jewish militant who was accused of multiple armed robberies and four murders during a holdup of a pharmacy in Paris. The film, which was directed by Cedric Kahn from screenplay by Kahn and Nathalie Hertzberg, stars Arieh Worthalter as Goldman and Arthur Harari as his lead lawyer, Georges Kiejiman. The film is not only a gripping account of this celebrated trial, but also explores larger themes around individual and collective responsibility, the way courtrooms can become the battleground for contested narratives about the past, and the swirling forces of race, class, and religion in 1970s France. Joining me to talk about The Goldman Case is Fred Davis, an internationally acclaimed trial attorney, expert on French criminal law and procedure, and Lecturer at Columbia Law School, where he teaches about how to examine comparative criminal procedure through film. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction2:34      Background for the Pierre Goldman case5:15       Goldman's lawyers, Georges Kiejiman and Francis Chouraqui7:48      Breaking down a French courtroom9:21       The lawyer for the victims10:20    Procedural differences between French and American trials14:47     A window into 1970s France17:33     The backdrop of the treatment of Jews in Vichy France 23:05    How the Left rallied to Goldman's side27:10     Tensions around race and policing in France29:58    The role of the investigating magistrate in France   32:22    The verdict and aftermath 38:55    French courtroom dramas40:42    Evolving discussion about France's history during World War II43:40   Studying comparative criminal justice through filmFurther reading:Goldman, Pierre, Dim Memories of a Polish Jew Born in France (1977) Oltermann, Philip, “Tried for double murder and adored by the French left: the violent life and crimes of Pierre Goldman,” The Guardian (Sept. 16, 2024)Paxton, Robert O., Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940-1944 (1972)Marrus, Michael, R. & Paxton, Robert O., Vichy France and the Jews (1981)Reid, Donald, “From Souvenirs obscurs to Lieu de mémorie,” French Politics,Culture & Society, vol. 26, no. 2 (Summer 2008)Vincendeau, Ginette, “The Goldman Case: arresting courtroom drama holds its own outside a French context,” Sight and Sound (Sept. 20, 2024) 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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Mr. Untouchable, a 2007 documentary directed by Marc Levin, describes the rise and fall of former New York City drug kingpin, Leroy (“Nicky”) Barnes. In the early 1970s, Barnes formed “The Council,” an organized crime syndicate that controlled a significant part of the heroin trade in Harlem. Inspired by the Italian-American mafia, Barnes became one of the most powerful and notorious figures in New York City. A flashy and flamboyant fixture on the free-wheeling social scene of the period, Barnes quickly drew the attention of law enforcement. After several unsuccessful state prosecution attempts, Barnes, along with multiple other associates, was indicted by federal prosecutors in New York in 1977. Barnes was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Barnes, however, was released in 1998, in exchange for working as a government informant, and entered the Witness Protection Program, where he remained until his death in 2012.  Barnes was also depicted in Ridley Scott's 2007 film American Gangster, which starred Denzel Washington as Frank Lucas, another notorious drug kingpin from the era. Cuba Gooding Jr. portrayed Barnes in that film. Joining me to talk about Mr. Untouchable and the Nicky Barnes case is Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Senior Counsel at Davis Polk in New York, where he previously served as litigation partner for many years. Bob Fiske is one of the most prominent and respected trial lawyers in America. He has been involved in some of the most notable cases of the last half-century, including as special prosecutor in the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, the antitrust suit between the USFL and. NFL, the most contentious America's Cup ever, and the financial swindler Bernie Madoff.  Mr. Fiske also served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1976 to 1980, during which time he led the prosecution of Nicky Barnes. Timestamps:0:00   Introduction3:18     Drug trafficking in Harlem and the South Bronx in the 1970s4:55    Who was Nicky Barnes6:27     Trying to bring Barnes to justice7:57      “Mr. Untouchable” and a call from Attorney General Griffin Bell13:08   A sequestered and anonymous jury17:22    Navigating credibility issues with key government witnesses29:25   An issue with a juror dubbed the “Marlboro Man”33:46   The guilty verdict against Barnes36:25   The larger implications of the Barnes case37:51    The depiction of Nicky Barnes on filmFurther reading:Barnes, Leroy & Folsom, Tom, Mr. Untouchable: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of Heroin's Teflon Don (2007)Ferretti, Fred, “Mr. Untouchable,” N.Y. Times (June 5, 1977)Fiske, Robert B., Prosecutor Defender Counselor: The Memoirs of Robert B. Fiske, Jr. (2014)Roberts, Sam, “Crime's ‘Mr. Untouchable' Emerges From Shadows,” N.Y. Times (Mar. 4, 2007)Wertheim, Eric, Note, “Anonymous Juries,” 54 Fordham L. Rev. 981 (1986)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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode looks at two films about the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s: First They Killed My Father (dir. Angelina Jolie), and The Gate (or Les Temps des Aveux) (dir. Régis Wargnier). First They Killed My Father is based on the memoir of Loung Ung, who was a five-year-old girl when the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia in 1975. Loung Ung was forced to flee Phnom Penh, Cambodia's capital, with her family. Loung Ung's parents were killed, and Loung Ung was separated from her siblings; after surviving in a forced labor camp, Loung Ung was forced to become a child soldier. The Gate tells the story of acclaimed French anthropologist, Francois Bizot, who was imprisoned and tortured by the Khmer Rouge for three months in 1971 on suspicion of being a CIA spy, and who later became the French embassy's translator and intermediary with the Khmer Rouge until he was forced to flee the country. The films, which are both based on personal memoirs, provide a harrowing account of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. I'm joined by Dr. Melanie O'Brien, Associate Professor of International Law at the University of Western Australia (UWA) Law School and President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Dr. O'Brien is a leading expert on genocide and international law, and is the author of acclaimed scholarly books and articles on the subject. Timestamps:0:00      Introduction3:42       Background on the Khmer Rouge7:42        Khmer Rouge philosophy and tactics11:50      Forced marriage15:37      The role of propaganda 24:58     The use of child soldiers27:48     Life after genocide31:42      First They Killed My Father and the Cambodian genocide38:08     Francois Bizot and Comrade Duch 40:10     The French embassy in Phnom Penh43:52     The portrayal of Comrade Duch 46:06     The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) 55:06      Why Cambodia was a genocide 1:00:16    The Khmer Rouge's destruction of culture1:07:21     Transitional justice in Cambodia1:10:33    The role of memoirs after genocideFurther reading:Becker, Elizabeth, When the War Was Over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution (1988)Bizot, Francois, The Gate: A Memoir (2004)Killean, Rachel & Moffett, Luke, “What's in a Name? ‘Reparations' at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia,” 21(1) Melbourne J. Int'l Law 115 (2020)O'Brien, Melanie, “Le Temps des Aveux/The Gate” (review), Law & Culture (2016)O'Brien, Melanie, From Discrimination to Death: Genocide Process through a Human Rights Lens (Routledge Press 2023)Sperfeldt, Christoph, “Collective Reparations at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia,” 12 (3), Int'l Criminal L. Rev 457 (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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Matewan (written and directed by John Sayles) dramatizes the events of the Battle of Matewan, a coal miners' strike in 1920 in a small town in the hills of West Virginia. In the film, Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper, in his film debut), an ex-Wobbly organizer for the United Mine Workers (also known as the “Wobblies”), arrives in Matewan, to organize miners against the Stone Mountain Coal Company. Kenehan and his supporters must battle the company's use of scabs and outright violence, resist the complicity of law enforcement in the company's tactics, and overcome the racism and xenophobia that helps divide the labor movement. Sayles's film provides a window into the legal and social issues confronting the labor movement in the early twentieth century and into the Great Coalfield War of that period. I'm joined by Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board and labor law professor at George Washington University Law School. Fred's views on this podcast are solely his own and not those of the National Labor Relations Board or the U.S. Government.Timestamps:0:00      Introduction2:46       A miner's life7:44       The power of the mining companies12:25     Law's hostility to labor19:01     Violence and the labor movement25:33    Organizing the miners in Matewan30:08   Overcoming racial and ethnic tensions within the labor movement39:29    What was law and who was law46:40    The Battle of Blair Mountain51:54:    From the Great Coalfield War to the National Labor Relations Act56:59    Barbara Kopple's Harlan County, USA1:01:59  The power of the strike Further reading:Green, James, The Devil Is Here in These Hills:West Virginia's Coal Miners and Their Battle for Freedom (2015)Hood, Abby Lee, “What Made the Battle of Blair Mountain the Largest Labor Uprising in American History,” Smithsonian Magazine (Aug. 25, 2001)Moore, Roger, “A Masterpiece that reminds us why there is a Labor Day,” Movie Nation (Sept. 2, 2024)Sayles, John, Thinking in Pictures: The Making of the Movie Matewan (1987)Zappia, Charles A., “Labor, Race, and Ethnicity in the West Virginia Mines: 'Matewan,'” 30(4) J. Am. Ethnic History 44 (Summer 2011) 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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode looks at two films that examine the environmental disaster in Minamata, Japan: Noriaki Tsuchimoto's documentary, Minamata: The Victims and the World (1971), and Andre Levitas's Minamata (2020), a Hollywood feature film that tells the story through the famous American photographer, W. Eugene Smith. From 1932 to 1968, the Chisso Corporation, a local petrochemical and plastics maker, dumped approximately 27 tons of mercury into Minamata bay, poisoning fish and, ultimately, the people who ate them. Several thousand people died and many more suffered crippling injuries, with often severe mental and physical effects. The corporation's environmental pollution sparked legal and political battles that would last decades and reverberate throughout Japan. Joining me to discuss the films and the insights they provide into Japanese law and society, is Professor Darryl Flaherty.  Darryl is a historian of law and social change in early modern and modern Japan. He has published work on the emergence of Japan's legal profession during the nineteenth century, the Meiji Restoration in world history, and the twentieth century history of the jury in Japan. He is an associate professor in the Department of History at the University of Delaware, where he teaches courses on Japanese, Asian, and world history. Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction2:13     The Chisso Chemical Corporation 4:58    The fishing life in Minamata 7:30    The discovery of methylmercury poisoning12:20   Movement politics and environmental protest in Japan16:44   The debilitating Minamata disease18:59   The Minamata pollution litigation22:03   Denial and violence by the Chisso Corporation       24:08   Government complicity 29:26    Discrimination and pushback against victims of Minamata pollution30:51    Strategies and challenges in obtaining compensation38:28    Noriaki Tsuchimoto, W. Eugene Smith, and the notoriety of Minamata44:51     A history of direct action in Japan and the importance of an apology48:30    Environmental reform and its limits in Japan52:14     A lens into the 2011 Fukushima disaster54:39    The limited role of lawyers in the films57:21      Minamata today59:07    The decline of political activism in Japan102:02  Take-aways and stories about storytellingFurther reading: Flaherty, Darryl, Public Law, Private Practice Politics, Profit, and the Legal Profession in Nineteenth-Century Japan (Harvard Univ. Asia Center, 2013)George, Timothy S., Minamata: Pollution and the Struggle for Democracy in Postwar Japan (Harvard Univ. Press, 2002) Smith, Eugene W. & Aileen M. Smith, Minamata: The Story of the Poisoning of a City, and of the People Who Chose to Carry the Burden of Courage (Holt, Rinehart, 1975)Upham, Frank K., Law and Social Change in Postwar Japan (Harvard Univ. Press, 1989)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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Black Hawk Down (2001) describes the plight of the U.S. crew of a Black Hawk helicopter that is shot down during the Battle of Mogadishu during the civil war in Somalia in October 1993. The battle resulted in the death of 18 American soldiers and hundreds of Somalis; it also prompted the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after images of dead U.S. soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by enraged Somalis were broadcast on American television. Directed by Ridley Scott from a book by Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down is a gritty action movie that captures the brutal nature of urban warfare. It also provides a window into a host of complex international legal and political issues surrounding humanitarian intervention in the aftermath of the Cold War. Joining me is Greg Fox, Professor and Director of the Program for International Legal Studies at Wayne State University in Detroit. Professor Fox is a widely cited authority on international law and international organizations and a leader in a variety of academic and professional organizations.Timestamps:0:00   Introduction1:40    A primer on Somalia and its history6:40   The legal framework for the international humanitarian intervention9:50   The opportunities for intervention after the end of the Cold War15:33  Preparing to go into Somalia19:16   The pros and cons of intervention23:04 The U.S. shift on military intervention after the Vietnam War24:43  The challenges of intervening in civil wars33:47  International humanitarian law and urban warfare43:14   Legacies of the Battle of Mogadishu52:06  Internal debates within the UN over humanitarian intervention 54:55  What happened in Somalia after the Battle of MogadishuFurther reading:Bowden, Mark, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War (1999)Carroll, Jonathan, “Courage Under Fire: Reevaluating Black Hawk Down and the Battle of Mogadishu,” 29 (3) War in History 704 (July 2022)Fox, Gregory H., Humanitarian Occupation (2008)Hakimi, Monica, “Toward a Legal Theory on the Responsibility to Protect,” 39(2) Yale J. Int'l L. 247 (2014)Lee, Thomas H., “The Law of War and the Responsibility to Protect Civilians: A Reinterpretation,” 55 Harv. Int'l L.J. 251 (2014)Luttwak, Edward N., “Give War a Chance,” Foreign Affairs (July/August 1999)Hathaway, Oona A. & Hartig, Luke, “Still at War: The United States in Somalia,” Just Security (Mar. 31, 2022)Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (2002)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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

A Separation (2011) is an Iranian drama written and directed by Asghar Farhadi. The film depicts the martial separation between a middle-class couple, Nadar (Peyman Moaadi) and his wife Simin (Leila Hatami). Simin wants the family to leave Iran to make a better life for their 10-year-old daughter Termeh, but Nadar does not want to leave his father who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. So Nadar refuses to go and also refuses to give permission for their daughter to leave. The film also depicts the conflict that results when Nadar allegedly pushes his father's new, lower-income caregiver, Razieh (Sareh Bayat) down the stairs during an altercation, causing her to miscarry. A Separation centers around the two legal cases: the divorce proceedings between Nadar and Simin; and the criminal proceedings against Nadar. It provides a window not only into law in Iran but also into the complex forces of politics, class, and religion that shape modern Iranian society. To discuss this universally acclaimed and award-winning film, I'm joined by Golbarg Rekabtalaei, a professor of history at Seton Hall University and expert on Iran and Iranian cinema.Timestamps:0:00    Introduction2:21      An introduction to Iranian cinema7:21      The cosmopolitanism of Iranian cinema 10:45   Navigating government restrictions on cinema in Iran14:17    The legal context for A Separation16:18    Divorce law in Iran20:09  The film's opening scene24:02   Abortion and criminal law in A Separation31:13    Diyat (or “blood money” payments in Iran)35:44   Criminal investigations and procedure in Iran 39:30   Imprisonment of debtors41:44   A social drama that uses the court to broader themes46:25   The Green Movement and the political context for the film48:46   Other recommended films about Iranian law and societyFurther reading:Becker, Ben, “‘A Separation': Exploring Class, Marriage, and Morality through Iranian Culture,” Cinemablography Burke, Jospeh, “Rediscovering Morality through Asghar Farhadi's ‘A Separation,'” Senses of Cinema (Dec. 2011)Haqshenas, Saleh, Badiei, Sediqeh & Narmani, Hamid, “Iran's Perspective: A Deconstructive Analysis of "A Separation Movie" Through Application of Binary Opposition,” International Researchers vol 2, no. 1 (Mar. 2013)Kirshner, Jonathan, “Secrets, Lies, and Censorship: The Revelation of Asghar Farhadi's Films,” Boston Review (Aug. 14, 2024)Rekabtalaei, Golbarg, Iranian Cosmopolitanism: A Cinematic History (2019)Romig, Rollo, “Blood Money: Crime and Punishment in ‘A Separation,'” New Yorker (Feb. 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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode explores Bridge of Spies (2015), the Cold War legal and political thriller directed by Steven Spielberg (and written by Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen). The film is based on the true story of American attorney James Donovan, who is assigned to represent Soviet spy Rudolf Abel after Abel is arrested in New York and prosecuted for espionage. The story takes a turn when American pilot Francis Gary Powers is captured by the Russians after his plane is shot down over the Soviet Union while conducting a surveillance mission. Donovan is then tasked with negotiating a high-stakes prisoner exchange—Abel for Powers—that culminates in a climactic scene on the Glienicke Bridge connecting Potsdam with Soviet-controlled East Berlin. The film is not only highly entertaining; it also provides a window into important legal issues around national security, criminal, and immigration law that still resonate today. Joining me to talk about Bridge of Spies are Lenni Benson, Distinguished Chair in Immigration and Human Rights Law at New York Law School, one of the nation's foremost authorities immigration law and a prominent advocate in the field, and Jeffrey Kahn, University Distinguished Professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, a leading scholar on constitutional and counterterrorism law, an expert on Russian law, and the author of a must-read article on the Abel case, published in the Journal of National Security Law and Policy. Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction2:19     Who were Rudolf Abel & James Donovan6:08    Cold War tensions and anxieties9:09    American justice on trial12:12    Misusing immigration law18:18    Abel's arrest and the legal issues in the case24:40  Abel's disappearance and coercive interrogation      30:23  A history of anti-communist hysteria 33:06 Cherry-picking from legal categories to avoid constitutional guarantees42:16  A frightening time for noncitizens engaged in political activity48:22  A foreshadowing of government abuses after 9/1153:55  A questionable citation to Yick Wo v. Hopkins59:17   The vast system of immigration detention105:24 Behind the Iron Curtain115:14  An ex parte conversation with the judge119:16  The aftermath for Abel, Donovan, and Francis Gary Powers123:31  The absence of women in important positions Further reading:Arthey, Vin, Like Father, Like Son: A Dynasty of Spies (2004)“‘Bridge of Spies': The True Story is Even Stranger Than Fiction,” ProPublica (Feb. 24, 2016)Donovan, James B., Strangers on a Bridge: The Case of Colonel Abel and Francis Gary Powers (1964)Epps, Garrett, “The Real Court Case Behind Bridge of Spies,” The Atlantic (Nov. 17. 2015)Kahn, Jeffrey D., “The Case of Colonel Abel,” 5 J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Pol'y 263 (2011)Sragow, Michael, “Deep Focus: ‘Bridge of Spies,'” Film Comment (Oct. 14, 2015)  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/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Chinatown (1974) is a neo-noir crime thriller, directed by Roman Polanski from a screenplay by Robert Towne. Based loosely on the Owens Valley water wars in Los Angeles from the early twentieth century, the film follows private investigator J.J. (“Jake”) Gittes (Jack Nicholson) as he pursues a series of leads that take him into the dark underbelly of power and corruption in 1930s Los Angeles. A woman claiming to be "Evelyn Mulwray” initially hires Gittes to follow her husband Hollis, whom she suspects of infidelity. Gittes discovers that Noah Cross (John Huston), the father of the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway), had Hollis, his former business partner and head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, killed. Hollis had learned of Cross's plan to force famers in the Northwest valley to sell their land by cutting off their irrigating water and purchasing it through dummy syndicates on the cheap with the aim of developing the land into valuable Los Angeles real estate. Gittes also learns that the young woman he falsely suspected Hollis of having an affair with is Evelyn's sister and daughter—the product of Evelyn's rape by Cross when she was fifteen. While Gittes ultimately unravels the mystery, he is unable to stop the powerful Cross from achieving his goals or prevent the tragic fate that awaits Evelyn. My guest to talk about this venerated New Hollywood era classic is Emeritus Professor John Walton of the University of California, Davis.Timestamps:0:00    Introduction3:37     Chinatown's historical and literary elements6:28     How the film adapts historical events and figures 12:13    The private investigator in film and popular culture18:09   Jake Gittes and the power structure24:27   “Either you bring the water to LA, or you bring LA to the water”28:17    The private eye and the police32: 56  The mystery and impenetrability of power35:00  How Chinatown affects perceptions of the water wars38:43   Public law affecting water allocation and management40:05  The formalities of law and the power structure beneath it44:15   “The Defects of Total Power” Further reading:Brownstein, Ronald, “The 1970s Movie that Explains 2020s America,” The Atlantic (June 20, 2024)Hoffman, Abraham, Vision or Villainy: Origins of the Owens Valley-Los Angeles Water Controversy (1981)Kahrl, William L., “The Politics of the California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 1900 – 1927,” Hastings West-Northwest J. Envt'l L. & Policy, vol. 6, nos. 1 & 2 (2000)Libecap, Gary D., “Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation – Getting the Record Straight and What It Means for Water Markets,” 83 Texas L. Rev. 2055 (2005)Walton, John, “Film Mystery as Urban History: The Case of Chinatown,” Cinema and the City (M. Shiel & T. Fitzmaurice, 2001)Walton, John, The Legendary Detective: The Private Eye in Fact and Fiction (U. Chicago Press (2015) 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

The Verdict (1982) tells the story of down-on-his-luck Boston lawyer, Frank Galvin (Paul Newman). Galvin had been a rising star until he was framed for jury tampering by a partner at his elite Boston law firm because he planned to expose the firm's illegalities. Galvin left the firm and his marriage and career fell apart. After Galvin hits rock bottom, his former partner and friend Mickey Morrisey (Jack Warden) sends him a medical malpractice case as a favor; the case involves a botched delivery and is expected to settle out of court for a significant sum. But Galvin is moved after visiting the woman in the hospital, where he sees her in a comatose state. Galvin refuses the settlement offer and takes the case to trial, where he confronts the hospital's high-powered and corrupt attorney Ed Concannon (James Mason) and a hostile judge (Milo O'Shea), Galvin also has a romantic relationship with another attorney, Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) whom he meets in a bar but, unbeknownst to him, is a spy planted by Concannon. Galvin discovers the hospital is covering up its negligence. Although the judge excludes this evidence, Galvin wins a huge damage award as the jury sees the truth. The Verdict was directed by Sidney Lumet and written by David Mamet, adapted from Barry Reed's 1980 novel of the same name. It is a gripping courtroom drama and a moving story of redemption. My guest is John (“Rusty”) Wing, Senior Counsel at Lankler, Siffert & Wohl, and a nationally recognized criminal defense attorney (full bio here) Timestamps:0.00    Introduction3:23     A lawyer down on his luck6:26     Jury-tampering10:29   Rejecting a settlement offer without consulting the client17:58   Why judges pressure settlement 26:53   Prepping the witness32:05   The pretrial investigation41:23    A mistrial?44:09  The judge takes over the direct examination47:46   A heated fight in chambers49:57   The trial's pivotal moment51:54   The judge's evidentiary rulings57:37   The summation 59:20  Jury nullification106:23 A comparison with "12 Angry Men"Further reading:Bergman, Paul  & Asimow, Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies (2006)Mikulee, Sven, “‘The Verdict': Sidney Lumet and David Mamet's Masterpiece as a Blend of a Courtroom Drama and a Personal Redemption Story,” Cinephilia and Beyond Parker, Richard D., “The Good Lawyer: The Verdict” in Screening Justice – The Cinema of Law: Significant Films of Law, Order and Social Justice (Rennard Strickland et. al. eds., 2006)Souther, Sharon A., “The Artist's Search for Justice in the Justice System: A Discussion of Representative Films of Sidney Lumet and Works from the World of Literature on the Law,” 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 687 (2007)Valero, Geraldo, "Revisiting Sidney Lumet's The Verdict," RogerEbert.com (Aug. 15, 2023)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) centers on the plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England, the arrest and execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (Elizabeth's cousin), and King Phillip II of Spain's attempt to topple Elizabeth and install a Catholic monarch on the English throne, which culminates in England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. The film also portrays the complex emotional triangle involving Elizabeth, the English statemen, soldier, and explorer Sir Walter Raleigh, and Elizabeth's lady-in-waiting, Beth Throckmorton, whom Raleigh marries and has a child with. (The film depicts Elizabeth as enamored with Raleigh). Directed by Shekhar Kapur, from a script by William Nicholson and Michael Hirst, the film is a sequel to Kapur's Elizabeth (1998). The cast includes Cate Blanchett (Queen Elizabeth I), Clive Owen (Walter Raleigh), Geoffrey Rush (Elizabeth's spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham), Samantha Morton (Mary, Queen of Scots); Abbie Cornish (Beth Throckmorton); and Jordi Mollà (Phillip II of Spain). In addition to dramatizing this critical and memorable period of English history (albeit with some notable historical inaccuracies), the film provides a window into important and timely legal issues around torture, trial for matters of state, and piracy in Tudor England.  I'm joined by Alka Pradhan, a leading human rights attorney, adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and Tudor history buff. (Alka's full bio is here)Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:38     Queen Elizabeth I and the film's historical context 9:14     The Babington assassination plot 15:38   Mary's letters and the evidence of guilt16:53   Torture and torture warrants during Elizabeth I's reign22:51   Walsingham, the spy master24:08   The trial of Mary Queen of Scots32:38   The Defeat of the Spanish Armada36:18   The law of piracy38:24   Elizabeth, Walter Raleigh, and Beth Throckmorton44:56   More on depicting torture and trials on film 48:44   What the movie and Tudor history can tell us about contemporary society Further reading:Cooper, John, The Queen's Agent: Sir Francis Walsingham in Elizabethan England (2013)Lewis, Jayne E., The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents (1999)Martin, Colin & Parker, Geoffrey, The Spanish Enterprise and England's Deliverance in 1588 (2023)Read, Andrew, “Pirates and Privateers in Elizabethan England,” in The Laws of Yesterday's Wars (Samuel C. Duckett White ed. 2021)Webb, Simon, A History of Torture in England (2018)Williams, Kate, Rival Queens: The Betrayal of Mary Queen of Scots (2021)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode explores Atom Egoyan's 1997 film, The Sweet Hereafter, which describes the impact of a tragic school bus accident that caused the death of 14 children on a small Canadian town. The film is based on Russell Banks' 1991 novel of the same name (which in turn was based on a real-life bus crash in Texas). The film centers on personal injury lawyer Mitchell Stephens (Ian Holm), who travels to the town after the accident in an attempt to persuade the parents of the children to bring a negligence lawsuit. The controversy generated by the lawsuit ripples through the community and is explored through several characters in the town, including Nicole (Sarah Polley), a teenage girl who is left paralyzed from the waist down by the accident; Dolores Driscoll (Gabrielle Rose), the bus driver on the fateful, day; and various parents who have sharply conflicting views on the lawsuit. The Sweet Hereafter, however, is much more than a story about tort litigation; it explores larger philosophical questions around justice, community norms, and the role of law in addressing life's most painful tragedies. I am joined by Seán Patrick Donlan, a Professor of Law at Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia, Canada.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:18     Recruiting plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit9:58     Judith Shklar's distinction between misfortune and injustice14:20   Law and defense of community21:45   The loss of children28:52   The deposition that unravels the case39:13   Assigning blame and scapegoating47:02   More on Atom Egoyan           49:13   The role of the Pied PiperFurther reading:Banks, Russell, The Sweet Hereafter (1991)Fried, Margaret J. & Frolik, Lawrence A. “The Limits of Law: Litigation, Lawyers, and the Search for Justice in Russell Banks' ‘The Sweet Hereafter,'” 7 Cardozo Stud. Law & Lit. 1 (1995)Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, “Can They Do That? Legal Ethics in Popular Culture: Of Characters and Acts,” 48 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1305 (2001)O'Neill, Timothy P., “There Will Be Blame: Misfortune and Injustice in ‘The Sweet Hereafter,'” 5 U. Denv. Sports & Ent. L.J. 19 (2008)Sarat, Austin, “Exploring the Hidden Domains of Civil Justice: ‘Naming, Blaming, and Claiming' in Popular Culture,” 50 DePaul L. Rev. 425 (2000)Scherr, Alexander & Farber, Hillary, “Popular Culture as a Lens on Legal Professionalism,” 55 S.C. L. Rev. (2003)Shklar, Judith, The Facts of Justice (1990)Weisberg, Richard H., “‘The Verdict' Is In: The Civic Implications of Civil Trials,” 50 DePaul L. Rev. 525 (2000) 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

This episode examines Absence of Malice, a 1981 drama directed by Sidney Pollack. After Miami-based newspaper reporter Megan Carter (Sally Field) is tipped off by Justice Department organized crime strike force chief Elliot Rosen (Bob Balaban) about a criminal investigation into the disappearance and likely murder of a local union official, her paper runs a sensational front-page story. But the supposed target of the investigation, Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), the son of an infamous bootlegger, is innocent; Rosen, the strike force chief, has leaked his name to the press to try to squeeze Gallagher for information. Gallagher is incensed and tries to pressure Megan to reveal her source. Megan initially refuses but later relents after her story unexpectedly leads to the tragic death of a friend of Gallagher's. Gallagher and Megan also become romantically involved. Gallagher hatches a plot to get even and get the government off his back. He causes an unsuspecting Megan to write another sensational story, this time implicating the District Attorney in a bribery scheme that Gallagher has invented. When the truth is revealed, both the prosecutors and the newspaper are humiliated, the victims of their own game of leaking information and reporting about it. Absence of Malice provides an insightful, if unflattering, picture of how newspapers operate and some of the ethical and moral complications that can result from the robust protections afforded the press under the First Amendment.  I'm joined by Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who has litigated numerous landmark First Amendment cases. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:31     The meaning of “absence of malice” 8:15     Deciding what a paper can print11:22   A skeptical take on the absence of malice standard  15:02   The meaning of “public figure”20:47   A newspaper reporter's First Amendment privilege?26:10   How the government handles leaks30:20   A troubling increase in leak prosecutions32:31   The “Leaky Leviathan”: How the government uses leaks39:06   The obligations of the press42:43   The legal vs. ethical obligations of the press48:11   Assessing critiques of the absence of malice standard 54:59   Timeless questions explored by the filmFurther reading:Adler, Renata, Reckless Disregard: ‘Westmoreland v. CBS et al. & Sharon v. Time (1986)Barbas, Samantha, The Enduring Significance of ‘New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,' Knight First Amendment Institute (Mar. 18, 2024) Liptak, Adam, “Clarence Thomas Renews Call for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling,” N.Y. Times (Oct. 10, 2023)Pozen, David E., “The Leaky Leviathan: Why the Government Condemns and Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information,” 127 Harv. L. Rev. 512 (2013)Stone, Geoffrey R., “Why We Need a Federal Reporter's Privilege,” 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 39 (2005)  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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

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     Introduction4:52     The era of the Scopes “monkey trial”8:34     The Scopes trial as a “test” case12:25   The decision to exclude evidence of evolution18:40   The later theory of “intelligent design”20:30   Clarence Darrow's classic cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan23:27   Miracle on 34th Street and how courts resolve disputes about faith24:40   The film as a response to the McCarthy era26:14   The verdict and aftermath30:10   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 relevanceFurther 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

The Caine Mutiny (1954) is based on Herman Wouk's bestselling 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. Executive officer, 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 during a cyclone. 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 effectively places Queeg on trial by his exposing 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. In contrast to the 1954 film, The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial covers only the court-martial. 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     Introduction3:58     What's a court-martial?9:14     The crime of mutiny17:48   Relieving Queeg of his command27:36   Putting Queeg on trial29:33   Taking some poetic license with a court-martial34:44   The defense lawyer's post-trial critique of the mutiny41:21   The dramatic changes in the Navy and armed forces since the original movie 47:12   More context for the two Caine Mutiny movies50:21   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.htmlKelly, 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)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou 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     Introduction4:21     The top law movies5:16     What makes a great law movie9:19     Witness for the Prosecution and other favorites16:16   Erin Brockovich and why great law movies aren't always courtroom dramas22:54   Some also-rans29:45   Why Miracle on 34th Street made the list31:53   A take on how politics informs courts and trials35:34   Proving Santa Claus through a federal postal regulation39:47   The legal realism of Miracle on 34th Street41:40   When holiday movies were released in the spring45:34   When courts are the arbiter of beliefs 51:04   Fun facts in compiling the best law movies list57:29   Introducing the new Q & A segmentFurther 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou 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      Introduction4:19      Baseball circa 191910:30   Betting and game fixing in baseball17:43   The reserve clause 20:17   Unpacking the verdict at the Black Sox trial22:48   Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis: Baseball's first commissioner31:35   The treatment of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and the Black Sox35:35   Sportswriters  40:18   The reemergence of sports gambling50:32   A memorable John Sayles film53:34   Class and culture in baseball55:18   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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

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     Introduction3:59     Coming up with a defense strategy9:17     A case about doubt11:36   Pretrial investigations in France15:56   Victims' counsel (partie civile) in France18:50   The role of the investigating magistrate22:03   The presiding judge and the other participants at trial 26:39   Unpacking  the seeming “chaos” in the courtroom29:07   Why defendants testify at trial in France34:06   Liberté de la preuve and the treatment of evidence  39:17   The treatment of juveniles under French law43:39   Daniel's pivotal testimony46:13   Appeals of acquittals by the prosecution47:15   Influences on the director 50:37   Expert testimony52:51   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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

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     Introduction4:26     The historical context and Osage tribal rights14:35   The stereotype of rich Osages15:25   Legal trusts and exploitation of the guardianship system22:17   How limits on federal and tribal jurisdiction led to violence and impunity26:30   Fear and terror in the Osage community29:48   The federal investigation32:06   The level of local complicity in the Osage murders33:55   The treatment of the Osage as “incompetent” under the law38:33   Capturing Osage tradition and belief on screen41:27   Mollie and Ernest's complex relationship45:50   How the Osage overcame a legacy of violence and impunity 48:50   The role of law and lawyers51:58   How Martin Scorsese listened to and engaged the Osage peopleFurther 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Oppenheimer (2023) stars Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American theoretical physicist known as the “father of the atomic bomb” for his role as director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II . The film was written and directed by Christopher Nolan, based on the book, American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin. The film traces Oppenheimer's early life, his rise to world prominence through the Manhattan Project, and his subsequent downfall after being stripped of his security clearance in 1954 due to his alleged past communist sympathies and outspoken criticism of the nuclear arms race. The cast includes Emily Blunt as Oppenheimer's wife “Kitty”; Matt Damon as General Leslie Groves, the Manhattan Project's director; Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss, chair of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and rival of Oppenheimer; and Florence Pugh as Oppenheimer's lover and former Communist party member, Jean Tatlock. The film provides a window not only into one of the 20th century's most iconic figures, but also into the political and social forces that surrounded the birth of the Atomic Age and America's transition from World War II to the Red Scare and Cold War.  My guest is Audra Wolfe, a writer and historian who focuses on the role of science during the Cold War.Timestamps:0:00         Introduction4:01         Reinvigorating debates about the bomb7:48         Oppenheimer's views in context14:46      The factors driving the decision to drop the bomb17:32      Was secrecy really required?19:49      Science in Germany vs. the Soviet Union24:14      FBI surveillance of Oppenheimer and other scientists28:46      Revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance37:37      Oppenheimer's complicated legacy41:09      Castle Bravo and nuclear testing: another seminar Cold War moment45:01      Leslie Groves, Oppenheimer, and scientists with leftist affiliations51:20      Vannevar Bush and other early Cold War science figures53:45       Congress's hearing on Lewis Strauss' cabinet nomination1:00:17   The film's broader messages and lessons for today1:04:37   Making nuclear weapons front and center1:08:26   “Barbenheimer”Further reading:Bernstein, Barton, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered”, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 1383 (1990)Bird, Kai & Sherwin, Martin J., American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (2005)Curtis, Charles, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (1955)Sims, David, “‘Oppenheimer' Is More Than a Creation Myth About the Atomic Bomb,” The Atlantic (July 19, 2023)Wellerstein, Alex, Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States (2021)Wolfe, Audra J., Freedom's Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science (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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Eye in the Sky (2015), directed by Gavin Hood from a script by Guy Hibbert, depicts the operation of a multinational team aimed at high-level operatives from the Al-Shabaab terrorist group in Nairobi, Kenya. When the British army learns of the location of the suspects,  it plans to capture them. But surveillance reveals the suspects are preparing two new recruits to carry out a suicide bombing. British military officials, with their U.S. partner, seek to shift the operation from capture to kill. Officials must decide whether to authorize a lethal drone strike to avoid a possible terrorist attack, despite the possibility of civilian casualties, including of a young girl who is nearby. Eye in the Sky, which stars Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Barkhad Abdi, and Alan Rickman (in his last screen role), depicts the new reality of drone warfare and the complex legal and moral issues it raises. I'm joined by Craig Martin, Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law and the creator and host of the JIB/JAB: The Laws of War Podcast (https://jibjabpodcast.com), which features top and upcoming experts in different aspects of the laws of war.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction4:41     Background for the military operation6:42.    Does the law of armed conflict even apply?13:14   A drone strike in a friendly country not at war16:54   Why Kenya's consent and involvement matters19:10   Who is targetable under IHL?26:31    Applying the jus in bello factors30:42    The policy and strategic issues34:40    "Revolutions are fueled by postings on YouTube"36:52    The “Trolley Problem”40:27    Is targeted killing a misnomer?44:23   "Group Think” in drone operations47:00    The impact of drone warfare on the participants51:44    The role of lawyers55:22    The “double tap” and the movie's clear war crime58:43    Other great movies about the laws of war Further reading:“‘Eye in the Sky' film puts the use of drones in the spotlight,” PBS News Hour (Mar 18, 2016) (transcript)Martin, Craig, “A Means-Methods Paradox and the Legality of Drone Strikes in Armed Conflict,” 19 Int'l J. Hum. Rights 142 (2015)Melzer, Nils, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2009)Milanovic, Marko, “Eye in the Sky,” EJIL: Talk (May 9, 2016)Stimson Center, Recommendations and Report of the Task Force on U.S. Drone Policy (2d ed. Apr. 2015) The White House, Remarks by the President at the National Defense University (May 23, 2013)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Norma Rae (1979) describes the struggle of Norma Rae Webster (Sally Field), a factory worker with limited education, to unionize a textile mill in North Carolina. The film was directed by Martin Ritt from a screenplay by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr., and is based on the true story of Crystal Lee Sutton (as told in the 1975 book Crystal Lee, A Woman of Inheritance by New York Times reporter Henry P. Leifermann). Reuben Warshowsky (Ron Leibman), a union organizer from New York City, persuades Norma to help him organize a union. But Norma and Reuben must overcome a series of obstacles, including pressure and harassment from management as well as internal divisions among the textile workers. Norma, moreover, must navigate issues in her personal life, including with her new husband Sonny (Beau Bridges), who resents Norma's growing commitment to the union. Ultimately, Norma succeeds as the workers vote to unionize. The film offers a snapshot of the labor movement on the cusp of the Reagan era in American and features a memorable, Oscar-winning performance by Sally Field in the title role. My guest is Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board and labor law professor at George Washington University Law School. Fred's views on this podcast are solely his own and not those of the National Labor Relations Board or the U.S. Government.Timestamps:0:00        Introduction3:33        An inflection point in U.S. labor history6:40        Unionizing the textile industry13:29      The clash between culture and economics14:03      Organizing a workplace 21:08      How unions are protected24:17      A snapshot of the middle of the J.P. Stevens campaign27:08      How the law operates in Norma Rae28:38      Management's pressure tactics31:09      Why you need a “Norma Rae” when trying to organize people32:46      The film's iconic moment of worker power35:30      Violence against the labor movement40:17      Management's exploitation of racial divisions49:58      How the union helps empower Norma 53:57      What happened next at the factory59:30      Crystal Lee Sutton: The real Norma Rae1:01:36   Unions today1:05:14  How the National Labor Relations Act helps people to be brave1:08:51   Other great labor moviesFurther reading:Allan, Angela, “40 Years Ago, ‘Norma Rae'  Understood How Corporations Weaponized Race,” The Atlantic (Mar. 2, 2019)Dray, Philip, There is Power in a Union (2011)Dubofsky, Melvyn & McCartin, Joseph A., Labor in America: A History (9th ed. 2017)Fry, Naomi, “The Ongoing Relevance of ‘Norma Rae,'” New Yorker (Aug. 4. 2020)Kazek, Kelly, “When Hollywood came to Alabama to film 'Norma Rae,'” Al.com (May 3, 2019)Leifermann, Henry P., Crystal Lee, A Woman of Inheritance (1975)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

A Civil Action (1998) is based on Jonathan Harr's critically acclaimed book of the same name. Written and directed by Steve Zaillian, the film starts John Travolta, and features supporting performances by Robert Duvall (who was nominated for an Oscar), William H. Macy,  James Gandolfini, John Lithgow, Kathleen Quinlan, and Tony Shalhoub. The film tells the true the story of the court battle over environmental pollution in Woburn, MA, in the 1970s and 1980s, where trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent used in industrial operations, contaminated the local water supply, leading to numerous fatal cases of leukemia (including in small children) and other health problem for Woburn residents. Personal injury lawyer Jan Schlichtmann, brought suit on behalf of a group of victim families against two large corporations, Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace, to hold them responsible for the pollution (a third company previously settled). But the suit ran into dogged resistance from large and powerful law firms on the other side, including WilmerHale (then Hale and Dorr) and one of its star litigators, Jerome ("Jerry") Facher (Robert Duvall). The film offers a dark view of the U.S. legal system's ability to uncover the truth and provide justice to victims. I'm joined by Jennifer (Jen) Corinis, an attorney at Greenberg Traurig, who has extensive experience litigating cases in the private sector and as an attorney for the U.S. government.Timestamps:0:00        Introduction5:29        Can law remedy pain and suffering?7:18        Who makes a "good" victim in a personal injury suit13:04     Why Jan Schlichtmann takes up a case no one else wants17:23     Litigating against large corporations19:33     The different approaches of Schlichtmann and the legendary Jerry Facher23:19     The Rule 11 motion26:40      Bifurcating liability and damages35:15      What might have motivated the jury 37:47       Proving contamination with scientific evidence and expert testimony41:35       Schlictmann's  problematic handling of a settlement offer48:44       Anne Anderson and Woburn's other advocates56:53        Is a court the place to look for the truth?1:02:07    Comparison with the big tobacco litigation1:07:40    Subsequent litigation and later eventsFurther reading:Blomquist, Robert F., “Bottomless Pit: Toxic Trials, the American Legal Profession, and Popular Perceptions of the Law,” 81 Cornell L. Rev. 953 (1996) Chase, Anthony, “Civil Action Cinema,” 1999 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L. 945 (1999)Harr, Jonathan, A Civil Action (1995)Mayer, Dob, “Lessons in Law from ‘A Civil Action,'” 14 J. of Legal Studies Education 113 (1998)Schlictmann, Jan R., “Law and the Environment: Reflections on Woburn,” 24 Seton Hall Legis. J. 265 (2000)   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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode explores the iconic Indiana Jones trilogy, some of the most popular and well-known movies of all time. The trilogy consists of the first three movies in the series: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981); Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984); and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989). The films are based on a story by George Lucas and directed by Steven Spielberg. They feature archaeologist (and adventurer) Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) as he travels across the world in the years before World War II to obtain valuable historical, cultural, and religious artifacts. The trilogy (and especially the first film, Raiders of the Lost Ark) is the cornerstone of the Indiana Jones franchise, which includes two additional films (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) and Dial of Destiny (2023)) as well as a TV series, video game, comic books, novels, theme parks, and toys. The films have inspired countless filmmakers and had a significant effect on cinema and popular culture. They also have important, if less discussed, legal dimensions. This episode examines the trilogy from the perspective of international heritage law (or cultural property law), the body of law centered around the preservation of property with historical, cultural, and/or religious significance. My guest is Lucas Lixinski, Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice at the University of South Wales in Sydney, Australia.Timestamps: 0:00   Introduction4:19   Defining international heritage law (or cultural property law)5:53   The pre-UNESCO and post-UNESCO periods8:00    What the Indiana Jones films tell us about international heritage law11:06  How Raiders of the Lost Ark frames the collection of artifacts16:17  The fine line between looters and collectors24:12  The questionable claim of saving cultural property from destruction 27:55   The power of Christian artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade.31:19   The problem of downplaying the importance of heritage35:43   Why most items in museums can't be viewed by the public38:44  Temple of Doom and a different view of Indy41:40   Indy's interaction with non-western and indigenous populations44:49   Indy's legacy for archaeology46:53   A victor's perspective?49:29   Favorite Indiana Jones film?Further reading:Esterling, Shea, “Indiana Jones and the Illicit Trafficking and Repatriation of Cultural Objects,” in Courting the Media: Contemporary Perspectives on Media and the Law 127-48 (Nova 2011)Killgrove, Kristina, “The Enduring Myths of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,'” The Smithsonian (June 8. 2021)Lixinski, Lucas, “Moral, Legal and Archaeological Relics of the Past: Portrayals of International Cultural Heritage Law in Cinema,” 4(3) London Review of Int'l Law 421-37 (2016)Nayman, Adam, “Digging Into the Cinematic Archaeology of the Indiana Jones Movies,” The Ringer (Jan. 7, 2019)Smith, Laurajane, Use of Heritage (Routledge, 2007) 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Courted (French: L'Hermine), a 2015 French drama directed by Christian Vincent, is centered around a criminal trial in France. The accused, Martial Beclin (Victor Pontecorvo), is charged with manslaughter, which carries a possible twenty-year prison sentence, for allegedly kicking his seven-month-old daughter to death. The trial is conducted in France's cour d'assises, which hears more serious crimes. The president and senior judge, Michel Racine (Fabrice Luchini), runs a tight ship. Courted offers valuable insights into judges, jurors, and criminal procedure in France, and provides a vehicle to compare criminal trials there to those in the United States. The film also contains a romantic sub-plot that traces Judge Racine's relationship with one of the jurors and an old friend, Ditte Lorensen-Coteret  (played by the Danish actress, Sidse Babett Knudsen). My guests to discuss Courted and comparative criminal justice in films are Fred Davis, an international lawyer and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School, and Sam Bettwy, an Adjunct Professor at the University of San Diego Law School and the Thomas Jefferson School of Law.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction5:55     Comparing criminal justice through film10:57   Learning from another country's criminal justice system13:56   The cour d'assises and jury trials in France18:32   The European Court of Human Rights' ruling in Taxquet v. Belgium20:06   Comparing the French and U.S. criminal justice systems through film25:56   The judge's role in France30:00   Compiling the dossier in French criminal investigations 35:20   How other countries view the right against self-incrimination40:27   Juries in the French system 45:34   Who the hero is at trial and what it signifies50:28   Appealing an acquittal in France52:57   Fulfilling one's role in the systemFurther Reading:Bettwy, Samuel W., Comparative Criminal Procedure Through Film: Analytical Tools & Law and Film Summaries by Legal Tradition and Country (2015)Donovan, James W., Juries and the Transformation of Criminal Justice in France in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (2010)Kirry, Antoine, Davis, Frederick T. & Bisch, Alexander, “France,” in The International Investigations Review (Nicolas Bourtin ed.) (10th ed. 2020)Prot, Bénédicte, “L'Hermine, a gentle film,” Cineuropa, https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/298323/Robert, Philippe, “The French Criminal Justice System,” in Punishment in Europe: A Critical Anatomy of Penal Systems (Vincenzo Ruggerio et al. eds) (2013)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020) centers on the struggles faced by 17-year-old Autumn Callahan (Sidney Flanigan) to obtain an abortion after learning that she's pregnant. Autumn travels from her small town in central Pennsylvania to New York City, where she seeks to obtain the abortion, accompanied by her cousin Skylar (Talia Ryder). Autumn and Skylar must overcome a series of obstacles and persevere in what is ultimately a traumatizing experience. Written and directed by Eliza Hittman, the film was released in the twilight of the Roe/Casey era, the nearly 50-year period when abortion was recognized as a constitutional right in the United States before the Supreme Court eliminated the right in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The film not only offers a window into this critical period but also highlights the real-world obstacles many women continue to face in obtaining abortions even in states where it remains legal. Our guest to talk about the film and the current state of reproductive freedom in America is Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Deputy Director of the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:35     Abortion at the time of the film's release in 20206:53     Even before Dobbs, abortion was out of reach for many women8:20     The challenges for minors and women in abusive relationships10:03   A pitch perfect depiction of a crisis pregnancy center14:00   Medication abortions17:03   Parental consent requirements, Casey, and the undue burden test25:47   The obstacles Autumn faces in the film33:56   Navigating the unwelcome advances of the male teen Jasper37:07   The real-life experiences women go through to get abortions40:11   “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”44:56   The care people in abortion clinics provide for their patients50:02   The increased demand for abortion in states where it is legal53:48   Abortion after Dobbs57:21   Abortion wins at the ballot Further reading:Cohen, David S., Donley, Greer & Rebouché, Rachel, “The New Abortion Battleground,” 123 Columbia L. Rev. (2022)Fry, Naomi, "Never Rarely Sometimes Always: A Human Tale of Reproductive Rights” The New Yorker (Apr. 13, 2020)Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States after Dobbs” (Apr. 18, 2023)Wayne, Miriam, “Burying Abortion in Stigma: The Fundamental Right No One Wants to Discuss; Abortion Portrayal on Film and Television," 16 Va. Sports & Entertainment L.J. 216 (2017)Wilkinson, Alissa, “Why Hollywood keeps getting abortion wrong,” Vox (Aug. 9, 2022)Ziegler, Mary & Siegel, Reva, “How the end of Roe turned into a threat to American democracy,” L.A. Times (June 23, 2023)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

The Rack (1956), directed by Arnold Laven and written by Rod Serling (originally for television) tells the story of a decorated war hero Captain Edward W. Hall, Jr. (played by Paul Newman), who returns home after being captured and held prisoner in the Korean War. While a POW, Hall was subjected to mental torture and collaborated with his captors. Hall is court-martialed; his attorney (Lt Col. Frank Wasnick, played by Edmond O'Brien) tries to justify his conduct by showing the pressure he was under. Hall, however, is found guilty because he concedes could have resisted more, as soldiers who experienced physical torture did. The Manchurian Candidate (1962), was directed and produced by John Frankenheimer from a screenplay by George Axelrod, based on Richard Condon's 1959 novel. The film centers on a decorated soldier, Sergeant Raymond Shaw (played by Laurence Harvey) who was captured during the Korean War. During captivity, Shaw and other members of his army platoon, including Maj. Bennett Marco (played by Frank Sinatra) were psychologically manipulated or “brainwashed” by their Chinese Communist captors. Shaw was programmed to serve as a sleeper agent and a pawn in a communist plot to take over the U.S. and impose martial law by exploiting a wave of anti-communist hysteria. The twist is that his handler in the U.S. is none other than his mother, Eleanor Shaw (played by Angela Lansbury), who schemes to have her alcoholic and McCarthyite husband, Sen. John Iselin (played by James Gregory) become Vice President and then President, courtesy of a well-timed assassination by Raymond (acting under her spell).  Our guest is Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.Timestamps: 0:00     Introduction5:12     Two films about the Korean War7:23     Psychological manipulation of POWs10:59   Mental torture and the new duress15:36   A soldier's breaking point21:41   The U.S. Army's distorted view of torture as limited to physical pain25:35   The SERE and MK-Ultra programs28:24   The mind as a Cold War battlefield36:38   A satire of America's Cold War fears of communist domination39:01   Hyper-patriotism is the perfect foil for treason44:17   The remake of The Manchurian Candidate47:10   Conspiracy theories48:40   Psychological torture resurfaces after 9/11Further reading:Dougherty, Sara Harrison, “Early Cold War Combat Films and the Religion of Empire.” (PhD dissertation, Dep' of History, Univ. of Rochester, 2012)Hafetz, Ben, “The Glitz and Glam of Ideology: How the CIA and Department of Defense Use Hollywood Blockbusters as a Way of Propagating the Ideology of the American War Machine,” (B.A. thesis 2019)Hajjar, Lisa, “From The Manchurian Candidate to Zero Dark Thirty: Reading the CIA's History of Torture through Hollywood Thrillers,” Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v. 47, no. 2 (Winter 2017), 41-54 Seed, David, Brainwashing: The Fictions of Mind Control: A Study of Novels and Film (Kent State Univ. Press 2004)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

The title character in Michael Clayton is a “fixer” for a prominent New York City law firm. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) helps the firm's managing partner Marty Bach (Sidney Pollack) and his colleagues navigate tricky situations for the firm's wealthy clients, while seeking to manage challenges in his own personal and family life. The firm's top litigator, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) discovers that one of the firm's major clients, U-North, knew that its weed killer was carcinogenic and caused hundreds of deaths. When Arthur threatens to blow the whistle, U-North's General Counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) tries to silence him, with deadly consequences. Michael is forced to make a tough moral choice and decide who he really is.  Written and directed by Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton provides a gripping account of the shadowy intersection of law and power in America. Our guest to talk about this acclaimed film is Professor Margaret (“Peggy”) McGuinness of Saint John's University School of Law.Timestamps:0:00        Introduction4:24        Capturing the vibe of “big law” in New York7:15         The role of a “fixer”15:19      Class and power in New York City law firms19:08      Michael Clayton's many talents21:51      Tony Gilroy's understanding of the milieu22:53      Straddling different worlds29:04      Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) discovers corporate wrongdoing31:33      Should the “smoking gun” document have been disclosed? 35:40      Marty Bach (Sidney Pollack): a master of the game40:40      Did Marty know about the corporate espionage?43:39      How Michael ensnares U-North's Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton)48:18      What has changed for women in big law, and what hasn't52:52      Michael Clayton resolves his moral dilemma56:08      Film noir and the lawyer as outsider58:03      Lawyers crossing ethical lines1:01:22  A lesson about power and power structures1:03:19  A great legal film without any courtroom scenes1:07:26  “An extremist version of a vibe that is real”Further reading:Denby, David, “Lost Men,” New Yorker (2007)Herman, Donald H.J., “Character or Code: What Makes a Good and Ethical Lawyer,” 63 S.C. L. Rev. 339 (2011)Kamir, Orit, “Michael Clayton, Hollywood's Contemporary Hero-Lawyer: Beyond Outsider Within and Insider Without,” 42 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 829 (2009) McMillan, Lance, “Tortured Souls: Unhappy Lawyers Viewed through the Medium of Film,” 19 Seton Hall J. Sports & Ent. L. 31 (2009)Monson, Leigh, “Even Ten Years Later, ‘Michael Clayton' Remains Utterly Enigmatic” (Oct. 2017), https://substreammagazine.com/2017/10/ten-years-later-michael-clayton/ 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

The Mauritanian (2021) recounts Mohamedou Ould Slahi's nightmare journey of secret rendition, torture, and detention at Guantanamo Bay—an odyssey that lasted 15 years, until Mr. Slahi was finally released in 2016, never having been charged with a crime. The film is based on the book, Guantanamo Diary, which Mr. Slahi wrote and had published while still a prisoner at Guantanamo. The book became a critically acclaimed international bestseller. The film was directed by Kevin Macdonald and features Tahar Rahim as Mohamedou Slahi, Jodie Foster as Nancy Hollander, Mr. Slahi's lead lawyer, Shailene Woodley as Teri Duncan, her co-counsel, and Benedict Cumberbatch as Ltn. Col. Stuart Couch, the military officer assigned to prosecute Mr. Slahi. The film was nominated for and won numerous awards, including a Golden Globe for Jodi Foster's portrayal of Nancy Hollander. Our guests are Mohamedou Slahi, the former Guantanamo prisoner and now world-famous author, and Nancy Hollander, Mohamedou's attorney and a leading criminal defense attorney.Timestamps:0:00.       Introduction7:11        Mohamedou's nightmare begins10:47     What law?12:43      Habeas petition granted, but imprisonment continues18:51      Endless interrogations25:19      Mohamedou first hears he will face the death penalty28:08      Military prosecutor Stuart Couch takes a stand against torture32:19      Writing Guantanamo Diary in a new language34:34       “My life, 24/7 in darkness”37:01       “I have a vow of kindness”38:59:      Getting Mohamedou's story out of Guantanamo43:33        Mohamedou sees his book's success on Russian TV at Guantanamo48:17        The freedom that is inside you49:48        An advocate for Mohamedou before the Periodic Review Board50:57        “I needed a miracle” 53:26         Americans are supposed to be the good guys56:29         The near impossibility of leaving Guantanamo58:41         Mohamedou and his former guard, and friend, Steve Wood1:00:52     Don't give up; miracles can happen1:02:49     The long shadow of Guantanamo1:04:02     To be free again1:06:26     Capturing the small details about Guantanamo1:08:31      A small nit about the film1:11:14      What it's like to see yourself being portrayed on screenFurther reading:Bravin, Jess, “The Conscience of the Colonel,” Wall St. J. (Mar. 31, 2007)Coll, Steven, “An Eloquent Voice from Guantánamo,” N.Y.R.B. (Jan. 14, 2016)Hafetz, Jonathan, Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America's New Global Detention System (2011)Rosenberg, Carol, “The Legacy of America's Post-9/11 Turn to Torture,” N.Y. Times (Sept. 12. 2021)Slahi, Mohamedou Ould, Guantámao Diary (Larry Siems, ed.) (2015)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

My Cousin Vinny (1992) tells the story of two college students from New York (played by Ralph Maccio and Mitchell Whitfield) who are mistakenly arrested and charged with the murder of a store clerk in Alabama. They turn to one of their cousins, Vincent (“Vinny”) LaGuardia Gambini, played by Joe Pesci, for help. Vinny is a personal injury lawyer from Brooklyn who is newly admitted to the bar and has virtually no experience. But somehow Vinny, with the assistance of his savvy fiancé Mona Lisa Vito, played by Marisa Tomei in an Oscar-winning role, turns in a brilliant courtroom performance and gets the case dismissed. The script is by Dale Launer and direction by Jonathan Lynn.  Lane Smith plays the prosecutor and Fred Gwynne plays the judge whom Vinny spars with throughout the film. Our guest to discuss this classic American comedy about the law and lawyers is the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, one of the country's most prominent and influential jurists.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction    5:39     A fantastic—and funny—law movie  7:45     Vinny crossing the witness on the southern delicacy of grits11:12   The problem of wrongful eyewitness identification14:17   Vinny crossing the witness on her need for better glasses20:07   Judge Rakoff reflects on one his favorite cross-examinations21:47   Mona Lisa Vito's expert testimony25:16   Unpacking the Daubert standard29:09   One questionable ruling in the movie 32:33   The local community in jury trials35:47  A comedy about wrongful convictions40:00   A great trial movie but trials are vanishing43:11   No substitute for trial experience Further Reading:Anderson, Judge Joseph F. Jr., “Ten Things Every Trial Court Lawyer Could Learn from Vincent La Guardia Gambini,” South Carolina Lawyer (Jan. 2017)Bailey, Jason, “‘My Cousin Vinny' at 30: An Unlikely Oscar Winner,” N.Y. Times (Mar. 11, 2022)Bergman, Paul, “Teaching Evidence the ‘Reel' Way,”  21 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 973 (2003)Farr, Nick, “Abnormal Interviews: My Cousin Vinny Screenwriter/Co-Producer Dale Launer,” Abnormal Use: An Unreasonably Dangerous Products Liability Blog (Mar. 14, 2012)Greene, Andy, “‘What is a Yute?': An Oral History of ‘My Cousin Vinny,'” Rolling Stone (Mar. 7, 2022)Welk, Brian, “‘My Cousin Vinny' 25th Anniversary: Behind the Scene that Won Marisa Tomei Her Oscar,” The Wrap (Mar. 13, 2017) 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

We'll be taking a short break, but will be back in September with exciting new episodes.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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Fruitvale Station (2013) is based on the real-life events leading to the death of Oscar Grant III, a 22-year-old black man who was shot and killed by a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer on New Year's Day 2009 at the Fruitvale district station in Oakland, California. The film depicts the final day in Oscar Grant's life, interspersed with flashbacks from his past, which together provide a richly layered picture a young man whose life was tragically cut short. The film was written and directed by Ryan Coogler  (in his first feature film), and stars Michael B. Jordan as Oscar Grant, Melonia Diaz as his girlfriend, and Octavia Spencer as Oscar's mother. Fruitvale Station not only provides a moving account of Oscar Grant's final day, but also presents a chilling indictment of police violence and the role that race still plays in perpetuating it. I am joined by Professor Michael Pinard of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Professor Pinard is a nationally recognized expert on criminal law, race and the criminal justice system, and the challenges faced by individuals with criminal convictions when reintegrating into society. Timestamps:0:00   Introduction4:18    Impressions of the film when it came out and today7:23    Living in the shadow of the criminal justice system9:25    Bystander recordings and their impact13:14  The challenges of prosecuting police violence17:17  The humanity of Oscar Grant18:53  How white and black people perceive law enforcement differently21:40  The fleeting nature of life for many black and brown Americans24:58  “The talk”26:45  What's changed since Oscar Grant's death, and what hasn't33:44  The need for a film about the school to prison pipeline37:09  The parents of the incarcerated Further reading:Cummings, André Douglas Pond, “Reforming Police,” 10 Drexel L. Rev. 573 (2018)Fan, Mary D., Camera Power: Proof, Policing, Privacy, and Audiovisual Big Data (Univ. Cambridge Press 2018)Pinard, Michael, “Poor Black and ‘Wanted': Criminal Justice in Ferguson and Baltimore,” 58 Howard L.J. 857 (2015)Schwartz, Joanna, Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (Viking 2023)Simonson, Jocelyn, “Beyond Body Cameras: Defending a Robust Right to Record the Police,” 104 Geo. L.J. 1559 (2016)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode examines Argentina, 1985 (2022) (directed by Santiago Mitre) and the documentary, Granito: How to Nail a Dictator (2011) (directed by Pamela Yates). Both works engage with questions of transitional justice, or how societies confront mass atrocities committed by a prior repressive regime. Argentina, 1985 depicts the Trial of the Juntas in Argentina, where a prosecution team led by Julio César Strassera (Ricardo Darín) and future-ICC chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo (Peter Lanzani), sought to bring leaders of Argentina's former military dictatorship to justice for human rights abuses committed during the so-called Dirty War. Granito: How to Nail a Dictator depicts long-running efforts to hold accountable Guatemalan General Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide and other atrocities committed during Guatemala's brutal civil war.  Our guest is Rachel López, Associate Professor of Law at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Drexel University. Professor López is a widely recognized expert on transitional justice and has studied efforts to hold former leaders responsible for mass abuses in Guatemala and elsewhere.Timestamps:0:00  Introduction4:15  Defining transitional justice6:47  The “Dirty War” in Argentina10:04  Overcoming the public's blind faith in the military12:42  Appealing to multiple audiences in accountability trials16:18 The Prosecutors in Argentina: Julio César Strassera & Luis Moreno Ocampo 21:38  Argentina's trial of military leaders in historical context25:46  Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo and the role of civil society31:02  The parallels between the atrocities in Argentina and Guatemala33:38  The challenges of holding leaders responsible (i.e., nailing a dictator)37:56  The “boomerang effect”: universal jurisdiction and the litigation in Spain 42:01  The significance of the genocide prosecution in Guatemala 44:54  The risks of relying too much on trials in transitional justice50:10  The discovery of the records of Guatemalan National Police51:54  Investigating atrocities53:28  The implications of failing to reckon with the past56:06  America's role in the atrocities in Argentina and Guatemala58:08  The trials' legacy and lessons for the U.S. Further reading:Engle, Karen,  Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016) López, Rachel E., "The (Re)Collection of Memory after Mass Atrocity and the Dilemma for Transitional Justice," 48 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 799 (2015)Guatemala: Never Again, The Official Report of the Human Rights Office, Archbishop of Guatemala (1999)Nunca Más, The Report of the Argentine National Commission on the Disappeared (1986)Roht-Arriaza, Naomi, The Pinochet Effect: Transitional Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Univ. of Penn. Press, 2005)Sikkink, Kathryn, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics (W.W. Norton and Company, 2011) Teitel, Ruti G., Transitional Justice (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) depicts the trial of Nazi judges before the U.S. military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, following World War II. The film was directed by Stanley Kramer from a screenplay by Abbie Mann; it features a sensational cast that includes Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Maximilian Schell (who won an Oscar for best actor), Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, Montgomery Clift, and William Shatner.  The film provides a gripping account of the “Judges' Trial” or "Justice Case" (as it has become known), exploring issues around individual and collective guilt, the challenges facing tribunals seeking to punish mass atrocities, and the quest for peace and justice after the horrors of World War II.  In many respects, the film remains as relevant today as it was when it was first released. I'm joined by Professor Kevin Jon Heller, a renowned scholar of international criminal law and leading expert on the Nuremberg tribunals. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction4:25     Tribute to Ben Ferencz6:31     A gutsy movie for its time9:03     The historical context for the Justice Case13:18   The charges against the defendants16:21   Individual and collective responsibility21:05   The concentration camp footage26:15   Defendants were not neutral officials just following the law32:36   The judges should have known better35:14   The political pressures on the tribunal39:40   Germany's slow reckoning with its Nazi past44:20   How the film speaks to us today51:26   Telford Taylor: Ahead of his time53:04   An enlightened portrayal of defense attorneys54:41   The U.S. gave Nazis fair trials but can't provide fair trials at GuantanamoFurther reading:Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (revised ed. 1994)Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History (‎St. Martin's Press 2007)Heller, Kevin Jon, The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2011), https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-nuremberg-military-tribunals-and-the-origins-of-international-criminal-law-9780199554317?cc=us&lang=enKing, Susan, “‘Judgment at Nuremberg' 50 Years Later,” L.A. Times (Oct. 11, 2011), https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2011-oct-11-la-et-nuremberg-film-20111011-story.htmlMcNamee, Eugene & Andrews, Maria, “‘Judgment at Nuremberg': Hollywood Takes the International Criminal Law Stand,” 6 London Rev. Int'l L. 75 (2018)Shale, Susanne, “The Conflicts of Law and the Character of Men: Writing Reversal of Fortune and Judgment at Nuremberg,” 30 U.S.F. L. Rev. 991 (1996)Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (Knopf 1992)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

12 Angry Men (1957) remains one of the greatest courtroom dramas. Directed by Sidney Lumet from a screenplay by Reginald Rose, the film stars Henry Fonda as the hold-out juror among his peers who are ready to quickly convict a teenager charged with murder in a New York court.  Through a series of dramatic moments, Fonda eventually persuades his fellow jurors that there remains a reasonable doubt about the defendant's innocence, forcing them to address their own preconceptions and prejudices in the process. Fonda (who coproduced the film), teams up with a sensational ensemble cast that includes Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, and Jack Klugman. I'm joined by Elkan Abramowitz, one of America's leading criminal defense attorneys, whose many notable clients include Woody Allen, to explore why 12 Angry Men remains essential viewing even as much has changed about the American jury system since it was made.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:48     Why 12 Angry Men still resonates today5:15     How juries have changed6:47     Why serving on a jury can be so meaningful10:04   The beyond a reasonable doubt standard15:01   Bigotry and prejudice in the jury room 17:28   Selecting the jury22:59   Group dynamics on juries26:24   The problem with eyewitness cases28:01   Jurors doing outside research30:56   The vanishing jury 34:07   Just down the block: New York v.  Trump39:26   How juries deliberate43:22   Why the film holds up so wellFurther Reading: Asimow, Michael, “'12 Angry Men': A Revisionist View,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 711 (2007), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095488Ellsworth, Phoebe C., “One Inspiring Jury,” 101 Mich. L. Rev. 1387 (2003), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=reviewsGertner, Nancy, “‘12 Angry Men' (and Women) in Federal Court,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 613 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=cklawreviewHans, Valerie P., “Deliberation and Dissent: ‘12 Angry Men' vs. The Empirical Reality of Juries,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev., 579 (2007), https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=facpubLandsman, Stephan, “Mad about '12 Angry Men,'” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 749 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=cklawreviewpMartin, Adrian, “Review: ‘12 Angry Men,'” https://www.filmcritic.com.au/reviews/t/12_angry_men.htmlWeisselberg, Charles D., “Good Film, Bad Jury,” 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 717 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3598&context=cklawreview  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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

Kramer v. Kramer (1979) and Marriage Story (2019) reflect major shifts in the legal and social landscape around marriage, divorce, and child custody over the last four decades.  Kramer v. Kramer, written and directed by Robert Benton, and starring Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, and Jane Alexander, captured the zeitgeist of its era, becoming the top grossing film of 1979 and sweeping the Oscars; Marriage Story, written and directed by Noah Baumbach, and starring Adam Driver, Scarlet Johansson, Laura Dern, Alan Alda, and Ray Liotta, offers a gripping depiction of the disintegration of a marriage in America today.  We are joined by Solangel Maldonado, a professor at Seton Hall Law School and leading expert on family law in the United States. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:28     What's changed and what hasn't since Kramer v. Kramer6:46     The legal challenges for fathers seeking custody circa 197912:01   Why Ted Kramer lost the court case (the tender years presumption)18:59   How Kramer v. Kramer captured the zeitgeist23:47  Nicole's (Scarlett Johansson's) decision move to LA in Marriage Story28:10   The role of the lawyers in Marriage Story35:55   A failed attempt at mediation40:52   Divorce lawyers see good people at their worst 42:00   How views of fathers and mothers have and have not evolved 45:05   Advice for Noah Baumbach: clarify the jurisdictional issuesFurther Reading:Asimow, Michael, “Divorce in the Movies: From the Hays Code to Kramer v. Kramer” 24 Legal Studies Forum, 221 (2000)Breihan, Tom, “Four decades before ‘Marriage Story,' a quintessential divorce drama swept the Oscars,” A.V. Club (Feb 7, 2020)Eggert, Brian, “Kramer v. Kramer,” Deep Focus Review (Sept. 12, 2019) Emery, Robert E., Op-ed, “How Divorced Parents Lost Their Rights” N.Y. Times (Sept. 6. 2014)Maldonado, Solangel, Cultivating Forgiveness: Reducing Hostility and Conflict After Divorce, 43 Wake Forest L. Rev. 441 (2008), http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp content/uploads/2014/10/Maldonado_LawReview_4.08.pdf Gordinier, Jeff, “Noah Baumbach Had to Live and Love Before He Made ‘Marriage Story,'” Esquire (Dec. 6. 2019)Rebouché, Rachel, A Case Against Collaboration, 76 Md. L. Rev. 547 (2017), https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol76/iss3/2/  Searles, Jourdain, “‘Kramer v. Kramer' v. ‘Marriage Story,'” N.Y. Times (Nov. 12, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/opinion/marriage-story-kramer-vs-kramer.html  Tobias, Scott, “'Kramer vs Kramer' at 40: a flawed film that remains a deserving classic,” The Guardian (Dec. 11, 2019)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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode examines The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020), written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, with an all-star cast, including Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Rylance, and Frank Langella. The film is based on the 1969 trial of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and other anti-Vietnam War protestors prosecuted for conspiracy in connection with the mass protests —and brutal crackdown by police—at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (The eighth defendant, Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, was severed from the case after being bound and gagged in the courtroom on the judge's order). Our guest is Gerald Lefcourt, who not only is a leading criminal defense attorney, but also was part of the original defense team at the trial and represented Abbie Hoffman for over two decades.Timestamps:0:00 Introduction3:33 Meeting Abbie Hoffman 8:06 Nixon targets the Chicago 7 (then Chicago 8)11:58 The defense team13:25 The egregious treatment of Bobby Seale  22:45. Judge Hoffman: off his rocker25:54  The genius of Abbie Hoffman and the art of political theater30:36 David Dellinger and the MOBE31:59  Abbie, Tom Hayden, and dueling strategies on the left37:21  Abbie: “We have to steal the headlines”41:22  Abbie takes on the CIA43:50  Abbie and Jerry Rubin46:04  The celebrity witnesses48:08  What Aaron Sorkin missed51:33  Abbie's excellent tennis game55:37  Losing battles and winning wars in political cases59:53 The Chicago 7 trial's relevance today1:02:31  Abbie's later career1:07:09  Abbie's final speech Further Reading:Hancock, Catherine, “Race and Disorder: The Chicago Eight Trial Judge and Prosecutors Meet the Constitution and Bobby Seale,” 96 Tul. L. Rev. 819 (2022)Levine, Mark L. & Greenberg, Daniel eds., The Trial of the Chicago 7: The Official Transcript (2020)Levenson, Laurie L., “Judicial Ethics: Lessons from the Chicago Eight Trial,” 50 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 879 (2019)Linder, Douglas O. “The Chicago 8 Conspiracy Trial,” http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.htmlMailer, Norman, Miami and the Siege of Chicago (1968)Sims, David, “Aaron Sorkin's New Film Is the Right Story for This Moment,” The Atlantic (Oct. 16, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/trial-of-the-chicago-7-aaron-sorkin-netflix/616755/Schultz, John, The Conspiracy Trial of the Chicago Seven (2020)Stevens, Dana, “The Trial of the Chicago 7 Is Timely, a Little Sexist, and a Lot of Fun,” Slate, Oct. 14, 2020, https://slate.com/culture/2020/10/trial-chicago-7-review-aaron-sorkin-movie-netflix.htmlWeiner, Jon, Conspiracy in the Streets: The Extraordinary Trial of the Chicago EightLaw 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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode looks at two films from the “War on Terrorism”: Zero Dark Thirty (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written Mark Boal; and The Report (2019), written and directed by Scott Z. Burns. Zero Dark Thirty, which stars Jessica Chastain as a CIA agent, depicts the nearly decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Report, which stars Adam Driver, examines the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, into the CIA's detention and interrogation program. The films are often in dialogue with each other, and offer competing accounts of the U.S. government's embrace of torture after 9/11.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:00     How the films offer dueling accounts of the post-9/11 era5:59     Zero Dark Thirty's problematic depiction of torture9:53     The real-life model for Zero Dark Thirty's Maya (Jessica Chastain)? 13:10   The CIA's Bin Laden unit15:49   The “forever war” 21:22   Legacies of the “war on terror” 23:24   The Senate Select Intelligence Committee investigation 26:06   Lawyers and the CIA torture program33:20   The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force35:11   SERE Program: Psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen 37:15   Abu Zubaydah: The first prisoner in the CIA torture program 42:17   The Report and the problem of asking “Did torture work”?48:15   The myth of American exceptionalismFurther Reading:Cole, David, “Taking Responsibility for Torture,” New Yorker (Dec. 9, 2014), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/taking-responsibility-torture Coll, Steve, “'Disturbing' and ‘Misleading': Judging Zero Dark Thirty's claims to journalism,” New York Review of Books (Feb. 7, 2013), nybooks.com/articles/2013/02/07/disturbing-misleading-zero-dark-thirty/ Greenberg, Karen, “How Zero Dark Thirty Brought Back the Bush Administration,” TomDispatch (Jan. 10, 2013),  https://tomdispatch.com/karen-greenberg-how-zero-dark-thirty-brought-back-the-bush-administration/Mayer, Jane, “Zero Conscience in ‘Zero Dark Thirty',” New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/zero-conscience-in-zero-dark-thirty “Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program (Executive Summary) (Dec. 2014), https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdfSeibold, Witney, “The Zero Dark Thirty Controversy: Explained,” Slashfilm, (updated Nov. 28, 2021), https://www.slashfilm.com/671508/the-zero-dark-thirty-controversy-explained/Wright, Lawrence, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Knopf, 2007)      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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode explores Anatomy of a Murder (1959), the legendary courtroom drama produced and directed by Otto Preminger. The film features an outstanding cast, including Jimmy Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, George C. Scott, and Eve Arden. It also includes the real-life Joseph N. Welch, who played a key role in finally taking down Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. The film is widely regarded as one of the best courtroom dramas in the history of cinema. Joshua Dratel, a leading criminal defense attorney, joins as my guest expert to help examine this memorable film and to break down  its timeless insights into the American criminal trial.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction4:30     What makes a great courtroom drama?8:50     Paul Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) interviews his client (Ben Gazzara) 16:04   Coming up with the defense of “irresistible impulse”19:00   The role of cross-examination 26:22   Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) gets his defense in through cross-examination29:08   The motive and the act in criminal law33:43   Managing a defendant's family 38:58   Dressing your client for court40:57   Attacking the victim: who's on trial here? 43:18   Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) grills Laura Manion (Lee Remick)45:48   Impeaching the jailhouse informant48:52   Grappling with questions of rape and consent circa 195951:13   Asking a witness one question too many  54:36  A classic reasonable doubt case58:06   Poetic justice: Biegler is retained on a new case and his practice survives1:01:41 Legal realism in fiction: None of it happened, but it's all trueFurther Reading:Bogdanovich, Peter, Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors (Alfred A. Knopf, 1997)Christley, Jamie N., “Otto Preminger's ‘Anatomy of a Murder' on the Criterion Collection” Slant Magazine (Feb. 24, 2012), https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/anatomy-of-a-murder/Fidler, John, “‘Anatomy of a Murder,'” Sense of Cinema (Mar. 2013), https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2013/cteq/anatomy-of-a-murder/Huff, Timothy, “Anatomy of a Murder,” Legal Studies Forum vol. 24, issues 3 & 4, p. 661 (2000)Nerdwriter1, “Anatomy of ‘Anatomy of a Murder'” (video), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Tm-7DvR2c Tarr, Nina W., “A Different Ethical Issue in ‘Anatomy of a Murder': Friendly Fire from the Cowboy-Lawyer,” Journal of the Legal Profession vol. 32, pp. 137-60 (2008) Tobias, Scott, “‘Anatomy of a Murder,'” A.V. Club (Mar. 14, 2012), https://www.avclub.com/anatomy-of-a-murder-1798171960  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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

This episode examines Breaker Morant, the 1980 Australian New Wave film depicting the military trial of Harry ("Breaker") Morant and two other Australian soldiers for war crimes committed during the Second Boer War in South Africa. The film, directed by Bruce Beresford, offers a gripping account of the trial and raises a host of questions about law and justice during wartime--questions that are as relevant today as they were when the trial took place more than a century ago. I am joined on this episode by veteran attorney Michel Paradis, who has served as military defense counsel in landmark war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay and who has written widely about issues of international law and military justice. Michel is a lecturer at Columbia Law School in New York and a partner at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP. Timestamps:0:00       Introduction    6:15     An age-old question: Can you deny justice to the guilty?8:04     Breaker Morant as both courtroom drama and western9:14     Who was Harry "Breaker" Morant?9:54     A new kind of war?12:08   People who commit atrocities don't usually think they're the bad guys15:10   The superior orders defense20:22   The politics of war crimes trial28:28   The defense lawyer as hero in legal dramas37:36   Did the defendants get a fair trial?40:00   The law of reprisals46:20   Echoes of the My Lai massacre case49:17   Defense counsel's closing: War changes men's nature50:44   The Australian New Wave51:49   The trial's aftermath57:24   Why should everyone see this film?Further reading:Boslaugh, Sarah, “'Breaker Morant' Is an Epic Tale, Set during the Boer War,” Pop Matters (Oct. 15, 2015), https://www.popmatters.com/breaker-morant-2495479235.htmlBuckmaster, Luke, “'Breaker Morant': rewatching classic Australian films,” The Guardian (June 19, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/film/australia-culture-blog/2014/jun/19/breaker-morant-rewatching-classic-australian-filmsDavies, Glenn, “Criminal or hero: The life of ‘Breaker' Morant,” Independent Australia (Mar. 4, 2022), https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/criminal-or-hero-the-life-of-breaker-morant,16113Gardner, Susan, “Can you imagine anything more Australian?: Bruce Beresford's 'Breaker Morant'” Kunapipi, vol. 3, issue 1 (1981), https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1094&context=kunapipiSinyard, Neil, “'Breaker Morant': Scapegoats of Empire,” The Criterion Collection (Sept. 23, 2015), https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3713-breaker-morant-scapegoats-of-empire        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.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm