October 17, 2003 -- “Runaway Jury” is a courtroom suspense movie with an all-star cast and a surprise ending that works pretty well despite some problems with the script. Oscar-winners Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman team up with John Cusack and Rachel Weisz to provide enough acting talent to push this movie above the average courtroom thriller.

The story (based on a John Grisham novel, who also wrote “The Client” and “A Time to Kill”) takes place in New Orleans where a huge legal battle is brewing between the widow of a murder victim and gun manufacturers. At stake are millions, perhaps over a billion dollars, enough money to bring out a very high priced jury consultant, Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman of “The Royal Tenenbaums”). Gun manufacturers for years have escaped any responsibility for the deaths caused by their products, just as cigarette manufacturers used to avoid responsibility for their products. The lawyers, however, finally nailed the cigarette manufacturers, costing them billions of dollars. This case could be just as devastating for the gun makers (the defendant, in fact, was changed from a tobacco company in the book to a gun manufacturer in the script). Fitch's job is to help select a jury that will make sure the gun manufacturers continue their legal immunity from responsibility. Fitch does background checks on jurors, or rather his team does. He also does psychological profiles. Blackmail and bribery are also part of Fitch's repertoire of dirty tricks. The lead attorney for the defense is Durwood Cable (Bruce Davison of the “X-Men” movies).

On the other side of the case is crusading attorney Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman of “Confidence”), who is just as determined to win his case. Rohr hires his own jury consultant, Lawrence Green (Jeremy Piven of “Old School”), at a much more modest fee, of course. Rohr's tiny band of giant-killers is seemingly overmatched by the ruthless and well-funded army of attorneys and jury manipulators. In the middle of these two forces are two slick, mysterious con artists, Juror Number Nine, Nicholas Easter (John Cusack of “Identity”), and his partner, Marlee (Rachel Weisz of “Confidence”). The manipulative Easter proposes to swing the jury for a price of $10 million. He is the inside partner, while outside the courtroom, Marlee negotiates with Fitch and Rohr for the money. Fitch sends his thug-like investigators after Marlee and Easter and the game is afoot.

Hackman and Hoffman are both perfectly suited to their roles in this film and they perform as well as you would expect. Surprisingly, the two veteran stars have never appeared in a film together before this one. John Cusack does his usual fine job, and Rachel Weisz, another reliable performer, also turns in a nice acting job. The acting is top notch all around. All the main characters are solidly established. Director Gary Fleder (“Don't Say a Word”) does a pretty good job keeping the pace of the film moving along fast enough to fly over the plot holes. In order to believe this story, you have to believe that a supposedly sharp lawyer suddenly becomes stupid at the end of the case. You also have to believe than a sociopathic jury consultant would suddenly become a pushover, and that a corrupt legal system would render a very unlikely verdict. See the spoiler section below for more on this. Despite the problems with the story, it works pretty well because of strong characters, good performances and a nice twist at the end. This film rates a C+.

Click here for links to places to buy or rent this movie in video and/or DVD format, or to buy the soundtrack, posters, books, even used videos, games, electronics and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.

One of the problems I had with the plot is that Rohr, supposedly a sharp lawyer, does not seek a mistrial when he knows the jury is for sale and that he will not meet the price. He has lost his star witness, and he has good reason to believe that his opponents have successfully tampered with the jury. To continue with the case under these circumstances makes no sense. The only course of action is to use the ample evidence of jury tampering to cut his losses with a mistrial and start the case over. His chances would almost certainly be better in the next trial. He has a chance to recover his star witness and probably there wouldn't be the same kind of jury trouble the second time around. Also, a smart lawyer would have saved the evidence of jury tampering for just this kind of case where the trial goes sour. The disappearance of the star witness for the case against the gun manufacturers also makes the case too weak to win. The verdict should have gone the other way. Another problem has to do with the evil jury consultant Fitch becoming a patsy when he finds out he has been had. If Fitch is as tough as he is supposed to be, he will get rid of the blackmailers and their evidence, rather than meekly submit to being put out of business.

As an aside, the movie also has a courtroom scene where a gun manufacturer uses the second amendment to the U.S. constitution as a defense. This goes unchallenged, at least in this brief scene. It should be noted that the second amendment is not an unlimited right for any citizen to keep and bear unregulated weapons. The amendment specifically ties the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “well-regulated militia.” The whole amendment is a single sentence, so “The People” and the “militia” are not separated. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore a limited right, and guns are subject to regulation, regardless of what the NRA and gun manufacturers would have you believe.

Copyright © 2003 Robert Roten. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder.

Robert Roten can be reached via e-mail at .