I noticed that when Cooper (Clint EASTWOOD) was first called to the stand by the prosecutor during the trial for the cattle rustlers, after the prosecutor was finished with his examination of Eastwood, the defense attorney was not given the chance to cross-examine Eastwood. The judge, Pat Hingle, simply told Eastwood to step down.
shareI'm watching this movie right now and I noticed the same thing. Even in the Old West, that had to be grounds for a mistrial....
shareHi Eradan,
Good point. I'm a little suprised the judge (Pat HINGLE) didn't pick-up on that. Hingle seemed to be a hard nosed, hanging judge, yet technically competant.
In the movie,"Tom HORN," Steve McQueen (Tom Horn) had his day in court, but he had, IMHO, a worthless defense lawyer. This lawyer never cross-examined any of the witnesses, and he should have never let Tom Horn take the stand. This is in violation of the 5th Amendant, self-incrimination. I'm not sure, but I think that statue was on the books back then, circa ~1902.
I think that marshall (not Slim Pickens) killed that young boy in order to frame Tom Horn. I think he was jealous of Tom horning in, (forgive the pun), on his girlfriend, Linda Evans. Both Tom Horn and this marshall were excellent shots and expert rodeo riders.
Remember this was Oklahoma Territory, not a state yet, perhaps they are harsher laws? Didn't he hang one of the guys for whiskey peddling?
shareI believe the judge (Pat HINGLE) did hang a whiskey peddler. But even in those days, hanging for that type of offense seemed a little harsh, unless there was something else involved in this case that wasn't mentioned. Pat Hingle portrayed his part as a hanging, but legally, proceedural judge. But, still, defense cross-examination should have been permitted. I still think Tom HORN (Steve McQUEEN) had a lousy defense lawyer. Maybe this same lawyer was either incompetant or just plain scared to make any waves.
shareThat drove me crazy too! Cooper was chompin' at the bit to tell about the innocence of those boys, and the judge cut him off at every opportunity. Then the prosecutor rested, and they told Cooper to step down! That was a huge mistake, but I guess people weren't as familiar with law and courtroom proceedings as they are now.
shareHi Haywood,
There's another similiar incidence in the movie, Tom Horn. Horn's (Steve McQueen) worthless defense lawyer should have advised McQueen against taking the stand in his own defense and didn't even cross-exam any witnesses.
You have to remember this was in a territory where the law was pretty much what the judge decided. Who was going to run to Washington & complain about some rustler or two-bit killer being hung on procedural grounds? As for the whiskey peddler, the whiskey he sold might have killed some others. This wasn't an uncommon event back then.
Before the hanging Jed confronts the judge about the two boys & the judge plainly tells him the reason they have to hang is b/c of what would happen if others heard about them not being hung (especially after Jed's long two-day trek through the desert).
I think it is fairly realistic for a Western. It shows the seedy side of life back then with the prostitutes. And justice wasn't perfected in the territories like it might have been in bigger cities. There were not many lawyers around and the judge was the only one (he said himself) within the entire area (half the size of Rhode Island).
I didn't like that scene; not because of the hanging but because by the end of the movie it is revealed that the judge is a sensitive, intelligent man doing his best with limited resources, yet committed to justice.
Yet in that scene, he deliberately disallowed testimony that would have kept those two boys from hanging. It would have made sense if he'd been a corrupt or sadistic judge, but he was neither.
Law that is unfairly applied is as bad as no law at all.
Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.
I don't see a conflict really. He (the judge) saw his authority as pretty much as whatever he thought was best to achieve statehood. Yes, he had Jed's statement that the boys weren't involved in the killing, but then again they did nothing to stop the bad guy when he attacked Jed in the desert.
The judge felt that statehood meant so much to the territory that he had to prove that the outlaws would be punished and law and order upheld. While the judge had a heart to an extent it didn't stop him from seeing that outlaws were punished so statehood could be realized.
HeywoodJablomy said: Cooper was chompin' at the bit to tell about the innocence of those boys, and the judge cut him off at every opportunity.
joeparkson said:
Yet in that scene, he deliberately disallowed testimony that would have kept those two boys from hanging.
It is bad to drink Jobus rum. Very bad.share
I think it would be a safe bet that there hasn't been a courtroom drama or scene in any movie or TV show that didn't have a procedural error of some kind.
I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to your death for your right to say it;-)
Hi fcolli,
Probably so, but I think this was a rather significant one, yet it could have been necessary for the script.
Probably so, but I think this was a rather significant one (courtroom procedural error), yet it could have been necessary for the script.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.share
Hi strntz,
You may have a point with the fact that this trial occurred in a territory and not the United States. I'm not sure if the US laws would apply in a territory. You mentioned that if the trial would have occurred today, it would have lasted a week. Perhaps, but if the defense would not have been allowed to cross examine Clint Eastwood, I believe the case would have been thrown out of court. Check the earlier part of the movie, Sudden Impact (Clint Eastwood).
Again, it wouldn't matter. If Cooper had his way and testified, the only thing that would have been different would be the length of the trial.
The boys were guilty. They rustled cattle, they rode with the man that killed a rancher in cold blood, and continued to ride with him after the murder. And while they didn't join Miller when he ambushed Marshall Cooper in an escape attempt, they also did nothing to assist Cooper.
When Cooper told Judge Fenton about the events that happened in returning Miller and the brothers, the judge asked if the boys helped Cooper fend off Miller, and he said no. If he said yes, the judge would have allowed the testimony in court in order to grant leniency to the boys. Since he knew before the trial what Cooper's testimony was, he deemed it a waste of time to hear it again since it wouldn't help their case.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.share
For a simple reason: this was decades before the Supreme Court ruled (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963) that the defense had a right to an appointed defense attorney if they could not afford one.
There was no cross examination because the accused boys had no idea that they themselves could have cross examined him.
I don't know what good it would have done. What could they have possibly asked Cooper that would have helped? If the defense cross examined him and Cooper answered honestly, it would have hurt the boys case further.
The facts are that the boys rustled cattle (hangable offense) and were in the gang that murdered an innocent cattle rancher in cold blood (hangable).
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.share