It's December, and nobody can ignore what this month is all about, even if one wanted to – Christmas. This holiday is chock-full of traditions, and in many people's homes, including our own, we strive to fulfill every single custom, from decorations and shopping to listening to the classics and watching an ever-growing list of Christmas movies. One such movie that we all know and love is "Miracle on 34th Street," a beloved holiday classic that not only captures the magic of Christmas but also provides an intriguing glimpse into the legal process. So, while my beloved wife sat on the living room floor wrapping gifts and watching this classic with me this past Saturday, she was less than impressed when I started talking through the whole movie, analyzing key legal elements and shedding light on how the legal process plays out in real life, a common complaint she lodges when watching tv with me.
The Presumption of Sanity
One of the central themes in "Miracle on 34th Street" is the determination of Kris Kringle's mental state. In the film, Kris claims to be Santa Claus, leading to a competency hearing to assess his sanity. As lawyers, we recognize the importance of the presumption of sanity, a fundamental legal principle. In real-life cases, mental competency hearings are held to determine whether a person is fit to stand trial, make legal decisions, or handle their affairs. The film underscores the delicate balance between skepticism and the presumption of sanity, reminding us that such hearings can be emotionally charged.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof, a cornerstone of the legal process, is prominently featured in the courtroom scenes. The prosecution bears the responsibility to prove Kris Kringle's insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. This mirrors real-life criminal cases, where the prosecution must establish guilt to the same standard. "Miracle on 34th Street" emphasizes the importance of evidence and effective legal arguments. Lawyers must present compelling cases, just as we see the defense counsel doing in the movie to support Kris's claim of being Santa Claus. On a side note, there are various levels of burdens of proof. In addition to beyond a reasonable doubt, there are several others such as clear and convincing evidence, which is used in both criminal and civil proceedings, preponderance of the evidence, which is a standard in numerous civil matters, and others.
The Role of Expert Witnesses
In "Miracle on 34th Street," both parties call upon various witnesses, some as lay witnesses and others as expert witnesses to testify in Kris's favor or against him. The use of expert witnesses is a common legal strategy to provide specialized knowledge or opinions that can sway the court's judgment. Lawyers often rely on expert witnesses to present credible evidence that can support their case, just as we see in the film.
The Power of Public Opinion
The movie underscores the influence of public opinion on legal proceedings. When the post office delivers thousands of letters addressed to Santa Claus to the courtroom, it demonstrates the impact of public sentiment on the case. In real-life legal battles, public opinion, media coverage, and public perception can play a significant role in shaping outcomes, sometimes pressuring attorneys and judges alike.
The Pragmatism of Legal Outcomes
Ultimately, "Miracle on 34th Street" delivers a heartwarming message when the court recognizes Kris Kringle as the one and only Santa Claus. This decision reflects the pragmatic approach the legal system sometimes takes in resolving complex cases. While the law may be based on facts and evidence, there are instances where judges and juries consider broader societal implications, as seen in the film's conclusion.
"Miracle on 34th Street" provides a captivating look at the legal process from a lawyer's perspective, touching on numerous legal principles. What's most complex is dealing with the ongoing conversations between my wife and me when I inevitably mix up the storylines between the original movie from 1947 and the newer one from 1994, and the debate that always follows as to which one is better. Okay, really quick, let's flesh this out. The '47 version has timeless charm and nostalgia, a strong original cast (Edmund Gwenn's portrayal of Kris Kringle earned him an Academy Award), and this version stays remarkably faithful to the original story and captures the essence of the holiday spirit. On the other hand, the '94 version benefits from modern production values (sometimes people can't tolerate black and white), it has updated cultural references, and I like the change-up from the iconic scene with letters from the post office to the simplicity of a dollar bill bearing the inscription "In God we trust."
I guess you can imagine why this argument comes up almost every year, as there doesn’t always seem to be a clear winner. And I’m frequently switching which movie to support or defend from year to year, but that’s just the lawyer in me. Which one do you prefer?
Comments