As part of my annual quest to watch every Oscar nominated film, I recently watched the Robert Downey, Jr./Robert Duvall movie "The Judge". It was an OK movie that was brilliantly acted by an all-star cast with beautiful visuals but something of a disjointed, cliched plot. Relevant to this blog is that it centers on a trial surrounding a fatal bicycle crash. Also, in one scene Downey takes his childhood bike out for a ride and then crashes it.
Spoiler's below the break
In the movie, Robert Duvall's character is the titular judge who on a dark, rainy night hits a cyclist from behind, kills him and then returns home. This is discovered the next day when his car shows obvious damage. Downey's character, a succesful defense attorney, thinks his dad damaged the car while drinking and driving and when he confronts his dad, his dad insults him. They weren't really on speaking terms anyway so Downey leaves, but before he can go he finds out his father is being questioned with charges likely and he comes back to help with his defense.
Things get worse when it turns out that the cyclist hit was someone with whom the Judge had bad blood. He'd be a defendant before him after getting violent with his ex-girlfiend, and against his better judgement, the Judge let him off easy, after which he murdered his girlfriend. And the Judge felt guilty about this. So now, this wasn't just a hit-and-run or drunk driving case, but murder. There were some holes in the Judge's story and then they find video footage proving that the Judge turned around to go the wrong way in order to follow the cyclist, who he knew was riding that road at the time.
Whew...
Watching it, I found myself noticing things that probably your average person wouldn't (same thing happens when I watch Space movies).
First, I was surprised that he wasn't charged with just murder, instead of that and hit-and-run, which is what I would've expected. And where were the Indiana bicycle advocates at what was presented as a high-profile, media-watched case? Was the cyclist using a taillight? Did they do a toxicology report on the cyclist - who was presented as drunk at the timer? [There's no 3-foot law in Indiana, so that wouldn't matter]
The Judge was on cancer medication that we were told could have impaired judgement and memory, and we were supposed to think (I believe) that this explains why the crash occurred and why the Judge shouldn't be guilty. But, of course, my thought was this makes him more guilty because he shouldn't be driving (and in fact his sons had offered to drive him to do his errands) in that condition.
It also occurred to me that such a case - a driver running down someone from behind who they had motive to kill - is pretty much unheard of, but it wasn't presented as the 1 in a billion type case that it was.
My wife the lawyer had a similar situation where the prosecutor (Billy Bob Thornton) offered Downey a deal that expired "the minute he left the room". "That's stupid. He can't agree to a deal without talking to his client," she said.
Anyway, it isn't so true to fact. [Surprise!] But it is a reasonably good movie, starring a bunch of great actors doing the best they can with a clunky script.
If a driver is charged after killing a cyclist, this must be a fantasy
Posted by: SJE | December 31, 2015 at 03:16 PM