Law in Culture Review 

Jessica Fajardo 

“Worth” is a 2020 movie. It stars Michael Keaton, Stanley Tucci, and Amy Ryan. It is directed by Sara Colaneglo and written by Max Borenstein.  It is available on Netflix. It is based on the true story of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund and the attorney in charge of it.  

The movie tells the story of a lawyer named Ken Fienberg who deals with wrongful death settlements and who also teaches at a law school. Soon after the movie starts, 9/11 happens and the government sets up a fund for the victims called the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. It is designed to provide “tort style compensation” for the families of the deceased and for anyone who was injured or became ill due to the 9/11 attacks.  

Fienberg asks for the job of special master for the fund and works pro bono. It is he and his firm’s duty to persuade at least 80% of the victims to accept compensation through the fund, which would also mean they forfeit their right to a lawsuit. The firm also decides how much money each decedents’ family will get. The fund will only work if they reach 80% participation. However, many of the families feel that the language of the fund, and the formula they use to come up with a number for each victim, to be insensitive and unjust. The formula would give high earners like CEOs more money than say, a janitor who worked in the same building and perished the same way. However, the families of the high earners feel they are entitled to the most money, since the potential for income was higher for them than for that of a worker with a lesser income.  

A man named Charles Wolf, whose wife died on 9/11, is critical of the fund and the formula. Most of the victim’s families agree with him and refuse to sign up for the fund. He even has a website called Fixthefund.com. He urges Ken to see each case as it’s own story, with it’s own value, rather than numbers on a spreadsheet.

Keith and his team have hard time getting the families to accept being part of the fund. The families don’t trust them. They are in grief and they are angry. 

Eventually they throw out the formula and they meet with as many families as possible to try to get fair compensation for everyone. 

Concepts 

The legal concepts addressed in the movie were monetary settlements for wrongful death, or damages, the need for this fund to have enough claimants to function, and the rights of the families to sue for damages, and class action lawsuits.  

The idea was that if all the families sued, the economy would have been deeply and negatively affected. The airlines would have gone out of business, and the families could have been in court litigation for several years, if not decades. For this reason, they needed to persuade 80% of the victims to join the fund. If they didn’t meet that minimum, the families would have had the right to sue for damages.  

Ken and his firm believe compensation is the family’s best bet at moving forward from this tragedy. However, some people felt that it was a way of “throwing money at their graves.”  

My reaction 

After doing some additional reading, I think the film portrayed the story accurately. In real life, the lawyer had a formula he followed for determining a person’s worth which created tension, and he was seen as being unfair. But then they started to talk to the families and hear their stories and they threw the formula out the window and raised the base compensation.  

I would recommend this movie because it shows you another side of the 9/11 aftermath that you don’t hear about.  

In the end there is a blurb about Ken being involved in other victim compensation funds like the Sandy Hook Community Fund, the Virginia Tech fund and many others. I would be interested in learning more about these other funds. Of course, nothing can bring back a loved one, but compensation can serve as a form of accountability or at least acknowledgement of harm, which might be the only justice a family can get.

I think it did make me more interested in the legal field and specifically, compensation for wrongful deaths or tragedies like this. You cannot exactly right a wrong when it comes to life and death, but you can try to hold someone accountable, and this will ease the burden of the ones who were affected by a harmful act. Sometimes there may not be a person you can send to jail for the wrong that has been done. Sometimes money may be the only way to get compensation for what you have been through. This is not to say that you can put a dollar amount on a person’s worth or life or that you can reduce someone’s pain to a dollar amount. But monetary compensation might help you suffer less.  

The movie was a good introduction to this topic and I think I will end up reading the attorney’s book when I have more time. I think it inspires me to think of other people who are suffering a tragedy and what kind of compensation they might be entitled to. For example, the migrants whose children were taken from them and put in cages. I wonder what kind of case they could have against the government for this harmful and damaging act.

Thank you.

My selection for “Law in Culture” review is the film “A Time to Kill” which was released in 1996 and is categorized as a drama/thriller film.  This film is an adaption of the 1989 novel A Time to Kill by John Grisham. (https://en.mwikipedia.org)

The movie opens in the deep south, with two young, white men, drinking beer and driving around in their pickup truck bearing the confederate flag and just engaging in menacing behavior, especially to the Blacks living in the area.  They go into a convenience store as a little girl, Tonya, was just leaving, these two young men enter harass the owner pickup about four six-packs of beer, which they did not pay for along with other items and they leave.

As they drive along, they spot the little girl and start to throw unopened beer cans at her. They then proceed to rape and sodomize her, hog tie her and beat her mercilessly as she cries out for her daddy to help her. To add further insult to injury, they then urinate on her body, then drive and throw her over a bridge.  Meanwhile, her mother is frantically awaiting her return, her brothers find the bag of groceries, along the road, but not her.  When she is finally located, her father is notified at work and by the time he arrives home the ambulance is also there.  Her prognosis is not good at all, but somehow this child survives.  However, due to the severity of her injuries she will never bear children.

The father is devastated to say the least. Neighbors inform the police and the family of the activities of the two young men in the pickup truck. Tonya who has managed to survive has confirmed that these men were her attackers.  When law enforcement finally catches up to them in a bar, one sneaker of the little girl is still in the bed of the truck.  This suggests to me that these young men had no fear of being punished for their actions, I liken this indifference to white privilege.  Nevertheless, they are arrested by the sheriff who happens to be African-American.

When the father hears of the arrest he sneaks into the courthouse with a shotgun and hides out.  It is his intention to shoot them when they go to their arraignment the following morning.  Morning arrives and as these young men are being escorted in, the father emerges from his hiding place and shoots them, killing them.  In the melee the police officer escorting them is shot in the leg.  This all happens between the foyer and the staircase of the courthouse, which is packed with people who all wanted to witness the proceedings.  The father, Carl Lee, is arrested, charged with murder,  refused bail and denied a change of venue.

Carl Lee hires a young, with little experience attorney to represent him.  The prosecutor, however, has a wealth of experience and looks forward to trying this case, which he is confident he will win.

The legal concept that was addressed in this movie relates to Ethics and Responsibility.  Firstly, the judge and the prosecutor were very good friends and they did not try to hide it.  Instead, they paraded their comradery  all over town by having lunch together; laughing and joking.  To me, the judge should have recused himself based on that relationship and the severity of the situation that created this trial in the first place.  Secondly, the prosecutor made a public announcement about the juror list and how it would be kept under wraps until voir dire; however, his co-counsel waved an envelope to him as he was making the announcement.  That suggested to me that they were given the juror list prior to voir dire so they had an advantage, this could only be done through the judge.

What I also realized was that jury trials, while they are supposed to deliver a verdict based on law and evidence and what was or was not proven, is first colored by our opinions, likes and dislikes, biases and prejudices.  Also, a jury of our peers is a joke.  This black man’s peers were twelve white jurors.  All of the black eligible jurors were excused…what a farce! So, straight off the back he is at a disadvantage for a fair trial because not one juror looks like him.

This made me ask the question: what is justice? My answer is that justice is relative and 90% of justice has nothing to do with law or what is just.  It is all about which side has the better resources and the most charismatic attorney who delivers the most plausible narrative.

In the end, Carl Lee, was found innocent and in my opinion that was based solely on the closing arguments of his attorney.  His attorney, Jack Brigance, engaged the jury in story form and painted a detailed picture of  what precisely happened to little Tonya.  Mr. Brigance, asked the jury to close their eyes as he told this story.  He repeatedly encouraged them to imagine it, imagine it, imagine her being raped, imagine the flesh of her little body being torn away as the unopened beer cans hit her, imagine her being thrown from the bridge because they wanted her dead, the dead tell no tales.  He climaxed with one final imagery; for them to imagine that she was a little white girl.  That singular request ripped their eyes open as it was so impactful.  This suggests, that there is one standard of justice for blacks and  another for whites in America.  But, maybe, if you can imagine the crime happening to a white person maybe then, justice will be the same.

I’ve watched this movie many times. I’ve read the book, in fact, I own a copy yet I cried once again.  As a mother, I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.  I think it addressed many issues in the legal field especially in the south where the Klan and racism is still very much prevalent and they do influence “justice”.  Yes, I would highly recommend it, while it speaks to matters we as a society don’t like to speak about, movies and books like this force conversations that need to be had.

I love the law and all of its shortcomings.  ‘Justice at times is evasive…but we must seek her out where ever she tries to hide…’. We need to keep the scales balanced for the betterment of all.  Movies like this, while made for entertainment, let me know that there is still so much work to be done.  People with a love for helping others, a love for the law and most importantly, with integrity, are needed now more than ever.  So, I will continue my pursuit in the legal profession as I know I can and will make a difference; no matter how small it may seem.

My sources are two podcast episodes titled “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1” and “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown” produced by the True Anon podcast. The episodes were released November 29, 2021, and January 16, 2022, respectively. The episodes can be found on any podcast streaming platform such as Spotify, Soundcloud, or Patreon.

True Anon podcast co-hosts, Brace Belden and Liz Franczak, travelled to New York City to attend and cover United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial) at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The pair attended each day of the trial and recorded and released podcast episodes each evening in which they recapped what they observed and provided commentary.

In the episode, “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1”, Belden lists the federal felony charges against Maxwell, which include 1 count enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of sex trafficking a minor, and 3 counts of conspiracy. Belden notes Maxwell was also charged with 2 counts of perjury which would be considered in a separate trial.

Both the prosecution and defense gave opening statements on the first day of the trial. Lara Pomerantz delivered the prosecution’s opening statements by telling the story of Victim 1. Pomerantz used Victim 1’s story to illustrate the dynamic between Epstein and Maxwell who together sexually preyed on young women by exploiting their class dynamics. She specifically described crimes committed by Epstein before explaining how Maxwell facilitated the crimes. Pomerantz also laid out what evidence the prosecution would present during trial which included massage tables, nude photos, flight logs, travel logs, and gift receipts. Additionally, Pomerantz discussed what witnesses would be presented.

Bobbi Sternheim delivered the defense’s opening statements. She began by saying, “Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been blamed for the crimes of men”. Sternheim made the argument that because Epstein died before he could be tried by the same court, Ghislaine had essentially become a scapegoat for his crimes. Additionally, Sternheim stated the trial was about “money, memory, and manipulation” arguing that each of the victims were either after money, experiencing false memories, and/or being manipulated by the prosecution into testifying. Sternheim ended the opening argument by going through each victim one by one and laying out where she would contest them.

Outside of these restatements of the opening remarks, much of the commentary made by Belden and Franczak was comedic or focused on the energy of the trial and courtroom. They did discuss their concern over how the prosecution would present a convincing case. Specifically, the hosts felt that Ghislaine more than anything was guilty of grooming minors and that because grooming is not a legal term the prosecution would have to be creative in how they defined it and how they would find applicable laws.

I chose next to listen to “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown”. This episode was published a few weeks after the trial had ended and served as a retrospective on the trial. Belden and Franczak recorded the episode with Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown who had also attended the trial. Brown began covering Epstein in the early 2000s after he was arrested in 2006 by the Palm Beach Police Department on one state felony charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” and agreed to a plea deal with the Southern District of Florida that included a non-prosecution agreement with four named and any other unnamed co-conspirators. From Brown’s viewpoint, the original case against Epstein had been mishandled and the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial was “…an attempt to hold at least someone accountable…” but only addressed “…one piece of a huge crime…”. The case was prosecuted incredibly narrowly as to avoid any mention of third parties which Brown believed would only sew more distrust in the criminal justice system.

While legal concepts arose in these two episodes, most weren’t explained in detail. Basic courtroom roles such as “prosecution”, “defense”, and “judge” were mentioned. The trial venue was mentioned but the basis for jurisdiction was not addressed. The charges against Maxwell were listed but not defined. Interestingly, Julie K Brown stated that the charges against Maxwell were specifically designed to avoid the statute of limitations. Brown briefly described how Epstein’s Palm Beach Charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” had originated from a 14-year-old victim but had been misattributed to a 16-year-old victim to lessen its legal weight. Brown also discussed how the non-prosecution agreement from the Southern District of Florida may have had a role in the narrow scope of Maxwell’s trial. Brown also briefly mentioned that while building a case against Epstein in Florida, an assistant district attorney suddenly quit and was hired days later to work for Epstein’s defense team. This was never investigated but made me immediately think of our recent chapter on Ethics and Responsibility in regard to conflicts of interest and walling off procedures when an attorney changes jobs.

I feel these episodes accurately portrayed the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and accurately represented what the legal field can be like. However, this was a unique, high-profile federal felony trial with an incredibly narrow scope that should have been properly prosecuted as far back as 2005. There are certainly other high-profile trials that become media spectacles, but I’d wager those aren’t representative of the trials that happen every in federal court. Big cases like these have certainly played a role in my interest in the legal profession and specifically my interest in working as an investigator. The prosecution of both Epstein and Maxwell not only uncovered a peek into their incredibly bizarre and audacious world but also revealed that there are forces within the state and federal government that would like to keep as much as possible of that world behind closed doors.

 The movie “Just Mercy” was released in theaters December 25, 2019 and directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. It is based on a true story about a guy who was wrongfully accused of a crime he didn’t commit. This happened in 1988, a black man named Walter McMilian known as Johnny D, was sentenced to death for murdering a white teenage girl in Monroeville, Alabama. Bryan Stevenson, A black lawyer who just graduated from Harvard had gone to Alabama to defend many people who were wrongly accused of crimes they didn’t commit due to lack of evidence. Michael B. Jordan played the lawyer named Bryan Stevenson in the movie and Jamie Foxx played Walter McMillian(Johnny D). 

In the Movie “Just Mercy,” it shows how horrible the system was when it came down to African-Americans. In the movie, Bryan Stevenson helps defend poor people who cannot afford proper legal representation. Mr. Stevenson met Jonny D who was on death row for being accused of killing a white teenage girl but he is innocent. When Steveson reviews the evidence in the case, he learns the convict felon Ralph Myers had provided highly contradictory testimony in exchange for a plea deal and lighter sentence in his own trial. Mr. Stevenson realized all the evidence in Johnny D case was false and realized he was innocent and set up by their government. Since Mr. Stevenson had all the evidence to prove Johnny D innocent, he was threatened by two sheriff deputies, who forced him out his car at gunpoint and illegally searched the car. They refused to tell him why he was pulled over, but they had released him. With all that evidence that was found to show Johnny D, he was released from prison.

I found this Movie very interesting because It showed how corrupted the court system was toward black poor people. A white man was the one who killed the white teenage girl and pinning all of the blame on Johnny D. Johnny D knew the system was very messed up and he had lost faith but Mr.Stevenson had believed that he was innocent and went out of his way to find evidence to prove his innocence. During  1988, white  Cops were very corrupted and horrible. During the Stevenson investigation, people who were witnesses in the Johnny D case were being arrested so they wouldn’t testify. I believe the justice system is very horrible when it comes to black people because there are still a lot of people in jail that are not guilty and on death row. I am inspired by Bryan Stevenson, a black lawyer helping out many death row prisoners in jail that are wrongly accused. 

“Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” is a 2019 crime drama film directed by Joe Berlinger and starring Zac Efron as Ted Bundy. The film is based on the real-life tale of Ted Bundy, a well known serial killer who murdered women in the 1970s. This movie is told from the perspective of Bundy’s devoted girlfriend, Elizabeth Kloepfer, played by Lily Collins. At the start of the film, Elizabeth is portrayed as a single mother struggling to make ends meet, where she meets the so-called charming and charismatic Bundy. These two start off in a relationship, but as the story develops, Bundy’s true nature starts to gradually get revealed. Despite accumulating evidence that Bundy is accountable for a series of brutal murders, Elizabeth finds it hard to accept the truth about him, holding on to the belief that he is innocent. The film recounts Bundy’s trial and eventual conviction, as well as the impact it takes on both Elizabeth and Bundy’s victims. As the film progresses, Efron presents a chilling portrayal as Bundy, capturing both his charisma and his twisted nature. The film also explores the media frenzy engulfing Bundy’s case and the ways in which he manipulated public perception.”Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” does indeed touch on some legal concepts, particularly in its portrayal of Bundy’s trial and the court proceedings that follow. The film portrays the role of lawyers in the legal system, including the ethical obligations of defense attorneys to provide an effective defense for their clients. Throughout the film, Bundy is depicted as a conniving and charismatic individual who is able to charm his way out of challenging situations. This is particularly noticeable in his interactions with his defense attorney, played by John Malkovich, who is shown struggling with his own conscience as he attempts to present Bundy with the best possible defense. The film additionally touches on the function of the media in shaping public perception of Bundy’s case, and the ways in which this influenced the result of his trial. It portrays the media and news as a powerful factor in shaping public opinion, and indicates that this can sometimes work against the purposes of justice. Yet, overall, while “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” is primarily a biographical drama rather than a legal drama, it does emphasize some essential legal concepts and provides some understanding into the processes of the court system and the role of lawyers in defending their clients. My reaction was honestly just absurd shock. I couldn’t fathom how one person can have multiple sides to them. It made me think about how we don’t really know anyone around us, we would like to believe people around us are never capable of such vile actions but we never really know what someone around us is hiding behind our backs. Also, this film made me reflect on how we give these people such a big platform and importance after crimes they have committed, should we even be giving these crimes this much attention? It almost makes it seem as if we are appreciating what occurred instead of reflecting upon it. Many people look up to these serial killers sadly and try to imitate them. I was so disappointed in Bundy, he is such wasted potential. Bundy was book smart when he was in law school, one couldn’t help but wonder where Bundy would have been in life had he not done these wrongdoings and been who he is regarded as today. I wouldn’t say anything “accurately” portrays the legal field since it is such a broad field. I would definitely say that this film represents a good example that had occurred in the legal field that is well known since this is a very well-known serial killer and case. I would recommend this film to anyone interested in true crime. The manner Bundy is portrayed in this film is genuinely skin crawling and will leave you thinking. I would say this movie has influenced my view of the law, and my interest in the legal occupation since it made me think about the psychological aspect of these serial killers and murderers. How can a guy that looks so ordinary to the public that is in law school commit such a repugnant crime and get away with it for so long, as well as persuade people to be on his side? This goes to show that with good persuasion it’s almost as if you can get anyone on your side as long as you have a good argument. That sometimes justice is almost played with and tricked depending on how good the arguments presented in defense to what the plaintiff had brought in.