Category: Legal

Introduction There are civil trials as well as criminal trials but in The Trial of the Chicago 7, viewers are shown that political trials are also a possibility. Aaron Sorkin’s film is based on a trial from 1969 and uses transcripts along with the flashbacks of political instability in Chicago in the summer of 1968. the film dramatizes President Nixon’s Justice Department’s controversial, prosecution of eight individuals convicted of criminal conspiracy and crossing state borders to incite a riot. The trial stretched on for over five months, sometimes devolving into turmoil and political spectacle, highlighting the growing rifts in a society torn apart by the Vietnam War, dramatic cultural shifts, and Nixon administration attempts to repress nonviolent anti-war dissent and protest. Daily headlines reflected the courtroom drama and histrionics. Protesters outside the courthouse chanted the iconic statement “The whole world is watching!” every day. Facts of The Trial of The Chicago 7 The fact that the trial of Chicago 7 was a political trial was quite evident by the approach of Judge Julius Hoffman who ruled over the proceedings in the case with a harsh rigidity contrasted by periods of forgetfulness. On the surface, it seemed as though Judge Hoffman had a pro-government bias, as shown by transcripts from the courtroom. Constricting or weakening the defence was Hoffman’s continual task. After a flood of criticism from the legal community led Hoffman to rescind the warrants, he was obliged to drop the charges against the four defence lawyers he issued on the first day of the trial. On trial, he refused to allow the jury to examine many pieces of evidence, including a paper in which Tom Hayden stated that the movement in Chicago should be nonviolent. Admonished lawyer William Kunstler for leaning on the podium, he walked out of court. His pronunciation of Leonard Weinglass’ name was a constant source of confusion, with him often mispronouncing his name as “Feinglass,” “Weinruss,” or “whatever your name is.” Charges In addition to this Seale was charged with conspiracy to instigate riots even though he was only in Chicago for a short time. Prosecutors used panthers in the case to their advantage, argues Sorkin. He was frequently denied the opportunity to speak in court by the judge and when he complained that his constitutional rights were being infringed upon, Hoffman lectured and chastised him.[1] As a matter of fact, the US attorney was hoping to intimidate the jury by bringing in a black as the defendant. One day in court, Seale yells, “I was thrown in to make the group look scarier,” Furthermore, In one of the most startling courtroom moments in American history. As a result of his refusal to comply with Judge Julius Hoffman’s contempt citations, Bobby Seale was gagged and chained to his chair on October 29, 1969. It was inferred that Seale’s ranting and shouting made Hoffman’s defence seem reasonable. Hoffman said, “I can’t blame him for raising his voice,”[2] if Richard Schultz was telling the truth. The imprisonment of Seale also illustrates how racially biased American courts were throughout the 1960s. a juror who was carrying a copy of James Baldwin’s “On the Road” was removed from the trial. Thus, it can be inferred from various such instances that law and politics are intrinsically connected. When all these instances were taking place, the supporters of the Chicago 7 filled the courtroom and were more than willing to provide their own opinions. [3] There is a lot of incredibility in the court records, such as when the judge refused to let Bobby Seale’s birthday cake into the courtroom. Trial This trial was unlike any other trial Hoffman has presided over because of the level of attachment shown in the courtroom, which elicited a resounding, “RIGHT ON!” from onlookers. During the reading of the verdicts in the courtroom, a spectator blurted out, “They will dance on your grave, Julie, and the graves of the pig empire.” the support shown by the public made the trial more political as well as historical significant. ⇒ Human Trafficking in India the narrative is an excellent example of irony, initially portraying itself as a heated argument until eventually confessing its distracted look before concluding an acknowledgment of its preoccupied attention. rather than bringing us closer to the larger message, the story’s intrigue just takes us farther away from that message. To be a movie and an indictment of one’s voice at the same time is a hard task. Sorkin on the other hand has a heart of gold. Since the insurrection is simply a precursor to the story and the destiny of a rebel is the storyline, a mawkish finale is acceptable. In contrast, justice has a fatal weapon and a tarnished trigger for truth. we may infer that Sorkin does not entirely reject his contemporaries’ conventions; parts of the documentary and testimonial are faithfully replicated. Conclusion: as shown in the film, real-life sentencing statements featured this shot from Rennie Davis to Judge Hoffman: “You represent all that is old, ugly, bigoted, and repressive in this country, and I will tell you that the spirit of this defence table will devour your sickness in the next generation.” Sorkin’s choice to exclude the most important lines in the transcript is puzzling. If there’s one thing to take away from this, it’s that you can’t improvise the historic facts. Reference :- [1] Professor Douglas O. Linder, The Chicago Eight Conspiracy Trial: An Account, Famous Trials, https://famoustrials.com/chicago8/1366-home [2] Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of Chicago 7, https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Trial-of-the-Chicago-7-Script.pdf [3] The Chicago Eight Trial: Excerpts from the Trial Transcript, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Chi7_trial.html Written by Mehak Uppal