Podcasts about seton hall law school

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with performance management, workplace dynamics, and employer liabilities. Mark F. Kluger practices exclusively in the area of labor and employment law on behalf of employers. For ten years, before founding Kluger Healey, LLC, he was Chairman of the Labor and Employment Department of one of New Jersey's oldest law firms. Mark is a frequent speaker and writer on sexual harassment and discrimination avoidance, workplace diversity, performance management, union avoidance, and a myriad of other employment-related subjects and regularly conducts training sessions for employers on these critical topics. In addition, Mark has extensive experience in counseling employers on issues involving discipline and discharge, reductions in force, mergers and acquisitions, compliance with wage and hour, disability, COBRA, and family and medical leave laws. He regularly drafts all forms of employment policies and handbooks, severance agreements, employment contracts, non-competition and confidentiality agreements, and affirmative action plans. Mark also represents employers in collective bargaining, grievance arbitration, NLRB proceedings, and picket line issues. Mark graduated from Vassar College in 1984 and Cornell University Law School in 1987. He was an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall Law School from 1991-1996 and served as a member and President of the Board of Education in North Caldwell, New Jersey from 2002-2008. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

This episode explores An Officer and a Spy (J'accuse in French), Roman Polanski's 2019 film about the Dreyfus Affair in France. The Dreyfus Affair is one of most significant events in late 19th/early 20th century, an event whose implications reverberated for decades in France and around the world. The Dreyfus Affair centered around the military trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus on charges of treason. Wrongly convicted based on secret evidence and false information, Dreyfus's case would become a cause célèbres and synonymous with a miscarriage of justice. It also exposed and exacerbated tensions within French society while underscoring deep and pervasive levels of antisemitism.  Based on Robert Harris's 2013 novel of the same name, An Officer and a Spy focuses on the role of George Picquart, the military officer who helps uncover the truth behind Dreyfus's wrongful conviction, and Picquart's complex relationship with Dreyfus himself. Hewing closely to historical fact, the film highlights critical issues around law, truth, and justice, at the heart of the Dreyfus affair and why it remains so relevant today. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction 3:02      An overview of the Dreyfus case and key players 5:54.     Georges Picquart 13:14.    The struggle to overturn Dreyfus's conviction 17:54     Tensions over the Dreyfus affair and a lack of accountability 20:48    The “evidence” in the Dreyfus case 25:38     How the Dreyfus affair divided French society 30:16     Other films about the Dreyfus affair 33:54     The controversy around Roman Polanski as director 39:21      Legacies of the Dreyfus affair 45:13      The role of Colonel Henry Further reading: Begley, Louis, Why the Dreyfus Affair Matters (2009) Bredin, Jean‑Denis, The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus (1986) Doherty, Thomas, “From Méliès to Polanski: The Dreyfus Affair on Film,” Cineaste (2020) Harris, Robert, An Officer and a Spy (2013) Read, Piers Paul, The Dreyfus Affair: The Scandal That Tore France in Two (2013) Samuels, Maurice, Alfred Dreyfus: The Man at the Center of the Affair (2024) Zola, Émile, The Dreyfus Affair: J'Accuse and Other Writings (1998)  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 examines Juror #2, Clint Eastwood's most recent—and perhaps final—film. Juror #2 centers around the trial of a man accused of murdering his girlfriend after a fight at a bar, leaving her in a ditch by the side of a road. The twist comes early: Justin Kemp a/k/a Juror #2 (played by Nicholas Hoult) soon realizes that the wrong man is on trial—as he hears the evidence, Kemp figures out that he, and not the defendant, killed the victim. Kemp realizes that he accidentally hit the defendant's girlfriend with his car while she was walking along the side of a road on a dark and rainy night—thinking at the time, that he had hit a deer. Kemp, otherwise portrayed as a good man—a loving husband with a baby on the way—must navigate the moral dilemma as he serves on a jury that seems prepared to condemn an innocent man. Eastwood's first courtroom drama in a long and legendary career, Juror #2 explores themes of justice, morality, and the imperfections of the legal system. Timestamps:0:00      Introduction2:46       A flawed process7:05       The ex-police detective on the jury and the motion for a mistrial15:40     The lawyer's problematic advice23:16     A prosecutor who eventually does the right thing27:17      The public defender31:28      A good person caught in terrible circumstances?40:40    Missing scenes in the legal narrative44:46     A dark picture of the U.S. criminal justice systemFurther reading:“A Forensic Review of ‘Juror #2,'” J. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 53(1) (2025)  Banner, Adam, “Honesty in jury pool examined in ‘Juror #2,'” ABA Bar Journal (Jan. 28, 2025)Brody, Richard, “In ‘Juror #2,' Clint Eastwood Judges the System Harshly,” New Yorker (Oct 30, 2024)Melonic, Emina, “The Storytelling of Clint Eastwood,” Law & Liberty (Jan. 10, 2025)Upendra, Chidella, “The Ethical Vision of Clint Eastwood,” Journal of Religion & Film, vol. 17(2) (Oct. 2013)Zagha, Muriel, “Clint Eastwood's Puritan Morality Tale,” Engelsberg Ideas (Dec. 2, 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

Vindication Swim (2024) tells the story of Mercedes Gleitze, the first British woman to swim the English Channel in 1927. This major accomplishment, however, was soon called into question when another swimmer made a dubious claim to the same feat. To defend her integrity and her legacy, Gleitze (Kirsten Callaghan) attempted what she called her “vindication swim” — a second crossing of the English Channel intended to silence her critics and restore her reputation. Vindication Swim is about more than an athletic feat. It also raises timeless questions of proof, reputation, and justice, while providing a window into the barriers imposed by gender and class in early 20th-century England. Timestamps:0:00    Introduction2:14     Who was Mercedes Gleitz?5:14     Training to play Mercedes Gleitz6:14     Gleitz's 1927 English Channel swim is called into question8:58     A key event for women in open water swimming11:22     The intersection of gender, class, and nationality16:02   An impetus for regulating open water swimming17:46    The vindication swim20:49   The challenges in filming the swim24:35:   Raising awareness about a historical injustice29:08   Restoring Mercedes Gleitz to prominenceFurther Reading:“Mercedes Gleitze and the Vindication Swim,” LoneSwimmer (Oct. 18, 2013)Pember, Doloranda, In the Wake of Mercedes Gleitze: Open Water Swimming Pioneer (2019)Thorpe, Vanessa, “‘No stunt doubles for me,' says actor who braved Channel to recreate epic swim,” The Guardian (Mar. 2, 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

Matt Skinner is a public defender with passion. Criminal defense is high-stakes, sometimes chaotic work that can be extremely difficult, but Matt navigates the courts, clients, and his career with genuine sincerity and excitement. As a lawyer for those who are accused of felonies but cannot afford a lawyer, his love for underdogs fuels his advocacy. It was a profound experience in high school, however, that set him on this path. On a high school trip to the local jail, he ran into two of his friends--behind bars. Matt is a 2018 graduate of Seton Hall Law School.This episode is hosted by Katya Valasek.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Rutgers LawLearn more about Vermont LawAccess LawHub today!Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawLearn more about Rutgers Law

Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather (1972) is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. Based on Mario Puzo's best-selling 1969 novel, The Godfather depicts the rise and legacy of the Corleone family, a fictional Italian-American organized crime family led by Vito Corleone and the transformation of his son Michael from a reluctant outsider to a ruthless mafia boss. The film, which features an ensemble cast of American film icons, including Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duval, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and John Cazale, explores themes of family, power, and the American Dream. It also provides a window into the relationship between law and culture while offering complex perspectives on the meaning of justice. Timestamps: 0:00     Introduction 3:08     “I believe in America” 12:27    Business and the personal 14:07    Competing views of law and justice in America 16:57    The legitimate and illegitimate, the sacred and the profane20:52   Narratives about the mafia 26:59   The consigliere 33:59   Tensions between tradition and modernity 39:37    Ritual44:41    Performance and power 49:11     Retribution 55:18     The mafia and The Godfather 56:48    Codes of loyalty 102:39   The immigrant experience Further reading: Barber, Nicholas, “The Godfather: Have we misunderstood America's greatest film?”, BBC (Mar. 13, 2022) Coppola, Francis Ford, The Godfather Notebook (2016) Denvir, John, “The Slotting Function: How Movies Influence Political Decision,” 28 Vermont L. Rev. 799 (2003-04) Gambrell, Brian C., “Leave the Representation, Take the Cannoli: The Crime Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and ‘The Godfather,'” 23 South Carolina Lawyer (2011-12) Papke, David, “Myth and Meaning: Francis Ford Coppola and Popular Response to The Godfather Trilogy,” in Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Text (John Denvir ed., 1996) Puzo, Mario, The Godfather (1969) Seal, Mark, Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli: The Epic Story of the Making of The Godfather (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/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

No Other Land (2024) is the Oscar-winning documentary that shows the brutal destruction of a Palestinian community in the occupied West Bank. Recorded between 2019 to 2023, the film tells the story of Basel Adra, a young Palestinian activist, who has been protesting the Israeli army's destruction of homes and eviction of villagers. Adra is assisted by Yuval Abraham, a Jewish Israeli journalist. (They are also two of the film's four directors). To Adra and other Palestinians, the Israeli army is destroying their homeland. The Israeli army, however, maintains that the inhabitants are on land that the military needs for live-fire military training and that the evictions have been duly authorized by Israeli courts. The situation turns violent—Adra's cousin is shot by Israeli soldiers in the days after the Oct 7 attacks—and Adra himself is endangered by his efforts to record the evictions and protests. The film provides a penetrating look not only at a Palestinian community in the West Bank but also at the plight of those being forced off their land--with literally nowhere else to go. [Editor's Note: Since the recording of this episode, Odeh Hathalin, a Palestinian activist and contributor to the film, was shot and killed in a village in Masafer Yatta by an Israeli settler.]Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:42      Masafar Yatta and the Occupied West Bank7:43      The legal apparatus of illegal occupation13:14    The “Gazafication” of the West Bank20:08   The meaning of “No Other Land”23:21    Israel and the international community31:24    The crackdown on free speech in the United States and in Israel34:41    A complex story of an Israeli-Palestinian friendship41:18     The power of images43:07    Growing Israeli indifference to Gaza and the West Bank after Oct. 748:30    The film's reception in Israel 49:53    Law-based criticism of Israel and antisemitism Further reading:Bartov, Omer, “I'm a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It,” New York Times (July 15, 2025)Beinart, Peter, Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (2025)Caplan, Neil, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories (2010)Hajjar, Lisa, “International Humanitarian Law and ‘Wars on Terror': A Comparative Analysis of Israeli and American Doctrines and Policies,” 36 Journal of Palestine Studies 36 (Autumn 2006)Kaufman, Anthony, "No Other Distribution: How Film Industry Economics and Politics Are Suppressing Docs Sympathetic to Palestine and Critical of Israel," Int'l Documentary Ass'n (Jan 15, 2025)Khalidi, Rashid, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017 (2020)Lukenville, Mackenzie, “The Only Path Forward: ‘No Other Land,'” Int'l Documentary Ass'n (Dec. 5, 2024)Sfard, Michael, Occupation from Within: A Journey to the Roots of the Constitutional Coup (2025)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 Return of Martin Guerre is a 1982 French historical drama directed by Daniel Vigne and staring Gerard Depardieu. The film describes the historical case of Martin Guerre who leaves his young wife Bertrande (Nathalie Baye) in the small French village of Artigat to fight in a war and travel. Around eight years later, the false Martin (played by Depardieu) returns to the village to resume his life. The false Martin (whose real name is Arnaud du Tilh) persuades the people in the village that he is in fact Martin Guerre. This includes Bertrande, who goes on to have two children with the false Martin and who seems happy to finally have a husband who loves her, as opposed to the real Martin, with whom she was trapped in an arranged and loveless marriage. But when the imposter Martin presses his uncle for the money he is owed for his land, the uncle denounces him as a fraud. An investigation and trial follow to determine if the Depardieu character is the real Martin. The imposter Martin is on the verge of winning until the real Martin shows up at the last minute, exposing the imposter Martin, who then confesses. The imposter (i.e., Arnaud) is then led to the gallows and hanged, and the real Martin resumes his place in the village.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction2:56      Teaching comparative law through film4:18       A quick primer on French legal history7:33       Jean de Coras and the Parliament of Toulouse11:28      How the false Martin Guerre becomes Martin Guerre16:12      The allegations against Martin and Bertrande21:01      The trial of Martin Guerre25:16      How the false Martin almost pulls it off27:26     The execution31:29      Religious conflict in 16th century Europe34:59     The difficulty of proving identity at the time Further reading:Bienen, Leigh Buchanan, Book Review, “The Law as Storyteller,” 98 Harv. L. Rev. 494 (1984)Davis, Natalie Zemon, The Return of Martin Guerre (1983)Dellapenna, Joseph, “Peasants, Tanners, and Psychiatrists: Using Films to Teach Comparative Law,” 36 (1) Int'l J. Legal Information 156 (2008)Finlay, Robert, “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre,” 93(3) Am. Hist. Rev. 553 (1988)Hall, Phyllis A., “Teaching Analytical Thinking through the AHR Forum and ‘The Return of Martin Guerre'” Perspectives on History (Jan. 1, 1990)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 examines The Conformist, Bernardo Bertolucci's 1970 political drama set in 1930s Italy. The film centers on Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a mid-level Fascist functionary who is ordered to assassinate his former professor, an anti-fascist dissident living in Paris. The film, which includes many flashbacks to Clerici's early life and decision to join the secret police, provides powerful and chilling insights into the psychology of conformism and fascism The film, widely considered one of the greatest ever made, not only features outstanding performances but also superb production design (Fernando Scarfiotti) and cinematography (Vittorio Storaro) that helps capture Italy under Mussolini. The film is as timely today as it was when it was released, as the world witnesses a resurgence of authoritarianism in the United States and Europe.Timestamps:0:00      Introduction3:45       Fascist Italy under Mussolini7:58       Why Clerici joins the fascists12:39     Repression of sexual orientation and the desire to belong14:10      Why people are vulnerable to fascism18:56      Manganiello and the fascist enforcer23:43     Perspectives on normalcy and the scenes in Paris31:56      How the film speaks to the Trump era36:40     Architecture in Mussolini's Italy39:08     The murder of Quadri and Anna44:39     After Mussolini falls50:30     The lack of consequences for going along with fascism 56:04     The Holocaust in Mussolini's Italy      Further reading:Bosworth, R.J.B., Mussolini's Italy: Life under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 (2006)Elbiri, Bilge, “It's Time to See ‘The Conformist' Again,” Vulture (Jan. 14, 2023)Huq, Aziz, "America Is Watching the Rise of a Dual State," The Atlantic (Mar. 23. 2025)Kael, Pauline, “‘The Conformist': The Poetry of Images,” New Yorker (Mar. 27, 1971)   Moravia, Alberto, The Conformist (1951)Musil, Robert, The Man Without Qualities (1930-43) 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

Dark Waters (2019), directed by Todd Haynes, tells the real-life story of how a lawyer, Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), waged a twenty-year battle to hold the DuPont corporation accountable for contaminating a local water supply with carcinogenic chemicals that poisoned tens of thousands of people. While Bilott is ultimately able to achieve some degree of compensation and justice for the victims, the film shows the challenges of litigating against a powerful company bent on denying responsibility and covering up its misconduct.  Timestamps:0:00       Introduction2:35        The origins: a small case for a family friend back home6:24        Teflon and the “miracle” chemical10:24      How attorney Rob Bilott uncovers the pollution13:49      Getting the Taft firm on board21:50      Addressing the legal challenges in the case 24:30     Medical monitoring and causation in toxic tort cases28:36      Divisions in the community, financial pressures, and client management30:30     DuPont's clout35:14       Bellwether trials: trying the cases in court39:44      What the litigation achieved and the continued challenges46:27      The risks of “forever chemicals”49:50      Developments since the film was released55:43      Can the legal system deliver justice?1:01:53    Some further developmentsFurther reading:Bilott, Robert, Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer's Twenty-Year Battle against DuPont (Atria Books 2019)Carucci, Rob, “Leadership Lessons from Rob Bilott's 20 Year Battle for Justice Against DuPont,” Forbes (July 12, 2021)Nevitt, Mark P. & Percival, Robert V., “Can Environmental Law Solve the ‘Forever Chemical' Problem,” 57 Wake Forest L. Rev. 239 (2022)Rich, Nathaniel, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare,” N.Y. Times Magazine (Jan. 6, 2016)Small, Sarah Chen, Note, “Toxic Film: Analyzing the Impact of Films Depicting Major Contamination Events on the Regulation of Toxic Chemicals,” 35 Georgetown Env. L. Rev. 561 (2023)Tabuchi, Hiroko, “Trump Administration to Uphold Some PFAS Limits but Eliminate Others,” N.Y. Times (May 14, 2025) 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 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

No, social media might no longer be the greatest danger to our children's well-being. According to the writer and digital activist Gaia Bernstein, the most existential new new threat are AI companions. Bernstein, who is organizing a symposium today on AI companions as the “new frontier of kid's screen addiction”, warns that this new technology, while marketed as solutions to loneliness, may actually worsen social isolation by providing artificially perfect relationships that make real-world interactions seem more difficult. Bernstein raises concerns about data collection, privacy, and the anthropomorphization of AI that makes children particularly vulnerable. She advocates for regulation, especially protecting children, and notes that while major tech companies like Google and Facebook are cautious about directly entering this space, smaller companies are aggressively developing AI companions designed to hook our kids. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways in our conversation with Bernstein:* AI companions represent a concerning evolution of screen addiction, where children may form deep emotional attachments to AI that perfectly adapts to their needs, potentially making real-world relationships seem too difficult and messy in comparison.* The business model for AI companions follows the problematic pattern of surveillance capitalism - companies collect intimate personal data while keeping users engaged for as long as possible. The data collected by AI companions is even more personal and detailed than social media.* Current regulations are insufficient - while COPPA requires parental consent for children under 13, there's no effective age verification on the internet. Bernstein notes it's currently "the Wild West," with companies like Character AI and Replica actively targeting young users.* Children are especially vulnerable to AI companions because their prefrontal cortex is less developed, making them more susceptible to emotional manipulation and anthropomorphization. They're more likely to believe the AI is "real" and form unhealthy attachments.* While major tech companies like Google seem hesitant to directly enter the AI companion space due to known risks, the barrier to entry is lower than social media since these apps don't require a critical mass of users. This means many smaller companies can create potentially harmful AI companions targeting children. The Dangers of AI Companions for Kids The Full Conversation with Gaia BernsteinAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It's Tuesday, February 18th, 2025, and we have a very interesting symposium taking place later this morning at Seton Hall Law School—a virtual symposium on AI companions run by my guest, Gaia Bernstein. Many of you know her as the author of "Unwired: Gaining Control over Addictive Technologies." This symposium focuses on the impact of AI companions on children. Gaia is joining us from New York City. Gaia, good to see you again.Gaia Bernstein: Good to see you too. Thank you for having me.Andrew Keen: Would it be fair to say you're applying many of the ideas you developed in "Unwired" to the AI area? When you were on the show a couple of years ago, AI was still theory and promise. These days, it's the thing in itself. Is that a fair description of your virtual symposium on AI companions—warning parents about the dangers of AI when it comes to their children?Gaia Bernstein: Yes, everything is very much related. We went through a decade where kids spent all their time on screens in schools and at home. Now we have AI companies saying they have a solution—they'll cure the loneliness problem with AI companions. I think it's not really a cure; it's the continuation of the same problem.Andrew Keen: Years ago, we had Sherry Turkle on the show. She's done research on the impact of robots, particularly in Japan. She suggested that it actually does address the loneliness epidemic. Is there any truth to this in your research?Gaia Bernstein: For AI companions, the research is just beginning. We see initial research showing that people may feel better when they're online, but they feel worse when they're offline. They're spending more time with these companions but having fewer relationships offline and feeling less comfortable being offline.Andrew Keen: Are the big AI platforms—Anthropic, OpenAI, Google's Gemini, Elon Musk's X AI—focusing on building companions for children, or is this the focus of other startups?Gaia Bernstein: That's a very good question. The first lawsuit was filed against Character AI, and they sued Google as well. The complaint stated that Google was aware of the dangers of AI companions, so they didn't want to touch it directly but found ways of investing indirectly. These lawsuits were just filed, so we'll find out much more through discovery.Andrew Keen: I have to tell you that my wife is the head of litigation at Google.Gaia Bernstein: Well, I'm not suing. But I know the people who are doing it.Andrew Keen: Are you sympathetic with that strategy? Given the history of big tech, given what we know now about social media and the impact of the Internet on children—it's still a controversial subject, but you made your position clear in "Unwired" about how addictive technology is being used by big tech to take control and take advantage of children.Gaia Bernstein: I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to do that. This is just taking us one more step in the direction we've been going. I think big tech knows it, and that's why they're trying to stay away from being involved directly.Andrew Keen: Earlier this week, we did a show with Ray Brasher from Albany Law School about his new book "The Private is Political" and how social media does away with privacy and turns all our data into political data. For you, is this AI Revolution just the next chapter in surveillance capitalism?Gaia Bernstein: If we take AI companions as a case study, this is definitely the next step—it's enhancing it. With social media and games, we have a business model where we get products for free and companies make money through collecting our data, keeping us online as long as possible, and targeting advertising. Companies like Character AI are getting even better data because they're collecting very intimate information. In their onboarding process, you select a character compatible with you by answering questions like "How would you like your replica to treat you?" The options include: "Take the lead and be proactive," "Enjoy the thrill of being chased," "Seek emotional depth and connection," "Be vulnerable and respectful," or "Depends on my mood." The private information they're getting is much more sophisticated than before.Andrew Keen: And children, particularly those under 12 or 13, are much more vulnerable to that kind of intimacy.Gaia Bernstein: They are much more vulnerable because their prefrontal cortex is less developed, making them more susceptible to emotional attachments and risk-taking. One of the addictive measures used by AI companies is anthropomorphizing—using human qualities. Children think their stuffed animals are human; adults don't think this way. But they make these AI bots seem human, and kids are much more likely to get attached. These websites speak in human voices, have personal stories, and the characters keep texting that they miss you. Kids buy into that, and they don't have the history adults have in building social relationships. At a certain point, it just becomes easier to deal with a bot that adjusts to what you want rather than navigate difficult real-world relationships.Andrew Keen: What are the current laws on this? Do you have to be over 16 or 18 to set up an agent on Character AI? Jonathan Haidt's book "The Anxious Generation" suggests that the best way to address this is simply not to allow children under 16 or 18 to use social media. Would you extend that to AI companions?Gaia Bernstein: Right now, it's the Wild West. Yes, there's COPPA, the child privacy law, which has been there since the beginning of the Internet. It's not enforced much. The idea is if you're under 13, you're not supposed to do this without parent's consent. But COPPA needs to be updated. There's no real age verification on the Internet—some cases over 20 years old decided that the Internet should be free for all without age verification. In the real world, kids are very limited—they can't gamble, buy cigarettes, or drive. But on the Internet, there's no way to protect them.Andrew Keen: Your "Unwired" book focused on how children are particularly addicted to pornography. I'm guessing the pornographic potential for AI companions is enormous in terms of acquiring online sexual partners.Gaia Bernstein: Yes, many of these AI companion websites are exactly that—girlfriends who teen boys and young men can create as they want, determining physical characteristics and how they want to be treated. This has two parts: general social relationships and intimate sexual relationships. If that's your model for what intimate relationships should be like, what happens as these kids grow up?Andrew Keen: Not everyone agrees with you. Last week we had Greg Beto on the show, who just coauthored a book with Reid Hoffman called "Super Agency." They might say AI companions have enormous potential—you can have loving non-pornographic relations, particularly for lonely children. You can have teachers, friends, especially for children who struggle socially. Is there any value in AI companions for children?Gaia Bernstein: This is a question I've been struggling with, and we'll discuss it in the symposium. What does it mean for an AI companion to be safe? These lawsuits are about kids who were told to kill themselves and did, or were told to stay away from their parents because they were dangerous. That's clearly unsafe design. However, the argument is also made about social media—that kids need it to explore their identities. The question is: is this the best way to explore your identity with a non-human entity who can take you in unhealthy directions?Andrew Keen: What's the solution?Gaia Bernstein: We need to think about what constitutes safe design. Beyond removing obviously unsafe elements, should we have AI companions that don't use an engagement model? Maybe interaction could be limited to 15 minutes a day. When my kids were small, they had Furbys they had to take care of—I thought that was good. But maybe any companion for kids which acts human—whether by saying it needs to go to dinner or by pretending to speak like a human—maybe that itself is not good. Maybe we want AI companions more like Siri. This is becoming very much like the social media debate.Andrew Keen: Are companies like Apple, whose business model differs from Facebook or Google, better positioned to deal with this responsibly, given they're less focused on advertising?Gaia Bernstein: That would make it less bad, but I'm still not convinced. Even if they're not basing their model on engagement, kids might find it so appealing to talk to an AI that adjusts to their needs versus dealing with messy real-life schoolmates. Maybe that's why Google didn't invest directly in Character AI—they had research showing how dangerous this is for kids.Andrew Keen: You made an interesting TED talk about whether big tech should be held responsible for screen time. Could there be a tax that might nudge big tech toward different business models?Gaia Bernstein: I think that's the way to approach it. This business model we've had for so long—where people expect things for free—is really the problem. Once you think of people's time and data as a resource, you don't have their best interests at heart. I'm quite pragmatic; I don't think one law or Supreme Court case would fix it. Anything that makes this business model less lucrative, whether it's laws that make it harder to collect data, limit addictive features, or prohibit targeted advertising—anything that moves us toward a different business model so we can reimagine how to do things.Andrew Keen: Finally, at what point will we be able to do this conversation with a virtual Gaia and a virtual Andrew? How can we even be sure you're real right now?Gaia Bernstein: You can't. But I hope that you and I at least will not participate in that. I cannot say what my kids will do years from now, but maybe our generation is a bit better off.Andrew Keen: What do you want to get out of your symposium this morning?Gaia Bernstein: I have two goals. First, to make people aware of this issue. Parents realize their kids might be on social media and want to prevent it, but it's very difficult to know whether your child is in discussions with AI companions. Second, to talk about legal options. We have the lawyers who filed the first lawsuit against Character AI and the FTC complaint against Replica. It's just the beginning of a discussion. We tend to have these trends—a few years ago it was just games, then just social media, and people forgot the games are exactly the same. I hope to put AI companions within the conversation, not to make it the only trend, but to start realizing it's all part of the same story.Andrew Keen: It is just the beginning of the conversation. Gaia Bernstein, congratulations on this symposium. It's an important one and you're on the cutting edge of these issues. We'll definitely have you back on the show. Thank you so much.Gaia Bernstein: Thank you so much for having me.Gaia Bernstein is a professor, author, speaker, and technology policy expert. She is a Law Professor, Co-Director of the Institute for Privacy Protection, and Co-Director of the Gibbons Institute for Law Science and Technology at the Seton Hall University School of Law. Gaia writes, teaches, and lectures at the intersection of law, technology, health, and privacy. She is also the mother of three children who grew up in a world of smartphones, iPads, and social networks.Her book Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies shatters the illusion that we can control how much time we spend on our screens by resorting to self-help measures. Unwired shifts the responsibility for a solution from users to the technology industry, which designs its products for addicts. The book outlines the legal action that can pressure the technology industry to re-design its products to reduce technology overuse.Gaia has academic degrees in both law and psychology. Her research combines findings from psychology, sociology, science, and technology studies with law and policy. Gaia's book Unwired has been broadly featured and excerpted, including by Wired Magazine, Time Magazine and the Boston Globe. It has received many recognitions, including as a Next Big Idea Must Read Book; a finalist of the PROSE award in legal studies; and a finalist of the American Book Fest award in business-technology.Gaia has spearheaded the development of the Seton Hall University School of Law Institute for Privacy Protection's Student-Parent Outreach Program. The nationally acclaimed Outreach Program addresses the overuse of screens by focusing on developing a healthy online-offline balance and the impact on privacy and online reputation. It was featured in the Washington Post, CBS Morning News, and Common-Sense Media.Gaia also advises policymakers and other stakeholders on technology policy matters, including the regulation of addictive technologies and social media. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

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

In this episode of the Safe Bet Show, supported by the Player Protection Hub, Martin Lycka is joined by Lou Rogacki, Deputy Director and Assistant Attorney General at the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) who talks about his background, experience working in the legal field and his role in the regulation of the gambling industry in New Jersey.The duo also discuss the NJDGE's commitment to responsible gambling, the Seton Hall Law School gambling compliance bootcamp and why collaboration is crucial between different states and jurisdictions.The Player Protection Hub is a membership-only news discussion and research hub dedicated to the global player protection and responsible gambling space. Designed to be the home of player protection news and multimedia content, and one-stop-shop for all relevant research, and to facilitate discussion led by our high-level membership base. The Player Protection Hub aims to raise industry standards across the board.Register here https://playerprotectionhub.com/Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background07:41 Lessons from the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control11:26 Key Role in Internet Gaming and Sports Betting19:23 Working with Director Rebuck and Highlights of Their Interaction24:00 Commitment to Responsible Gambling and Continuous Improvement29:02 The Seton Hall Law School Gambling Compliance Bootcamp33:08 Sports Teams and the Role of Luck in Gambling36:16 Final Thoughts and Collaboration Among Regulators (00:00) - Introduction and Background (07:41) - Lessons from the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (12:01) - Key Role in Internet Gaming and Sports Betting (20:19) - Working with Director Rebuck and Highlights of Their Interaction (24:56) - Commitment to Responsible Gambling and Continuous Improvement (29:58) - The Seton Hall Law School Gambling Compliance Bootcamp (34:04) - Sports Teams and the Role of Luck in Gambling (37:12) - Final Thoughts and Collaboration Among Regulators

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

Earlier this week, a sudden development came in the ongoing stadium saga of the Chicago Bears: Instead of making use of the Arlington Heights land they acquired last year, it seems now the focus is on a new project south of their current Soldier Field domain -- on the city's lakefront -- with $2 billion of their own money. This week, host and producer Jim Hanke welcomes stadium finance expert Robert Boland, an assistant professor of sports law at Seton Hall Law School, to get his take on this potential new deal, and how other major sports cities have handled their own stadium debates on public vs. private funding. Follow Jim Hanke on X | Follow Robert Boland on X Follow WBBM Newsradio: TikTok | Facebook | Instagram | X

Earlier this week, a sudden development came in the ongoing stadium saga of the Chicago Bears: Instead of making use of the Arlington Heights land they acquired last year, it seems now the focus is on a new project south of their current Soldier Field domain -- on the city's lakefront -- with $2 billion of their own money. This week, host and producer Jim Hanke welcomes stadium finance expert Robert Boland, an assistant professor of sports law at Seton Hall Law School, to get his take on this potential new deal, and how other major sports cities have handled their own stadium debates on public vs. private funding. Follow Jim Hanke on X | Follow Robert Boland on X Follow WBBM Newsradio: TikTok | Facebook | Instagram | X

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

Matt Skinner is a public defender with passion. Criminal defense is high-stakes, sometimes chaotic work that can be extremely difficult, but Matt navigates the courts, clients, and his career with genuine sincerity and excitement. As a lawyer for those who are accused of felonies but cannot afford a lawyer, his love for underdogs fuels his advocacy. It was a profound experience in high school, however, that set him on this path. On a high school trip to the local jail, he ran into two of his friends--behind bars. Matt is a 2018 graduate of Seton Hall Law School.This episode is hosted by Katya Valasek.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Rutgers LawLearn more about William & Mary Law SchoolLearn more about Rutgers LawAccess LawHub today!Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawLearn more about Vermont Law

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

Liana Nobile, a trial attorney specializing in insurance defense litigation, predominantly handles personal injury lawsuits stemming from one major client's everyday business operations. Her ability to balance professional excellence with a healthy work-life balance exemplifies the value of expertise, effective time management, and refusing to be defined by her job. Liana details her overarching litigation strategy -- meticulously preparing as if heading to trial, though trying a case to verdict is extremely rare. She is a 2013 graduate of Seton Hall Law School.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Vermont LawLearn more about Seton HallKaplan Learn more about William & Mary Law SchoolLearn more about Mitchell HamlineLearn more about Rutgers LawLearn more about Rutgers LawAccess LawHub today!

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

Ralph welcomes old friend, Judge Andrew Napolitano, to talk about why the U.S. government offered a plea deal to the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others. He asks, “Why would the government agree to such a plea for the persons it claims are the monsters who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11?... What does the government fear?” Plus, Ralph gives us his take on the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. And then on a lighter note, we talk about the Super Bowl.Judge Andrew Napolitano is a former Superior Court Judge, a syndicated columnist, and host of the Judging Freedom podcast. Judge Napolitano has taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at Delaware Law School and Seton Hall Law School, and he was Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst from 1997 to 2021. He is the author of several books on the U.S. Constitution, the most recent entitled Freedom's Anchor: An Introduction to Natural Law Jurisprudence in American Constitutional History.“I would try (Bush & Cheney) for war crimes for which there is no statute of limitations… the war crimes are well-known. The war crimes are leading us into war under false pretenses; intentionally targeting civilians in the Middle East; authorizing torture and purporting to protect it against state law if done in the U.S. and international law. These are all well-known war crimes for which the penalty is life in prison. They can also be execution… There is still an E.U.-wide arrest warrant live out there issued by Spanish authorities for the arrest of George W. Bush, because of the war crimes I have just summarized.”Judge Andrew Napolitano“George W. Bush, arguably the worst president in the post-World War II era for bringing us into two totally useless and very costly wars – Afghanistan and Iraq – which cost us in excess of two trillion dollars, which had over 850 thousand people killed – only five thousand were Americans – which destroyed the moral order in that part of the world for a full generation also instituted a regime of torture. I believe, Ralph, as do many of us who follow this – we haven't seen it in writing – that Bush somehow pardoned or granted immunity to the torturers, because the torture was so vast and so extensive, and no one has been prosecuted for it. Obama and Holder who said loudly that they were against torture had every opportunity to do it. And they knew the names of the torturers, but it just didn't happen.”Judge Andrew Napolitano“I do believe that Rupert Murdoch called up Donald Trump and said to him, to Murdoch's credit - to his face, although it was on the phone – ‘you are just not institutionally, constitutionally, or temperamentally, or intellectually qualified to be the president of the United States and we will not support you.'”Judge Andrew NapolitanoThis is super Sparta on steroids—the aggressiveness, the lack of diplomacy, the lack of waging peace by the US government. It's like they've mothballed the charter of the State Department, which was diplomacy. They've turned it into a bellicose agency, sometimes much worse than the spokespeople for the Defense Department.Ralph Nader Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe