Anatomy of a Murder: An Analysis
The 1959 movie version of the book, “Anatomy of a Murder”, which was written in 1958, depicts the trial of Army Lieutenant Frederick Manion, who is accused of murder in the death of a local barkeep. There is no question as to whether Manion shot and killed the bartender, as the shooting and death occurred inside the bar in full view of eye-witnesses and Manion does not deny killing him. From the beginning, the answer to “Who, What, When, Where, How and Why” not only becomes the centerpiece of the trial process, but also serves as an overview of the strategy and skills needed for the defense attorney and prosecutor to convince the jury of believing in, and finding their argument as the most convincing. There …show more content…
Early on, we are introduced to Manion’s wife, Laura, who visits Biegler’s office/home after the news of the murder appears in the local paper. Mrs. Manion is attractive and is somewhat provocatively dressed as well as flirtatious during her interaction with Biegler. She attempts to convince Biegler to defend her husband as she relates the story that she had been raped and beaten by the bartender, later revealing a bruised face and eye. There seems to be a certain amount of conflict between her demeanor and outward appearance and the horrible events she relates to Biegler. This becomes more apparent when she and Biegler visit Manion at the local jail where he is being …show more content…
The defendant did not have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his/her conduct.
Although the State prosecutor may still prove every element of the crime, if Manion is able to establish insanity as a defense, he could be found not guilty of murder. In the end, the conversation that Biegler has with Manion seems quite unethical, in that Biegler fully understands that the State has a solid criminal case against Manion and there probably is no other real possible defense. However, Biegler is willing to “coach” Manion about the necessary roadmap and steps he would need to follow to obtain an acquittal through the insanity defense.
While there are tidbits of theatrical suggestions imbedded in the movie to suggest to the viewer why Biegler would commit such a breach of the “American Bar Association’s Models of Rules of Professional Conduct”, there remains the fact that defense attorney’s pursuits and strategy is always in the client/defendant’s best interest.
To bolster the insanity defense for the defendant, Biegler uses personal networking connections to have Manion somewhat secretly transported to an Army psychiatrist to obtain a professional diagnosis and opinion of the state of his mental health. This examination is completed without the State prosecutor’s knowledge and later in the trial, when the insanity plea is introduced, a legal rule prevents the State from ordering its own psychological examination of the defendant, which could prove to be disadvantageous
The 1959 movie version of the book, “Anatomy of a Murder”, which was written in 1958, depicts the trial of Army Lieutenant Frederick Manion, who is accused of murder in the death of a local barkeep. There is no question as to whether Manion shot and killed the bartender, as the shooting and death occurred inside the bar in full view of eye-witnesses and Manion does not deny killing him. From the beginning, the answer to “Who, What, When, Where, How and Why” not only becomes the centerpiece of the trial process, but also serves as an overview of the strategy and skills needed for the defense attorney and prosecutor to convince the jury of believing in, and finding their argument as the most convincing. There …show more content…
Early on, we are introduced to Manion’s wife, Laura, who visits Biegler’s office/home after the news of the murder appears in the local paper. Mrs. Manion is attractive and is somewhat provocatively dressed as well as flirtatious during her interaction with Biegler. She attempts to convince Biegler to defend her husband as she relates the story that she had been raped and beaten by the bartender, later revealing a bruised face and eye. There seems to be a certain amount of conflict between her demeanor and outward appearance and the horrible events she relates to Biegler. This becomes more apparent when she and Biegler visit Manion at the local jail where he is being …show more content…
The defendant did not have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his/her conduct.
Although the State prosecutor may still prove every element of the crime, if Manion is able to establish insanity as a defense, he could be found not guilty of murder. In the end, the conversation that Biegler has with Manion seems quite unethical, in that Biegler fully understands that the State has a solid criminal case against Manion and there probably is no other real possible defense. However, Biegler is willing to “coach” Manion about the necessary roadmap and steps he would need to follow to obtain an acquittal through the insanity defense.
While there are tidbits of theatrical suggestions imbedded in the movie to suggest to the viewer why Biegler would commit such a breach of the “American Bar Association’s Models of Rules of Professional Conduct”, there remains the fact that defense attorney’s pursuits and strategy is always in the client/defendant’s best interest.
To bolster the insanity defense for the defendant, Biegler uses personal networking connections to have Manion somewhat secretly transported to an Army psychiatrist to obtain a professional diagnosis and opinion of the state of his mental health. This examination is completed without the State prosecutor’s knowledge and later in the trial, when the insanity plea is introduced, a legal rule prevents the State from ordering its own psychological examination of the defendant, which could prove to be disadvantageous