BUS 202 Law in Action: A Cinematic Exploration

A 2,500-word (+ or – 100 words) review and critique of a movie from the list below:

To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)

12 Angry Men (1957)

My Cousin Vinny (1992)

Philadelphia (1993)

Erin Brockovich (2000)

The Verdict (1982)

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

A Few Good Men (1992)

And Justice for All (1979)

A Civil Action (1998)

The Pelican Brief (1993)

The Rain Maker (1997)

A Time to Kill (1996)

Michael Clayton (2007)

North Country (2005)

Class Action (1991)

Inherit the Wind (1960)

The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)

Runaway Jury (2003)

The Verdict (1982)

The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

Conviction (2010)

Making A Murderer (2015)

Woman in Gold (2015)

Denial (2016)

Marshall (2017)

RGB (2018)

On the Basis of Sex (2018)

Just Mercy (2019)

Dark Waters (2019)

Questions that you may address in your paper: (Not all will apply to every Movie)

• Format in APA or MLA, double-spaced
• You must cite any work you use for your paper in any citation form.
• Include your insights, reactions, takeaways, and application to the class topics from your movie experience.
• Summarize the movie’s plot and depiction of the law.
• What were the legal and factual issues in the Movie?
• Were the legal subjects (e.g., contracts, torts) depicted factually/accurately in the Movie, or was the law sensationalized?
• How would you have handled the case(s) as a juror, lawyer, or judge? (Pick One Point of View)
• What was the end result of the Movie? Do you agree or disagree with the ending? Why?
• What did you learn that is applicable to our Class?

I will include an example

Law in Action: A Cinematic Exploration
STUDENT NAME
The film Amistad begins in 1839 on a Spanish slave ship, named La Amistad, that is
traveling from Cuba to the US. Then, one night during the trip, the slaves escaped their chains
and killed all but two of the crew members. The two survivors were named Ruiz and Montez.
These two crew members persuaded the slaves to spare their lives and in return they would
navigate the ship back to Africa for them. However, instead of heading East, the surviving crew
members guided La Amistad North and were eventually intercepted by an American vessel. The
entire incident was eventually brought before a court in Connecticut and the courts faced an issue
familiar to our class, jurisdiction. The original pleadings of the case were thrown out because the
mutiny took place on a Spanish ship in Spanish water and the court decided it had no jurisdiction
to hear the case. Quickly the matter became increasingly complex as party after party began to
lay claims on the property (African slaves). The Africans, aided by the abolitionist lawyers
Roger Baldwin and Theodore Sedgwick, claimed they were not slaves at all. In the end, the US
government sued La Amistad on behalf of the Spanish and the trial would continue.
As the movie continues, we begin to learn more about the Africans as people and their
free lives in Africa. Then, in 1840, a federal district court found the claims of ownership had no
merit because the people were born free in Africa and should be returned home. This decision
was quickly appealed, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. After an amazing eight
and a half hour defense of the slaves by former president John Quincy Adams, the supreme court
also ruled the Africans should be returned home. These events were certainly influential to the
political climate in the 1840’s and set the stage for one of the most prominent lawsuits in
American history.
It is important for us to step back and take account of the political climate of the time
before analyzing the legal subjects that are important to the case. First off, the political climate of
19th century America was dominated by the issue of slavery and whether the US should continue
on with or outlaw slavery created a deep divide between the North and South. Despite the
internal struggle, in 1808, the United States aligned itself with England’s anti-slavery position
and outlawed the international slave trade. Eventually, US law would only recognize a person as
a slave who was born a slave in an attempt to end the practice. More and more, policy in the US
threatened the existence of slavery as a whole and the gap between the North and South only
grew wider. The South, seeing slavery as fundamental to their economy, began to distance itself
from the North. This gives us a good view of the relevant political topics and helps highlight the
importance of this case to American history. The Supreme Court’s decision to set the Africans
free seemingly contradicts the foundation of the southern economy and brought the country one
long step closer to civil war. With the political climate in mind, we can turn our attention back to
the movie which follows the legal issues at hand in the case.
After hearing of a mass murder on the open sea, one may rightfully suspect a murder trial
to follow, or maybe even a piracy trial. Yet, the case was turned upside down by the political
climate and instead the trial dealt with the issue of ownership over the slaves. In particular, three
parties claimed ownership of the slaves for different reasons. The Queen of Spain, one of the
parties claiming ownership interest, asserted the slaves should be returned based on the Pickney
Treaty of 1795. A treaty between the US and Spain that returns property taken by pirates to the
rightful owners and should override other claims of ownership. The two other parties invoked
salvage claims over the property retrieved at sea. And fortunately for the slaves, the abolitionist
cause helped them provide a position as well. The slaves asserted that they were born free in
Africa and became slaves illegally, therefore any subsequent claim to them as property is
irrelevant and they should be returned home. This perspective of the movie depicts the law as
cruel and unfair, but it cannot be stressed enough that this is not sensationalized. The law at that
time had no way of distinguishing cargo on a ship from a human being and treated them the
same. Party after party made claims on the cargo and if it weren’t for the abolitionist cause, the
slaves would not have been represented but rather transferred as part of the cargo to the winning
party.
If I were a judge in the original federal court in Connecticut, it is easy to say I would
have handled the case much differently. It seems obvious that human beings are living people
and cargo is cargo. Also, it is evident that the Africans became slaves through an outlawed and
unethical practice, so I also agree with the notion that any subsequent claims of ownership are
irrelevant. Further I think these facts were undeniable and the case may have been unambiguous,
but, the way it was handled by the federal courts at the time is understandable. Throughout the
case, the courts were heavily influenced by President Martin Van Buren to return the slaves to
Spain. Van Buren feared he would lose support in the upcoming presidential race if the slaves
were set free. Van Buren went as far as to replace the judge hearing the trial with one who may
be more inclined to rule against the Africans. Also the court had to weigh the implications of
setting the Slaves free. As mentioned earlier, the United States was on the brink of civil war and
setting the slaves free would have exacerbated the matter. So, as a judge over this case, assuming
I am not replaced by President Van Buren, I would definitely come to the same decisions as the
court and I would hope to not waste so much time on ownership claims.
The movie La Amistad revolves around the topics covered in our class. To start forum
shopping was what brought the case to Connecticut in the first place. After heading North from
Cuba, La Amistad was captured off the coast of Long Island but New York was a free state so
the case was brought to Connecticut, the nearest slave owning state. Forum shopping is still used
today in many legal proceedings and is a good way to set yourself up for success in the court of
law. Further issues of jurisdiction slowed the initial proceedings of the case down however the
court first had to find a reason they could have authority over the case. Making sure to find a
court with jurisdiction is the only way to get the case moving. Without it, the courts will dismiss
your case. Contract law is very prominent in the story as well. In particular, the Pickney Treaty
invoked by the Spanish only covers legal activities, so the slaves being illegally acquired made
the transaction illegal and therefore not governed by that treaty. The wording within contracts
does not have to change much for the entire meaning to change. If the word legal hadn’t been
used, the Africans would have been given to Spain quietly. Today, contract law is still very
precise with its wording and its prudent to stay aware.
I can walk away from this movie with some notions about the way the legal system operates but I
think the most important takeaway from this movie is the idea that people have immeasurable
intrinsic value. Roger Baldwin has no trouble at all explaining that the slaves were illegally
acquired but is still not successful in his case. It is not until he begins to understand the Africans
as people that the case is won.
In my opinion, this was a landmark case that helped the country get a small step closer to
ending the slave trade at the cost of pushing the country closer to civil war. And, although the
forty four Africans were set free and returned home, this was only a small consolation prize to
the other four (plus) million people who remained enslaved in America.