After a senior Barrister is entrapped by his own client, to recover control of his life, he must convince a Judge to set aside the client?s murder acquittal.
Leon DavisLogliner
After a senior Barrister is entrapped by his own client, to recover control of his life, he must convince a Judge to set aside the client?s murder acquittal.
Share
What do you mean by entrapped? Does his client have evidence against him? do you mean ‘trapped’ as in he is being held against his will?
What does entrapped look like in your story so we will know the stakes.
“When he’s photographed in a compromising position with a prostitute, a respected conservative Barrister must …”
As Richiev indicated, it’s better if the nature of the blackmail is more explicit.
Also, ?the Barrister in the role of the protagonist doesn’t have an ?objective goal a movie audience would root for. ?How is getting the murderer off the legal meat hook going to evoke a positive emotional catharsis? ?Just saying.
After realising he has made a terrible mistake, a senior Barrister must convince a Judge to set aside his own client?s murder acquittal, in order to restore justice.
After realising his client is guilty of murder, an arrogant senior Barrister must? fight to restore justice by convincing a Judge to set aside his client?s murder acquittal,.
Leon Davis:
>>>convincing a Judge to set aside his client?s murder acquittal,.
Actually, the client is not legally guilty just because the acquittal is set aside. The case would have to be retried. Because in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty ? convicted. And technically the client hasn?t been proved guilty. So technically he?s still innocent.
So the defendant would have the legal right to fight in the arena of the trial court again to sustain his innocence. And the right to appeal an adverse verdict all the way to the High Court of Australia. Which he most certainly would do. Particularly since the case entails double jeopardy.
Furthermore, I?m not so certain ?arrogant? is the right fit for a character flaw. If the Barrister defended his client in good faith, got him acquitted believing that he was not guilty, then he has nothing to be ashamed of if evidence subsequently comes to light showing his client was as guilty as hell. The Barrister has done his job, what the ethics of the profession demand of him: he gave his client the best defense, the best representation of which he was capable.
And it?s not his job to ferret out information that proves his client is guilty. That?s the job of the prosecuting attorney. ?Who relies on the evidence presented to him by the investigating detective. So if the fickle finger of fault is to be pointed, it ought to be pointed at the investigating detective who failed to do his job.
So I don?t see how this setup places the Barrister in any compelling ethical or legal dilemma.
On the other foot, if the Barrister got his client acquitted by means of a brilliant defense knowing full well that his client was guilty as hell is hot, then there is a setup entailing the possibility of genuine ethical and legal dilemmas.
But that doesn?t seem to be the story you venture to tell.
fwiw
Thanks for your time. I’m a lawyer and understand the concepts. In fact there is a whole other story about a teenage wirnesswho gives her evidence on the voir dire. But I think that’s not for the logline.
A senior Barrister, facing the onset of Alzheimers, must fight to restore justice by convincing a Judge to set aside his own client?s murder acquittal.
I defer to your knowledge of Australian jurisprudence. And I have been informed that the hurdles for being able to subject a person to double jeopardy are not as high to clear in Australia as they are in the United States. ?But there are hurdles to be cleared.
My main issue is that imho, ?the most compelling legal dramas are ones where the lawyer as protagonist must confront legal and moral dilemmas. ?Where the case becomes a dramatic vehicle for a character arc about moral rehabilitation, about redemption for past mistakes and failures of character. ?Paul Newman’s character ?in “Final Verdict”, or ?George Clooney’s in “Michael Clayton”, or Tom Cruise’s in “A Few Good Men” come to mind.
And I just don’t see that in this story. ?What am I not seeing? ?What is the protagonist Barrister’s moral dilemma arising from his character flaw? ?Is there a rehab or redemptive character arc? ?What is the itch you are trying to scratch with this story? ?What is the theme or notion you wish to explore?
The protagonist is confliictedabout continuing in the law with Alzheimers? approaching.
He obtains treatment and has some relief but suspects he will meed to retire at some stage.
I want to explore the complexities of acting against the interests of your ounclient using an autistic, under age witness at a time the barrister has his own mental issues.
For me the story hook would be that he’s seeking to overturn his greatest legal victory.
Thank you so much for your advice.