MovieChat Forums > A Few Good Men (1992) Discussion > Burden of proof in military trials versu...

Burden of proof in military trials versus civilian trials?

posted 8 years ago by PrayingMantis
7 replies | jump to latest

Several times in the film, Kaffee suggests that he has to "prove" certain contentions:

"You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove! So please, don't tell me what I know, or don't know; I know the LAW."

Jo suggests that Dr. Stone is lying because at 2:00, he did not know the cause of death, then after meeting with Jessup, he determined (at 5:00) that poison was the cause of death. Kaffee says "We can't prove coercion."

Jo also says that Jessup ordered the code red and Kaffee sarcastically says "And of course, you have proof of that....Oh, hah, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting. You were sick the day they taught law at law school."

Anyway, in a normal criminal trial, the defense does not have to prove anything at all. The burden of proof is squarely on the prosecutor. The defense only has to create enough reasonable doubt.

Is the burden of proof different in military court martials? If not, then Kaffee was repeatedly wrong and Jo was right.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrayingMantis 8 years ago

Thanks for the input; and like Kaffee, I agree that Capt. Jack Ross's opening statement (regarding the undisputed facts) was perfect. However, at the end of the opening statement, he says "Dawson and Downey killed him." He did not say that "Dawson and Downey murdered him." Like most crimes, the defendant's mental state (mens rea) is an important element in the crime. "Murder" usually includes an intent to kill (obviously there are exceptions). That's why the issue of poison on the rag was such a huge deal (to both the prosecution and the defense).

Even if you take the "code red" aspect out of this case, if Kaffee could create enough reasonable doubt that Dawson and Downey's only intent was to shave Santiago's head (whether it be as a prank or general hazing/horseplay, etc.), that would likely be enough to prevent a conviction of murder. They likely would have been convicted of a lesser crime (manslaughter, reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, etc.).

Bottom line is that Dr. Stone was unsure of the cause of death (at 2:00 a.m.), and then said it was poison (at 5:00 a.m). When Jo pointed that out to Kaffee, he mocked her with the whole "liar, liar pants on fire defense. We can't prove coercion!" In fact, Kaffee did not have to prove coercion. All he had to do was create reasonable doubt as to the cause of death (poison or not poison). That is ultimately what he tried to do in his cross-examination of Dr. Stone. Pointing out Dr. Stone's initial uncertainty to the jury would have been another step in impeaching his credibility. Jo was right in that regard and Kaffee was wrong to suggest that it was an unworthy part of the defense simply because he couldn't "prove" it.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stevicus-2 8 years ago

Thinking on this, it might have been better to put Dawson on the stand instead of Downey. He seemed to have enough moxie to be able to convince the jury.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stevicus-2 8 years ago

Downey was fine as a witness ... until the cross exam. That's when it came out that he wasn't even present when Dawson got the order to give Santiago a code red. So, even if Dawson got on the stand first, it would have come out that Downey wasn't even there. That means it's now his word alone versus the two officers' testimony.

True, although wouldn't the jury be able to make the final determination as to whom they believe? Wouldn't the jury have the right to say that they still believe Dawson over the two officers?

I think Kaffee may have noted that, in his interviews with Dawson compared with Kendrick and Jessup, Dawson comes across as quite sincere and forcefully adamant in his position, while the two officers came across a bit weaselly, like they were hiding something. Kendrick also came off that way on the stand; Kaffee obviously got him a bit rattled. He had him dead to rights on the Curtis Bell issue, and even the judge started to realize that something was fishy. Wouldn't the jury take note of this and use it in evaluating who's telling the truth? Do they have the right to do that, or is that beyond their purview?

This was just one example of why Kaffee should have never been lead counsel. A good trial attorney would have known that Downey wasn't present when the order came down and would have been ready to counter that fact.

Kaffee seemed to think that was Galloway's fault, since she was Downey's attorney. She had been chiding Kaffee for not investigating, yet she dropped the ball as well. Although as lead counsel, the ultimate responsibility would be his.

I would also think some blame should fall upon Dawson and Downey, too, since they could have been more forthcoming with information as well. In an earlier scene when Kaffee asked why didn't they say they were ordered to do a Code Red, Dawson said "You didn't ask us." That kind of crap response would piss me off, too. That's when Kaffee wanted out and wanted them to be assigned new counsel, which Galloway talked him out of.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]