Legal Issues

John Grishams A Time To Kill is set in a small town in Mississippi. It begins with the shocking rape and attempted murder of a ten year old African-American girl. The events that ensue reveal the authors perspective that even in 1989 issues of race hinder the achievement of justice.

Analyzing the book from a legal perspective will reveal numerous specific questions of law. It will also raise several larger, theoretical issues. Many of these issues are apparent in some way, shape or form within the actual American legal system today. The book is essentially a courtroom drama, but the issues it raises are important ones to consider.

Specific Legal Issues
Legal issues in the novel begin almost immediately in the novel. Two white men, both with shady pasts, kidnap a young black girl named Tonya. Their choice of victim is somewhat random. Both men are intoxicated at the time. They rape the girl repeatedly, then mull over various ways to get rid of her before ultimately deciding to throw her off a local bridge. She lives, but initially is in no shape to identify her attackers.

There are certain parts of town where crime is rampant. It seems as if the authorities have taken a containment strategy toward crime. In addition to not being fair to the local residents, this strategy also allows criminal behavior to fester. In their search for the rape suspects the police enter bars in one such part of town. Grisham describes the scene this way Both tonks were in violation of numerous laws. There was gambling, drugs, illegal whiskey, minors, they refused to close on time, etc. (Grisham, 1989, 25).  In a containment strategy the surrounding areas are rarely left unaffected.
Ozzie, the first black sheriff in the county, is portrayed as an even-handed and skilled officer of the law. His departments pursuit of the suspects involves some questionable moves that could potentially be exploited by a skilled defense lawyer. First, the sheriff is reliant on an informant who, in fact, is drunk himself. Secondly, the first subject questioned is both mentally-challenged and inebriated. The sheriff provides a Miranda warning, but continues to try to make the suspect talk after he asks for a lawyer. During this part of the interrogation the sheriff turns off his tape recorder, then turns it back on when the suspect begins to talk again.

The sheriff did not investigate the possibility of other suspects. The two main suspects were loosely affiliated with a local Klan group. Were other members of this group involved in the crime Was there a conspiracy

During the preliminary hearing evidence that may not be ultimately heard at trial may presented. The lawyer for the accused grew frustrated at one such instance Tyndale jumped to his feet Your Honor, please, I know hearsay is admissible in a hearing like this, but this is triple hearsay (75). This is something that many people do not understand about preliminary hearings. The prosecutor may not have to reveal much of his case and can rely on evidence that may not have to pass any scrutiny to obtain an indictment. Much depends on what the presiding judge is willing to allow.

This judge runs the courtroom like it is his own mini-fiefdom. He harasses the defense counsel for not having a license in Mississippi even though this is allowed under the law Then you drove down here from Memphis, carefully read my rules, and ignored them. Right (124).

The conduct of their trial becomes a moot point when Carl Lee Hailey shoots the two men on the courthouse steps.

Whatever courthouse security the county had planned obviously was not enough. The limited resources of the town are used, but the high profile nature of the case probably warranted assistance from outside agencies. The lack of courthouse security is an issue we have seen played out in real life in incidents such as the Brian Nichols courthouse shooting in Atlanta a few years ago. In that all too real incident a judge, a court reporter and a deputy were killed and an entire city terrorized until the shooter was recaptured.

In the book, Judge Bullards subsequent conduct of Carl Lees trial is pro-prosecution. Had Carl Lee been convicted there may have been reversible error from a number of sources. At one point in the story the Judge admits that it is impossible to find a fair jury in Mississippi (124). It is a shocking statement, The Judge, who seems to take the shooting personally, refuses to move the trial to another jurisdiction.

Jake Brigance was sought out for representation by Carl Lees family. In a prior case Jake had defended Cobb, one of the accused rapists of Carl Lees daughter, in a drug case. It is not clear whether there is a conflict of interest issue here. This is an issue many lawyers will face ay one time or another, particularly in small towns where there may not be many lawyers to choose. Apparently it is not an issue of concern for Mr. Brigance.

It is mentioned, almost in passing, that Judge Bullard refused to allow cameras in his courtroom. This has been a controversial issue in the American judicial system for years. Many feel that the presence of cameras unduly affects the participants in the trial. One wonders what would have happened had cameras been allowed in this case. Would parts of Carl Lees crime have been captured on video How would this have affected the jury in his trial Jake was an image conscious lawyer seeking to build a reputation outside of this small town. Would the presence of cameras have affected his conduct of Carl Lees trial

Legal Themes
Larger legal themes also pervade the novel. The question Can a black man get a fair trial in Mississippi is central to the novel. This applies in terms of his murder trial and when his daughter is the victim of two white men. Carl Lee Hailey was primarily motivated by his own anger. The legacy of injustice against African-Americans was also a nagging factor in his mind. Ultimately these two factors pushed Carl Lee into vigilantism.

How do we create a society in which justice is equal and people dont feel the need for vigilantism That is the unspoken question of this novel. It is a legal question, but also is a societal question. In this novel vigilantism is the necessary answer to injustice. In real life, however, vigilantism solves nothing.

A second theme revolves around the question - What is justice Did Carl Lee get a fair trial Did the State of Mississippi get one Brigances defense of Carl Lee is based on an audacious proposition that rarely works in real life. He claims that Carl Lee Hailey is not guilty based on temporary insanity. The basis for temporary insanity is twofold. First, Carl Lees anger and hurt over the rape of his daughter helped give rise to a heat of passion type action. Secondly, Carl Lee had a reasonable expectation that because of a racist legacy in Mississippi, his family would not receive justice.

Brigance challenges the jury on the latter by asking them to imagine the races of the two parties reversed. What, then, would their verdict be It is a clever, but risky, summation that essentially ignores the evidence that a crime has been committed. Even though a temporary insanity defense was being used. Brigance was more or less arguing justifiable homicide which, theoretically, would have an entirely different set of qualifiers.

A third general legal theme of the book is corruption within the legal system. One of the suspects time in a local prison is described. If anything this experience criminalized him more than if he had been in the streets. All of the same illegal activities that happened on the street were also happening in the prison with the full participation of prison staff.

This is true in the real life prison system, although hopefully corruption is not as severe. Nevertheless, rehabilitation opportunities are few. For too many the prison has become a revolving door. Outside the prison the behavior of police and judicial officials is also questionable.

Analysis and Conclusion
Carl Lee Hailey had other choices than murdering the two defendants. Unfortunately, Brigance did not help him in this regard. Carl Lee all but told Jake that he was going to kill the two men (93). After admitting that he would likely do the same thing, Jake did not report Carl Lees threat to authorities. For his part, Brigance was trying to toe a difficult line. He feared that reporting Carl Lee would violate his oath of confidentiality.

This book forces us to ask the question - What is justice Most peoples instant reaction to hearing that a father killed the rapists of his young daughter would be Good Looking at it in the abstract it is easy to go where emotions lead us. Justice requires more than that, however. One could argue that none of the characters in this book is truly interested in justice. Justice and revenge are not the same thing.
After killing the accused rapists, Carl Lee feels no sense of justice, or at least does not speak of it. Before the killings Carl Lee made note of an earlier raping of a black girl by white men in which the men were not convicted. Now he believes that he should get off in this case almost as a recompense for the earlier case. In fact this would not provide an even playing field much less justice.

This book, in many ways, is an illustration of how the American judicial system can go wrong. The answer, however, is not to throw it away. Even with its imperfections it is still the best system in the world because it is capable of changing itself. The author may or may not have been trying to convey this with the acquittal of Carl Lee. In reality Carl Lees actions will make true justice all the more harder to achieve.