Anatomy of a Murder

Anatomy of a Murder is a 1959 American courtroom crime drama film directed by Otto Preminger and adapted
by Wendell Mayes from the best-selling novel of the same name written by Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D.
Voelker under the pen name Robert Traver. Voelker based the novel on a 1952 murder case in which he was the defense
attorney.
The film stars James Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, Eve Arden, George C. Scott, Arthur O'Connell, Kathryn
Grant, Brooks West (Arden's husband), Orson Bean, and Murray Hamilton. The judge was played by Joseph N. Welch,
a real-life lawyer famous for berating Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings. This was one of the first
mainstream Hollywood films to address sex and rape in graphic terms. It includes one of Saul Bass's most celebrated
title sequences, a musical score by Duke Ellington, who also appears in the film, and has been described by a law
professor as "probably the finest pure trial movie ever made".[1]
In 2012, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of
Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". [2]

Plot[edit]
"This is a cross examination in a murder case, not some high school debate!" Brooks West (left) and James
Stewart (right) face one another, as George C. Scott (center) looks on

In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, small-town lawyer Paul Biegler (Stewart), a former district attorney who lost his
re-election bid, spends most of his time fishing, playing the piano, and hanging out with his alcoholic friend and
colleague Parnell McCarthy (O'Connell) and sardonic secretary Maida Rutledge (Arden).

One day, Biegler is contacted by Laura Manion (Remick), the wife of US Army Lieutenant Frederick "Manny" Manion
(Gazzara), who has been arrested for the first-degree murder of innkeeper Bernard "Barney" Quill. Manion does not
deny the murder, but claims that Quill raped his wife. Even with such a motivation, getting Manion cleared of murder
would be difficult, but Manion claims to have no memory of the event, suggesting that he may be eligible for a defense
of irresistible impulsea version of a temporary insanity defense. Biegler's folksy speech and laid-back demeanor hide
a sharp legal mind and a propensity for courtroom theatrics that has the judge busy keeping things under control.
However, the case for the defense does not go well, especially since the local district attorney (Brooks West) is assisted
by high-powered prosecutor Claude Dancer (Scott) from the Attorney General's office.

Furthermore, the prosecution tries at every instance to block any mention of Manion's motive for killing Quill. Biegler
eventually manages to get Laura Manion's rape into the record and Judge Weaver ( Joseph N. Welch) agrees to allow
the matter to be part of the deliberations. However, during cross-examination, Dancer insinuates that Laura openly
flirted with other men, including the man she claimed raped her. Psychiatrists give conflicting testimony to Manion's
state of mind at the time that he killed Quill. Dancer says that Manion may have suspected Laura of cheating on him
because he asked his wife, a Catholic, to swear on a rosary that Quill raped her. This raises doubt as to whether the act
was nonconsensual.

Quill's estate is to be inherited by Mary Pilant (Kathryn Grant), whom Dancer accuses of being Quill's mistress.
McCarthy learns that she is in fact Quill's daughter, a fact she is anxious to keep secret since she was born out of
wedlock. Biegler, who is losing the case, tries to persuade Pilant that Al Paquette, (Murray Hamilton) the bartender
who witnessed the murder, may know that Quill admitted to raping Laura, but Paquette is covering this up, either
because he loves Pilant or out of loyalty to Quill. Through Pilant, Biegler tries to persuade Paquette to testify for the
defense, but Paquette refuses.

During the trial, Laura claims that Quill tore off her panties while raping her; these panties were not found in the crime
scene, where she alleges the rape took place. Pilant, unaware of any details of the case, voluntarily returns to the
courtroom to testify that she found the panties in the inn's laundry room. Biegler suggests Quill may have dropped the
panties down the laundry chute, located next to his room, to avoid suspicion. Dancer tries to establish that Pilant's
answers are founded on her jealousy. When Dancer asserts forcibly that Quill was Pilant's lover and that Pilant lied to
cover this fact, Pilant shocks everyone by stating that Quill was her father. Manion is found "not guilty by reason of
insanity". After the trial, Biegler decides to open a new practice, with a newly sober McCarthy as his partner.

The next day, Biegler and McCarthy travel to the Manions' trailer park home to get Manion's signature on a promissory
note which they hope will suffice as collateral for a desperately needed loan. It turns out the Manions have vacated the
trailer park, however, with the trailer park superintendent commenting that Laura Manion had been crying. Manion left
a note for Biegler, indicating that his flight was "an irresistible impulse"the same terminology Biegler used during
the trial. Biegler states that Mary Pilant has retained him to execute Quill's estate. McCarthy says that working for her
will be "poetic justice".

Inspiration[edit]

On July 31, 1952, Lt. Coleman A. Peterson shot and killed Maurice Chenoweth in Big Bay, Michigan.[3] Voelker was
retained as defense attorney a few days later. [4] The trial started on September 15, 1952, [5] and Assistant Attorney
General Irving Beattie assisted Marquette County Prosecuting Attorney Edward Thomas. [6] Voelker used a rare version
of the insanity defense called irresistible impulse that had not been used in Michigan since 1886. [7] The jury deliberated
for four hours on September 23, 1952, before returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. [8] Two days later,
after Peterson was examined by a psychiatrist who judged him sane, he was released. [9] Peterson and his wife were
divorced soon after the trial.[10] Hillsdale Circuit Court Judge Charles O. Arch, Sr. tried the case.

Legal aspects[edit]

The film examines the apparent fallibility of the human factor in jurisprudence.[13][14] In various ways all of the human
componentsthe counsels for defense and prosecution, the defendant and his wife, and the witnesses have their own
differing positions on what is right or wrong, and varying perspectives on integrity, justice, morality and ethics. It is to
be noted that the reliance on credibility of witnesses, and the "finding of facts" based upon those determinations, is the
"Achilles heel" of the judicial process.[14]

One controversial legal issue in this film is possible witness coaching, a violation of legal canons. The only plausible
legal defense Lt. Manion hasthe insanity defenseis virtually spelled out to a befuddled Manion by his prospective
counsel,[15] who then temporarily suspends the conversation and suggests that Manion rethink his factual/legal position.
Witness coaching by the prosecution is even more blatant as they call in other jail inmates awaiting sentencing to
testify against Manion, and is portrayed as subornation of perjury to an extent. The first suggests that the defendant
may be concealing the truth and manipulating his story in order to obtain the best possible verdict, and the latter that
the prosecution dangled a possible lighter sentence through plea bargain as an incentive to perjury.[1][16]

Thus, there could be a synergy: compounding the inherent fallible nature of the process with the malleability of
memory, the potential mendacity of witnesses, the showmanship and "magic tricks" involved in trials[17] and advocacy,
[16]
and the self-interest, venality, morality, poor perception and recollection, and ethical standards of the participants.[13]
[14]
Indeed, the unreliability of judicial decisions based on demeanor has been legally established. [18]

In protracted litigation, confabulated memoryfilling in the blanks and recreating memoriesis common, and
research has documented the tendency. Repetitive and suggestive questioning tends to plant the seeds of memory.
[19]
The book and the film are examples of the lawyers' dance. "Horse shedding" of witnesses is well known, if
controversial and potentially unethical; it is not just an occasion to directly orchestrate perjury. What is more
problematic is that it is possible to reach a point where "if you believe it, then it isn't a lie." Thus, even letter-perfect
"bona fide" certainty of belief is not equivalent to a certification of accuracy or even truthfulness. This process is called
"horse shedding", "sandpapering", or "wood shedding"the first and last terms being metaphorical references to the
location of such a "collaboration."[20][21]

Critical reception[edit]

The language used during the film startled Chicago, Illinois Mayor Richard J. Daley,[22] and his Police Commissioner.
As a result, the film was temporarily banned in the heavily Catholic city. [23] Preminger filed a motion in federal court in
Illinois and the mayor's decision was overturned. The film was allowed to be exhibited after the court determined that
the clinical language during the trial was realistic and appropriate within the film's context. [24][25] In another federal
lawsuit in Chicago, the daughter of the real-life murder victim from the 1952 case sued Dell Publishing and Columbia
Pictures in July 1960 for libel over accusations that the book and movie "followed [the actual trial] too closely" and
portrayed the two women in an unflattering light;[26] the suit was dismissed less than a year later in May 1961. [27]

Anatomy of a Murder has been well received by members of the legal and educational professions. In 1989,
the American Bar Association rated this as one of the 12 best trial films of all time. In addition to its plot and musical
score, the article noted: "The film's real highlight is its ability to demonstrate how a legal defense is developed in a
difficult case. How many trial films would dare spend so much time watching lawyers do what many lawyers do most
(and enjoy least)research?" [28] The film has also been used as a teaching tool in law schools, as it encompasses (from
the defense standpoint) all of the basic stages in the U.S. criminal justice system from client interview
and arraignment through trial. The film was listed as No. 4 of 25 "Greatest Legal Movies" by the American Bar
Association.[29]

The film earned an estimated $5.5 million in rentals in the U.S. and Canada during its first year of release. [30]

Film critics have noted the moral ambiguity, where a small town lawyer triumphs by guile, stealth and trickery. The
film is frank and direct. Language and sexual themes are explicit, at variance with the times (and other films) when it
was produced. The black and white palette is seen as a complement to Michigan's harsh Upper Peninsula landscape.
[31]
The film is "[m]ade in black-and-white but full of local color". [32]

Bosley Crowther, film critic for The New York Times said, "After watching an endless succession of courtroom
melodramas that have more or less transgressed the bounds of human reason and the rules of advocacy, it is cheering
and fascinating to see one that hews magnificently to a line of dramatic but reasonable behavior and proper procedure
in a court. Such a one is Anatomy of a Murder, which opened at the Criterion and the Plaza yesterday. It is the best
courtroom melodrama this old judge has ever seen... . Outside of the fact that this drama gets a little tiring in spotsin
its two hours and forty minutes, most of which is spent in courtit is well nigh flawless as a picture of an American
court at work, of small-town American characters and of the average sordidness of crime." [33]

Time felt that it was a well-paced, well-acted, and that the explicit language was warranted within the film's context. [23]
In June 2008, the American Film Institute revealed AFI's 10 Top 10, the best 10 films in 10 "classic" American film
genres, after polling over 1,500 people from the creative community. Anatomy of a Murder was selected as the seventh
best film in the courtroom drama genre.[34] The Internet Movie Database rates it number 23 of 1,177 trial films.[35]

It holds a perfect 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 40 reviews with a consensus: "One of cinema's greatest
courtroom dramas, Anatomy of a Murder is tense, thought-provoking, and brilliantly acted, with great performances
from James Stewart and George C. Scott."[36]