| |
Abstract:
In the movie, Witness for the Prosecution, Charles Laughton plays a defense barrister in a murder case. On cross-examination, he confronts Marlene Dietrich, a key prosecution witness, with her own letters contradicting her direct testimony. The letters destroy her credibility. The confrontation is the denouement of the trial, but not of the movie. We learn after the trial that Dietrich contrived the letters herself, enabling Laughton to destroy her in front of the jury, thereby gaining an acquittal for the defendant, Tyrone Power, her lover. In a climactic twist, Dietrich kills Power when she discovers that he no longer loves her¿before ultimately being represented by Laughton in her own murder trial.
There comes a point in a trial when advocacy skill, knowledge of the law, and professional responsibility uniquely come together. This is also the time when the adversarial nature of our system is clearest. This point occurs when a witness is impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, as portrayed dramatically in the Laughton-Dietrich confrontation. This essay supports the assertion that witness impeachment is an indispensable part of the common law justice system, returning from time to time to the movie, Witness for the Prosecution.
witness for the prosecution, self incrimination, witness credibility, witness impeachment
|
