ANATOMY OF A MURDER

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Final draft for fulfilment of project of Legal Language
On
“Anatomy of A Murder”

Submitted to:- Dr Pratyush Kaushik

Submitted By: Aishwarya Shankar

Faculty of Law And Literature

Roll No: 1913 1st Year B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)

 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the B.A.L.L.B(Hons) Project Report titled
“ANATOMY OF A MURDER” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of my work carried under the supervision of Dr.
Pratyush Kaushik. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I
am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Aishwarya Shankar

B.A. L.L.B(Hons) 1st YEAR

SEMESTER-2nd

CNLU, PATNA

Dated:
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show my gratitude towards my guide Dr. Pratyush Kaushik, Faculty of Law and
Literature, under whose guidance, I structured my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to our CNLU librarians, who helped me
immensely with the materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my friends and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

AISHWARYA SHANKAR

SEMESTER 2nd

CNLU,Patna
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

2. INTRODUCTION

Anatomy of a Murder is a 1959 American courtroom drama crime film. The screenplay
by Wendell Mayes was based on the 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.1

The method of research used in this project is Doctrinal Method. The research is based on the
library work and no field work has been done. It is solely based on articles, books and the
internet.

Aims and Objectives of this project are:

1. To understand the plot of the book/movie.

2. To understand the legal aspect behind the plot.
3. To observe and critically examining the verdict given in the book/movie.

Based on the best-selling novel by Robert Traver (the pseudonym for Michigan Supreme Court
justice John D. Voelker), Anatomy of a Murder stars James Stewart as seat-of-the-pants
Michigan lawyer Paul Biegler. Through the intervention of his alcoholic mentor, Parnell
McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell), Biegler accepts the case of one Lt. Manion (Ben Gazzara), an
unlovable lout who has murdered a local bar owner. Manion admits that he committed the crime,
citing as his motive the victim's rape of the alluring Mrs. Manion (Lee Remick). Faced with the
formidable opposition of big-city prosecutor Claude Dancer (George C. Scott), Biegler hopes to
win freedom for his client by using as his defense the argument of "irresistible impulse." Also
featured in the cast is Eve Arden as Biegler's sardonic secretary, Katherine Grant as the woman
who inherits the dead man's business, and Joseph N. Welch -- who in real life was the defense
attorney in the Army-McCarthy hearings -- as the ever-patient judge. The progressive-jazz
musical score is provided by Duke Ellington, who also appears in a brief scene.
Producer/director Otto Preminger once more pushed the envelope in Anatomy of a Murder by
utilizing technical terminology referring to sexual penetration, which up until 1959 was a
cinematic no-no. Contrary to popular belief, Preminger was not merely being faithful to the
novel; most of the banter about "panties" and "semen," not to mention the 11-hour courtroom
revelation, was invented for the film. Anatomy of a Murder was filmed on location in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula.

1
"Justice Story: The Murder Behind the Movie". Daily News. New York. Retrieved January 28, 2019
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

3.ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John D. Voelker (June 29, 1903 – March 18, 1991), also known by his pen name Robert Traver,
was a noted lawyer, author and fly fisherman from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He grew up
in his hometown of Ishpeming and later attended the University of Michigan Law School. His
early professional career was as an attorney and county prosecutor in Marquette County. Voelker
was also appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Governor G. Mennen Williams in 1957.
He is best known as the author of the novel, Anatomy of a Murder, published in 1958. The best-
selling novel was turned into an Academy Award-nominated film of the same name—directed
by Otto Preminger and starring James Stewart—that was released July 1, 1959. Duke
Ellington wrote the music for the movie. It is critically acclaimed as one of the best trial
movies of all time.

Anatomy of a Murder is based on a real murder (and subsequent trial) that occurred in Big
Bay in the early morning of July 31, 1952. Coleman A. Peterson, a lieutenant in the Army, was
charged with murdering Maurice Chenoweth. The alleged motive was revenge for the rape of
Peterson's wife by Chenoweth. Voelker successfully defended Peterson, who was found not
guilty by reason of insanity. Other books by Voelker were based on other legal cases in the
Upper Peninsula or his love of fly fishing for brook trout. He authored over 100 opinions during
his short tenure on the Michigan Supreme Court, the most famous of which was in a case
called People v. Hildabridle involving a nudist colony near Battle Creek.

LEGAL CAREEER
After law school, Voelker returned home to work for the law firm of Eldredge & Eldredge
in Marquette.2 He also worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Marquette County,
Michigan. After two years apart from Grace,3 he moved to Chicago.4 After their marriage,
he practiced law with the firm of Meyer, Austrian & Platt. They lived in Chicago for three years
before he returned to Michigan.5 Voelker's few jobs at the time barely kept them solvent,
returning to a rural area in the middle of the Great Depression.

2
Peters, Stephen H. (September 15, 2010). "Biographical Note". The John D. Voelker Papers. Central Upper
Peninsula and Northern Michigan University Archives. Retrieved June 10, 2015.
3
(PDF). Michigan History. 85 (6): 84–87. OCLC 220951644. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20,
2006. Retrieved December 7, 2011.
4
Voelker, John D. (October 1, 1990). "Interview with John D. Voelker". Interviews with Michigan Supreme Court
Justices (Interview by Roger F. Lane). Ishpeming, MI: Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. Retrieved June
10, 2015 – via Michigan State University Libraries.
5
Baker, Fredrick M., Jr. & Vander Veen, Rich, III (May 2000). "John D. Voelker: Michigan's Literary Justice".
Michigan Lawyers in History. Michigan Bar Journal. 79 (5): 530–31. ISSN 0164-3576. Archived from the
original on May 25, 2011. Retrieved October 4, 2008.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

Soon after they moved, he entered the election for Marquette County Prosecuting Attorney in
1934. Voelker was the only local resident to campaign for the office, and when he was elected
later that year, he was the first Democrat to hold the office since the American Civil War. He
maintained a private law practice while serving as prosecutor and also served in other capacities.
He was a member of the Marquette County Bar Association, serving as association president
from 1939 to 1941. During the 1940s and 1950s, he served on several committees of the State
Bar of Michigan, including the Committee on Judicial Selection and Tenure and the Committee
on Criminal Jurisprudence. Voelker was a member of the State Board of Law Examiners from
1942 to 1945, and he was the city attorney for Ishpeming in 1943 and 1944. He also assisted
the Michigan Attorney General in 1943 with a bribery investigation of the Michigan Legislature.

He was defeated for re-election in 1950. During the last ten years of his tenure, he lost only
one felony case, judged a "very successful" record according to Judge Thomas Solka, a circuit
court judge in Marquette County. Voelker noted of his defeat that it was inevitable. Ultimately,
he said that a prosecutor in a small town will build a majority in the population to vote against
him, but only after he had prosecuted them or their friends and relatives. Voelker also hated
campaigning.6 Voelker once described the caseload from his tenure as prosecutor as involving
"three grand larcenies, two auto thefts, three burglaries, a brace of bastard cases, one indecent
exposure, one assault with intent to murder, two wife desertions and one dog-tired prosecutor".7

After defeat, Voelker re-entered private practice. In August and September 1952, he represented
the defense in People v. Coleman Peterson. Peterson was a veteran of both World War II and the
Korean War who was stationed in Big Bay during the summer of 1952 and accused of murder in
the shooting death of Maurice Chenoweth, a local bar owner. The case "made" his "reputation as
a defense attorney". The defense centered on a rare form of the insanity defense called
"irresistible impulse".Until the Peterson case, the "irresistible impulse" defense had not been
used in Michigan since People v. Durfee in 1886. The trial lasted seven days with a total of 31
witnesses: 26 for the prosecution and five for the defense. The jury deliberated for four hours
before pronouncing Peterson not guilty by reason of insanity. Voelker's only payment as the
defense attorney was the murder weapon.

Voelker's business slowed after the Peterson trial, and by 1953 he closed his office and worked
from home. In 1954, he ran for the United States Congress. In 1956, he was interviewed as a
possible candidate to fill a vacancy on the Michigan Supreme Court. At the time, Governor G.
Mennen Williams thought it was appropriate to revive a tradition of having a justice from the
Upper Peninsula on the court. When asked why he wanted to serve, Voelker replied, "Because I
have spent my life on fiction and fishing, and I need the money." He was appointed the

6
Baker, Fredrick M., Jr. & Vander Veen, Rich, III (May 2000). "John D. Voelker: Michigan's Literary Justice".
Michigan Lawyers in History. Michigan Bar Journal. 79 (5): 530–31. ISSN 0164-3576. Archived from the
original on May 25, 2011. Retrieved October 4, 2008.
7
Krajicek, David J. (January 17, 2009). "Killing of Michigan Bar Owner in 1952 Inspired Film". Daily News. New
York. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

74th justice of the Michigan Supreme Court by Williams to fill Emerson R. Boyles's vacant seat
on the court in December 1956, and Voelker was confirmed in an election in 1957 to fill out the
remainder of Boyles' term. He was then reelected to a full term in 1958.

During his tenure on the court, Voelker wrote over 100 opinions, both majority opinions and
dissents.8 In 1958, he authored what was the originally the dissent in the case People v.
Hildabridle. That case centered around a nudist colony near Battle Creek. Local police on their
own initiative investigated the colony even though local residents had not lodged any complaints.
One officer swore out a warrant used to arrest the colony members. Chief Justice John R.
Dethmers wrote the original majority opinion to uphold the convictions of the nudists.9 In the
dissent, Voelker proclaimed "the entire search-and-arrest process 'indecent—indeed the one big
indecency we find in this whole case .... It seems that we are now prepared to burn down the
house of constitutional safeguards in order to roast a few nudists. I will have none of it." In an
example of the humor used in his opinions, in noting the proclivities of the nudist, "if
eccentricity were a crime, then all of us were felons." This dissenting opinion was so convincing
that it swayed Justice George Clifton Edwards, Jr., one of those in the majority, to change sides,
converting the dissent to a majority. On Voelker's request, his opinion was published unaltered,
starting with the words "I dissent", an anomaly in published majority opinions of the court. In
1962, political scientist S. Sidney Ulmer noted that Voelker was the second-most influential
member of the court in his short tenure.10

In 1959, after the success of his novel Anatomy of a Murder, Voelker retired from the court in
order to write full-time and to fish at his beloved Frenchman's Pond. At the time, his court salary
was $18,500/year (equivalent to $120,000 in 2016) while he was earning royalties
from Anatomy of a Murder of almost $100,000 (equivalent to $600,000 in 2016). He delayed his
resignation until after the new year in 1960 so that Governor Williams would be free to appoint
his successor, Theodore Souris. After leaving the court, Voelker never practiced law again.

LITERARY CAREER
Voelker wrote his first story, "Lost All Night in a Swamp with a Bear" at age 12. He started his
professional writing career in 1933 when he returned to Ishpeming from Chicago. His first
published piece was a short story called "Iron" that appeared in the February 1934 issue
of American Scene. He assumed a pen name, "Robert Traver", the first name from a brother who
died serving with the U.S. Navy in World War I, and the last name from his mother's maiden

8
Shaul, Richard D. (November–December 2001). "Backwoods Barrister" (PDF). Michigan History. 85 (6): 84–
87. OCLC 220951644. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2006. Retrieved December 7, 2011
9
Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society (February 2009). "'People v. Hildabridle': Voelker and the Art of
Crafting an Opinion". Michigan Bar Journal. 88 (2): S6–S9. ISSN 0164-3576.
10
Ulmer, S. Sidney (1962). "The Political Party Variable in the Michigan Supreme Court". Journal of Public
Law. 11: 375–384. quoted in Baker, Fredrick M., Jr. & Vander Veen, Rich, III (May 2000). "John D. Voelker:
Michigan's Literary Justice". Michigan Lawyers in History. Michigan Bar Journal. 79 (5): 530–31. ISSN 0164-3576.
Archived from the original on May 25, 2011. Retrieved October 4, 2008.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

name. He used a pseudonym, because, in his words, he "didn't think the taxpayers would fancy
[him] doing [his] scribbling on their time."11 His first novel, Troubleshooter was published in
1943. He wrote by hand on yellow legal pads so that he could edit his work as he went. In 1951,
his second novel, Danny and the Boys was published followed by Small Town D.A. in 1954.
These three were autobiographical in nature, focusing on legal themes; they did not sell very
well.

After Small Town D.A., Voelker said that he "wanted to write [about] 'a criminal trial the way it
really was.'" He selected the Peterson murder trial from 1952. He wrote Anatomy of a Murder in
three months and received an acceptance letter from a publisher in December 1956 just days
before he was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court. The book was the first to portray both
the preparation and trial phases of a legal case, creating a new genre of fiction.12 The novel was
chosen as the January 1958 Book-of-the-Month Club main selection, and it was listed on The
New York Times Bestseller list for 62 weeks. In The New York Times, reviewer Orville Prescott
called it "immensely readable and continuously entertaining" and noted Voelker's "unflagging
invention and narrative pace".

Otto Preminger purchased the movie rights to Anatomy of a Murder in April 1958. Filming
started in March 1959 on location in the Upper Peninsula; the director was convinced by his
scouts to film the entire movie on location, the first time a movie was filmed entirely in that
fashion. Voekler's home office was used as one of the filming locations, as was the Marquette
County Courthouse. The book used quotations from actual testimony in the original 1952
trial, and the movie did as well, helping to bring an end to the strict censorship of motion pictures
under the Hayes Code. In addition to its on-location filming, Duke Ellington wrote part of the
movie's score in Ishpeming. The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards in 1960, but
did not win any. The movie premiered in Ishpeming and Marquette on June 29, 1959, followed
by its world premier in Detroiton July 1. The movie was critically acclaimed. Bosley Crowther,
film critic for The New York Times said, "it is the best courtroom melodrama this old judge has
ever seen", and the American Bar Association rated this as one of the 12 best trial films of all
time.

Financially secure from his writing, Voelker resigned from the Michigan Supreme Court, telling
Governor Williams, "other people can write my opinions, but none can write my books. I have
learned that I can't do both so regretfully I must quit the court." He continued writing, publishing
several books on fishing or legal themes. The first was Trout Madness in 1960, followed by the
political drama Hornstein's Boy in 1961. He returned to fishing with Anatomy of a Fisherman in
1964, a picture book that included the soliloquy "Testament of a Fisherman", which to a vast

11
Shaul, Richard D. (November–December 2001). "Backwoods Barrister" (PDF). Michigan History. 85 (6): 84–
87. OCLC 220951644. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2006. Retrieved December 7, 2011.
12
Coir, Marlene (December 2011). "The Courtroom as the Stage: A Selection of Michigan Legal Fiction". Michigan
Bar Journal. 90 (12): 40–41. ISSN 0164-3576.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

number of trout anglers, Voelker's piece best exemplifies the love of this sport. Voelker
continued to write about fishing or the courtroom through 1960s and 1970s. He authored a
column called "The Traver Treatment" in the Detroit News Sunday Magazine in 1967-68. His
last book was People Versus Kirk in 1981, and the last short story of his that was published was
titled "Dangling Angling Genes" and appeared in the May–June 1990 issue of Rod &
Reel magazine. Several of his fishing books were anthologies of short stories he had written,
some of which had already been printed in magazines like Field & Stream.13

13
"Robert Traver (aka John Voelker)". Outdoor Sporting Library. Retrieved June 10,2015.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

4.PLOT
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), to defend her husband 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 impulse—a 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 the rape of Laura Manion into the record and
Judge Weaver (Joseph N. Welch) agrees to allow the matter to be part of the deliberations.
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 non-consensual.

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 if Quill
admitted to him of raping Laura but Paquette is covering this up, either because he loves Pilant
or out of loyalty to Quill. Through Pilant, Biegler is unable to get Paquette to testify on behalf of
Manion.

During the trial, Laura claims that Quill tore off her panties while raping her; the panties were
not found where she alleges the rape took place. Pilant, unaware of any details of the case,
testifies that she found the panties in the inn's laundry room. Biegler suggests Quill may have
attempted to avoid suspicion by dropping the panties down the laundry chute, located next to his
room. 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".
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

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, 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 justification 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".
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

5. LEGAL ASPECTS

On July 31, 1952, Lt. Coleman A. Peterson shot and killed Maurice Chenoweth in Big Bay,
Michigan.14 Voelker was retained as defense attorney a few days later.15 The trial started on
September 15, 1952,16 and Assistant Attorney General Irving Beattie assisted Marquette County
Prosecuting Attorney Edward Thomas.17 Voelker used a rare version of the insanity defense
called irresistible impulse that had not been used in Michigan since 1886.18 The jury deliberated
for four hours on September 23, 1952, before returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of
insanity. Two days later, after Peterson was examined by a psychiatrist who judged him sane, he
was released. Peterson and his wife were divorced soon after the trial. Hillsdale Circuit Court
Judge Charles O. Arch, Sr. tried the case because of the illness of a local judge.

The film examines the apparent fallibility of the human factor in jurisprudence. In various ways
all of the human components—the 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.19

One controversial legal issue in this film is possible witness coaching, a violation of legal
canons. The only plausible legal defense Lt. Manion has—the insanity defense—is virtually
spelled out to a befuddled Manion by his prospective counsel, who then 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.

14
"Army Officer Held for Murder of Big Bay Tavern Proprietor: 'Mike' Chenoweth, Former State Policeman, Slain
Following Alleged Rape". The Mining Journal. Marquette, MI. July 31, 1952. p. 1. ISSN 0898-4964. Retrieved
January 28 ,2019
15
Atty. Voelker Retained by Lt. Peterson". The Mining Journal. Marquette, MI. August 5, 1952. p. 2. ISSN 0898-
4964. Retrieved January 28,2019
16
"Judge Arch Allows Motion by Prosecutor for Additional Witness in Murder Case". The Mining Journal.
Marquette, MI. September 15, 1952. Retrieved on January 28 2019
17
Pepin, John (2009). Anatomy '59: The Making of a Classic Motion Picture (DVD). Retrieved on January 2019
18
Thomson, Kimberley Reed (February 2003). "The Untimely Death of Michigan's Diminished Capacity
Defense". Michigan Bar Journal. Vol. 82 no. 2. pp. 17–19. ISSN 0164-3576.
19
Pepin (2009), 15:00.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

6.CRITICAL RECEPTION

The language used during the film startled Chicago, Illinois, Mayor Richard J. Daley,20 and his
police commissioner. As a result, the film was temporarily banned in the heavily Catholic city.21
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.22 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; the suit was
dismissed less than a year later in May 1961.23

Anatomy of a Murder has been well received by members of the legal and educational
professions. In 1989, the American Bar Associationrated 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?" 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.

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

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. The film is "made in
black-and-white but full of local color".

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

20
Shaul, Richard D. (November–December 2001). "Anatomy of a Murder" (PDF). Michigan History. Vol. 86 no. 6.
p. 89. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 1, 2008. Retrieved December 7, 2011
21
"Cinema: The New Pictures, July 13, 1959". Time. July 13, 1959.
22
Schumach, Murray (1964). The Face on the Cutting Room Floor. William Morrow and Company
23
"Anatomy of a Murder Libel Suit Dismissed". The News-Palladium. Benton Harbor, MI. Associated Press. May
17, 1961. § 3, p. 11 – via Newspapers.com.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

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 spots—in its two hours and forty minutes, most of which is spent in court—it 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."24

Time felt that it was well-paced, well-acted, and that the explicit language was warranted within
the film's context.

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.25

Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 100% of 42 surveyed critics gave the film a
positive review; the average rating was 8.6/10. The site's consensus states, "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."26

24
Crowther, Bosley (July 3, 1959). "A Court Classic". The New York Times
25
"AFI's 10 Top 10". American Film Institute. June 17, 2008. Archived from the original on June 19, 2008.
Retrieved June 18, 2008.
26
"Anatomy of a Murder". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved July 14, 2013
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

7.LEGAL ETHICS IN ANATOMY OF A MURDER

The defense attorney, Paul Biegler (played by Jimmy Stewart) comes across as an earnest,
straightforward, honest attorney who zealously defends the accused.

Yet Biegler comes close to crossing the lawyer’s ethical line of not suborning perjury when in
the initial consultations with his client, Lt. Frederick Manion (played by Ben Gazzara), Biegler
tells the client the only potential defense is insanity before the lawyer knows all the facts and
then implicitly invites the client to develop a story of insanity.

During the trial, Biegler frequently appears to be an unskilled trial lawyer. He makes improper
objections, such as “Now, he [Dancer, one of the prosecutors] cannot do that.” Biegler also
frequently and knowingly asks improper questions, and the prosecution’s objections are
sustained. His client, Manion, asks Biegler in an aside how the jury can forget something that the
judge has stricken. Biegler says the jury cannot forget, which is precisely the reason why Biegler
asked the improper question.

Another example of Biegler’s apparent inept performance as a defense lawyer is his failure to
object to the examination of one witness by both prosecutors–District Attorney Mitch Lodwick
(played by Brooks West) and Assistant Attorney General Claude Dancer (played by George C.
Scott). Such “dual teaming” is clearly improper as a matter of trial practice. Soon thereafter,
however, Biegler reveals his calculating courtroom manner when he raises that very objection
while slyly arguing to the jury that it is unfair for a simple country lawyer like himself to face
two legal giants with the same witness, and the court sustains Biegler’s objection. Who really is
the courtroom giant?

Biegler also reveals his skills as a trial lawyer when in a conference in chambers with Judge
Weaver (played by Joseph Welch), Biegler initially plays dumb when Dancer asks if Biegler is
familiar with a Michigan statute that allows the prosecution to have its psychiatrist examine an
accused who is asserting the insanity defense. Dancer then comes across as a reasonable attorney
when he suggests that Biegler just agree to the adverse examination. But Biegler is well aware of
the statute when he tells the judge that a formal application is required for such an adverse
examination, but that the time for such has passed. Dancer then is forced to abandon his request.
Later during Biegler’s cross examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, Biegler forces the
adverse expert to admit that he did not examine Manion whereas Manion’s expert had and that
Manion’s expert, therefore, had a better basis for his opinion.

At the heart of the legal issues in the movie was the definition of insanity as a defense to criminal
liability. At the time of the movie and today, the definition in most states in the U.S. is
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

the M’Naghten rule: a person is insane if at the time of the act, he did not know what he was
doing or did not know that what he was doing was wrong.

In a few states, on the other hand, insanity was defined as someone who could not control what
he was doing because of a mental impairment even though he knew what he was doing was
wrong. This was the so-called “irresistible impulse” test.

In the movie, Biegler assumes that Michigan follows the M’Naghten rule, but on the Saturday
before the start of trail, he and his co-counsel, McCarthy, spend time in the county law library in
the courthouse and find an old Michigan case that approves of the irresistible impulse rule. This
makes for a dramatic scene in the movie. But to conduct legal research on the key issue in a
murder case only a few days before the start of trial is skirting the edges of legal malpractice.

This legal issue becomes important in a conference in chambers with Judge Weaver (Welch)
when the prosecution suggests that Manion change his plea to guilty after his expert psychiatrist
testifies that Manion could have known right from wrong when he killed Quill. Biegler refuses
this proposal while handing the judge the law book containing the Michigan case. Dancer then
backs away from his idea, saying he remembers the case.

Dancer’s conduct raises another legal ethics problem. As an assistant state attorney general, he is
brought into the case because of his expertise on the insanity issue. As such an expert and as a
member of the Michigan attorney general’s office, he has to know that the Michigan Supreme
Court had approved of the “irresistible impulse” test, as he indicates when he says he remembers
the case. (How could he forget?) Yet Dancer makes the suggestion in chambers that Manion
change his plea because his psychiatrist did not support the application of the M’Naghten test.
Perhaps he thought he could trick his supposedly less-sophisticated adversary, Biegler, with this
suggestion. But an attorney has an obligation not to knowingly misstate the law to the court, and
by making the suggestion in chambers that is exactly what Dancer did. In Dancer’s defense, he
could argue that he was not making a formal motion for a directed verdict that required a
decision by the judge, but this distinction, in the author’s opinion, is insufficient to exempt a
prosecutor, who also has obligations to justice.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

8. CASE

PEOPLE V. DURFEE
William E. Turner and Stanley L. Avery, both of Los Angeles, for appellant. Fred. Howser, Atty.
Gen., and Frank Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Having been accused by information of 10 offenses defined by section 288 of the Penal Code
and convicted by a jury, defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. He appealed on the
ground that the evidence does not support the verdict in that the corpus delicti was not
established.

The first five counts of the pleading charge crimes against Sue; the second five counts allege
crimes against Jane. They are sisters, ages 8 and 10 years respectively. Their mother had married
appellant February 23, 1945. He was 41 years of age, an instructor of chemistry and physics in a
high school and some time notary public and insurance and realty broker. For obvious good
reasons the sordid details related by the two children are omitted from this discussion. Suffice it
to say that in support of counts, I, II, III, IV and V Sue testified before the court to the details of
appellant's lascivious acts. As to counts VI, VII, IX and X Jane likewise testified fully as to
appellant's misconduct and treatment of her. However, it cannot be said that her testimony with
reference to count VIII establishes an act different from those pleaded in counts IV and V.

Such testimony from two girls of tender ages and without experience is abundant proof to
support the implied finding of the jury. They are not expected to give a detailed description of
each transaction and of all the circumstances. People v. Kearney, 20 Cal.2d 435, 437, 126 P.2d
612. They did not keep diaries or report each incident to an elder, or make a mark of the dates of
the crimes. They were fearful of appellant who threatened to beat them if they reported his
behavior.

But their voices did not bring the only proof of the offenses. When appellant was called upon to
make a statement in answer to the charges about to be filed, he confessed his sin to Deputy
District Attorney Ernest Roll. At first he denied all. On hearing Sue repeat her story he had ‘no
comment’. On hearing Jane all hers, he had ‘no comment’. But after a 10 minute recess he made
a free and voluntary confession that all the two girls had said was true. He then categorically
confirmed each of their statements of the crimes. What he said was freely and voluntarily stated,
without immunity or hope of reward, nor was it induced by force or threats of force. Pursuant to
his request Mrs. Durfee entered the room. He told her that he had confessed the truth of all that
the girls had reported; that he had been ashamed of it. Later he told Deputy District Attorney
Tobey that he had been so afflicted the greater part of his lifetime and that it had been the bane of
his existence.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

There is nothing lacking to establish the corpus delicti. It may consist in the testimony of
eyewitnesses or of circumstantial evidence. People v. Watters, 202 Cal. 154, 157, 259 P. 442.
Inasmuch as appellant pleaded no alibi, the clear proof that the offenses alleged were committed
at the times and places specified warranted all the verdicts of conviction except as to count VIII.
A verdict cannot be reversed unless upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial
evidence of the guilt of the accused. People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778. The
testimony of young children concerning a series of events cannot be as perfect as a phonographic
record thereof. It would practically close the door against the prosecution of many of such
wrongs if girls of tender years were required to give detailed and unvarying description of each
transaction and its circumstances. People v. Kearney, 20 Cal.2d 435, 437, 126 P.2d 612.

The argument of appellant that his wife caused his prosecution in order to get rid of him was
discredited by the jury, as was his testimony that she had been guilty of criminal acts. In view of
his confession, which was found to be true, the jury and the trial court were justified in
determining that his charges against his wife were false. The reviewing court cannot retry the
case or determine the credibility of witnesses. People v. Barnett, 77 Cal.App.2d 299, 175 P.2d
237. Moreover, the court's denial of a new trial is significant. Had the judge believed appellant's
story of the wrongs committed against him by his wife as described by his testimony,
presumptively a new trial would have been granted. People v. Ohman, 67 Cal.App.2d 467, 476,
154P.2d 463.

The court was without error in admitting evidence of the confession prior to proof of the corpus
delicti. The order of proof in a criminal trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court,
and its rulings will not be disturbed unless it be clearly shown that its discretion was abused.
People v. Watters, supra; People v. Seymour, 54 Cal.App.2d 266, 275, 128 P.2d 726.

The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed except as to count VIII as to which
they are reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1. Any person who shall wilfully and lewdly commit any lewd or lascivious act including any of
the acts constituting other crimes provided for in part one of this code upon or with the body, or
any aprt or member thereof, of a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of
arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of such person or of
such child, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the State prison for a term of
from one year to life.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

9.CONCLUSION

The first act of the play deals with the initial phases of the case, what will be called, for lack of a
better term, Discovery. Paul Biegler is made aware of the case by his friend and mentor Parnell
McCarthy, a retired defense attorney (there are hints that Parnell has a bad reputation in the local
legal community due to his drinking). He meets Lieutenant and Mrs. Manion, and eventually
agrees to take the case. Paul and Lt. Manion do not particularly like each other. Paul and Parnell
begin investigating the facts and the law, and begin formulating a defense (not guilty because of
temporary insanity). The act ends with Paul and Parnell getting the results of a psychiatric
examination of Lt. Manion, that, combined with language from the case of People v. Durfee (29
N.W. 109 (Mich. 1886), for those who care), gives them the hope that their insanity defense
might work.

This act illustrates many issues that lawyers face when first taking on a case, and does it in an
entertaining, rather than pedantic, way. Among these issues are:

The Financial Question – There are two parts to this issue. First, as Parnell points out early in
the play, Paul, like many solo practitioners, has a major cash flow problem. He needs paying
clients to survive. As Parnell puts it, Paul can’t catch enough fish to survive the winter.

The second part of the Financial Question deals with how Lt. Manion is going to pay him.
Manion admits early in their first meeting that he doesn’t have any money. Eventually, Paul and
Manion come to terms. Manion agrees to sign a promissory note and pay off the fee in
installments. Paul and Parnell are on their way to get Manion’s signature on the promissory note
when they find out that the Manions have skipped town (see Act III, below).

This is one of the few minor irritants I have with the show, from a legal standpoint. I don’t know
of a single attorney who would wait until the end of his or her representation of a client to work
out the financial arrangements. Even if Paul and Lt. Manion agreed to sign a promissory note,
there is no logical reason not to sign the note prior to the trial. This just doesn’t ring true to me.

Dealing with Difficult Clients – Sometimes we just don’t get along with our clients. It is
apparent from their first meeting that these two men do not get along. Lt. Manion is cool and
aloof. I get the feeling that he is holding something back throughout the play (which is kind of
the point). There is no easy solution to this problem, short of dropping the client. In this
situation, of course, Paul doesn’t have that option (as noted above, he needs the money).

Theory of the Case – This is a necessary part of every legal action. Paul and Parnell must come
up with a theory of the case. Paul considers and rejects several options (mistaken identity, self-
defense, defense of habitation, defense of property, defense of relatives or friends, to prevent a
felony, intoxication), before settling on the insanity defense.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

Paul walks an ethical tightrope in this discussion. Manion suggests that perhaps he caught Quill
in the act of raping his wife, as he didn’t tell the police one way or another. Paul immediately
tells him that that wouldn’t work, because Manion told Paul that he didn’t catch Quill in the act.
In addition, Paul must be very careful to ensure that Manion really was temporarily insane. Each
state’s rules of professional conduct prohibit an attorney from making false or bogus claims.

In Utah, there are several sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct that apply. For
example, Rule 3.1 states:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless
there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith
argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant
in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration,
may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be
established.

Likewise, Rule 3.3 states, in part:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a)(1) make a false statement of act or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(a)(2) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a
witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its
falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to
the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a
criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person
intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the
proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the
tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding and
apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6
[Rule 1.6 deals with confidential information].

And Rule 3.4 states, in part: A lawyer shall not:(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to
evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential
evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a
witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that
will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except
when testifying as a witness, or state a opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a
witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of the an accused….

Michigan’s corresponding Rules of Professional Conduct are identical. The effect of these
ethical rules is that, if the trial were held today, Paul could not present the insanity defense if he
did not have a good faith belief that Lt. Manion was temporarily insane at the time of the
shooting.

Evidence Necessary to Prove the Theory – The bulk of Act I deals with Paul and Parnell
gathering the evidence they need to make their case. Paul visits the tavern where the shooting
took place and interviews Alphonse Paquette, the bartender and one of the prosecution’s star
witnesses. They discuss the necessity of getting an expert witness to testify that Lt. Manion was
insane at the time of the shooting (and they discuss how to pay the witness fee). And they discuss
the inadmissibility of the results of a lie detector test as evidence.

Act II: The Prosecution

Act II begins with the jury being sworn in and the prosecution’s opening statement. This is
followed by the testimony of the following witnesses: (1) Dr. Homer Raschid, who conducted
the autopsy on the victim, Barney Quill; (2) Warren Burke, who took photographs of the murder
scene, Quill’s body, and Mrs. Manion; (3) Paquette; and (4) Detective Julian Durgo, the
investigating officer. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses is skipped (mainly because
their testimony would be duplicative). In addition, the prosecution introduces affidavits from
other witnesses to the shooting who were unavailable to testify at trial. Paul’s primary goal
throughout this part of the trial is to get the jury to believe that Quill did indeed rape Mrs.
Manion.

Again, there are several valuable lessons that lawyers can take away from this act, particularly
handling witnesses on the stand, including:

– Laying the proper foundation for a witness’ testimony.

– When and how to object properly.

– How to conduct a proper cross-examination (Paul’s cross-examination of Paquette is

particularly effective).
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

There is one rather troubling aspect of this act, in my opinion. There are times when both Paul
and Dancer get a little too emotional, in my opinion. It becomes less about justice, and more
about ego. I was left wondering how much of Paul’s actions are based on emotion, and how
much was just grandstanding. Either one is troublesome.

One of the biggest problems a lawyer can face is to let a case become a personal battle with the
other side. I’ve seen cases where the attorneys on both sides let the dispute become personal. It
rarely works out well for the parties on either side.

Act III: The Defense

The final Act begins with Paul’s opening statement, and continues with the testimony of the
three defense witnesses: (1) Mrs. Manion; (2) Lt. Manion; and (3) Dr. Matthew Smith, the Army
psychiatrist who examined Lt. Manion. In addition, Mr. Paquette, the bartender, is recalled to
testify. Finally, the prosecution calls a rebuttal witness, Dr. W. Harcourt Gregory. The play skips
the closing arguments, and goes straight to the verdict. The jury finds Lt. Manion not guilty. The
play ends with Paul and Parnell going to the trailer park where the Manions live to get Manion to
sign a promissory note for his legal fees, only to find that the Manions have already left for parts
unknown.

From a legal standpoint, the highlight of Act III is probably the testimony of Dr. Gregory, the
prosecution’s rebuttal witness. Dr. Gregory testifies that the examination by Dr. Smith, the
defense’s expert witness, is faulty, and that Lt. Manion was sane at the time of the shooting.
Paul’s primary job on cross-examination is to impeach Dr. Gregory’s testimony. He does so by
challenging the basis for Dr. Gregory’s conclusions:

Paul: You have ventured an opinion on the sanity of this man that night without the benefit of
any personal observation or tests or history whatever, isn’t that correct?

Dr. Gregory: Yes, sir.

Paul: Doctor, is that normal and accepted psychiatric practice?

Dancer: I object to that. Counsel asked a question and got an answer, and now he doesn’t like it.

Judge Weaver: The objection is overruled. Answer the question.

Dr. Gregory: No, it is not normal psychiatric practice.

 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

The current federal standard for expert witness testimony comes from the case of Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Under this standard, the judge acts as a “gatekeeper,” and must make a preliminary
determination of the admissibility of any proposed expert testimony. Per Rule 702, an expert
witness may only testify if the testimony: (1) is reliable; (2) based on sufficient facts or data; and
(3) has been reliably applied to the facts of the case.

Had the case been tried today, Dr. Gregory’s testimony would probably have been excluded by
a motion in limine prior to trial. By the same token, the prosecution would probably have
demanded that Dr. Gregory be allowed to conduct an examination of Lt. Manion prior to the
trial. In that case, his testimony would probably be admitted.

Both the real case and the play take place prior to the Daubert decision in 1993 or the adoption
of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975. The governing standard at the federal level in the
1950s was the Frye standard, based on the 1923 case of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.
Cir. 1923). Under this standard, scientific evidence must be “generally accepted” by a
meaningful segment of the associated scientific community to be admissible.

This is reflected in Paul’s question to Dr. Gregory concerning the “normal and accepted
psychiatric practice.” By admitting that it is not, Dr. Gregory admits that his testimony fails
the Frye standard. Paul does a very effective job of dismantling Dr. Gregory’s testimony on
cross-examination. He asks pointed leading questions, to which Dr. Gregory can only respond
with “yes” or “no” answers. He uses those questions to get Dr. Gregory to commit to his prior
testimony. And finally, he uses those questions to get Dr. Gregory to admit that his opinions are
not based on accepted psychiatric practice. In effect, he gets Dr. Gregory to impeach his own
testimony.

Neophyte Lawyer’s Review

As a courtroom drama, this is one of the best plays I have ever read. It gets almost all the details
right, and the ones it doesn’t are relatively minor, for the most part. Again, this may stem from
the fact that Voelker’s novel is a very thinly-veiled depiction of the actual Johnson case, and
since Voelker was the defense counsel, he could get all the details correct. When Elihu Winer
adapted the novel for the stage, he wisely left most of these details intact.

One of the strengths of the play is how it handles the whole insanity defense issue. Neither the
audience nor Paul is ever quite sure whether Lt. Manion was insane at the time of the shooting,
or if he is just putting on a front. The evidence isn’t conclusive one way or another, the expert
witnesses disagree, and Lt. Manion is such a creep that it is hard to believe anything he says,
even if it is the truth. Even the ending is ambiguous, although it seems to support the idea that
Manion got away with murder.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

The play also wisely skips all the duplicative testimony, focusing on the major witnesses. I think
this is a wise move. The cast is large enough as it is, and keeping the testimony of the eight
witnesses who do testify is going to be tricky enough for most audiences.

It is a little odd that the closing arguments are also skipped. Closing arguments are often the
most dramatic elements of a trial, as the lawyers take their final opportunity to persuade the jury.
Perhaps time constraints were an issue here. The play is long as it is, with three acts and two
intermissions.

All in all, “Anatomy of a Murder” (the stage version, at least) deserves its reputation as one of
the best legal dramas.
 ANATOMY OF A MURDER

CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

4. PLOT

5. LEGAL ASPECTS

6. CRITICAL RECEPTION

7. LEGAL ETHICS IN ANATOMY OF A MURDER

8.CASE

9.CONCLUSION