Deinla, Ronnel A.

11780541
Practice Court II – G03
DLSU

The Trial of Chicago 7:

Movie Review

1. Brief Summary of the movie.

The Trial of Chicago 7 is a movie about the case of seven activists

charged with the criminal offense of “crossing state lines with the intention of
inciting riots.” These people are activists who are protesting the war waged
by the United States against Vietnam.

The Chicago 7, allegedly in conspiracy with one another, thought of

holding protests during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in
1968. However, instead of a peaceful protest, a riot ensued. Being leaders
of the different groups involved, the Chicago 7 were charged with the crime
mentioned above.

During the trial, we could see the partiality of the judge. However, it did
not stop the activist leaders from challenging the system. Unsurprisingly, the
judge convicted 5 out of the 7 activist leaders. However, upon appeal, they
were all acquitted and the Court of Appeals recommended retrial of the case.
However, the attorney general did not want to pursue the case anymore.

2. What value does it have for law students?

For law students, this movie holds value in its portrayal of lawyers. One
of the highlights of the movie was that scene where the defendant Hoffman
tells Schultz that the latter is actually a good person. We all know that Schultz
was just doing his job. He was not hostile against the defendants, nor the
opposing counsel. The lawyers for the defendants were the same way.

In this movie, the lawyers were not portrayed as “hired guns” or

“champions” of their clients. This is important for law students to realize.
Opposing lawyers should not be enemies. While they sit on different tables,
lawyers should work so that everyone is given what is due to them. Not all
cases should be a win-lose situation. Win-win situations are still possible.
3. How did the movie inspire (or discourage) you as a future lawyer?

The movie inspired me to become a lawyer like William Kunstler and

Richard Schultz. Whenever the lawyers argued, they always gave respect to
each other. They knew that as lawyers, they were merely being zealous in
representing the rights of their clients. Setting aside their personalities as
lawyers, we could see that they also have great character.

We saw in the beginning that Schultz did not want to prosecute the
case because he knew, in fact, the previous Justice Department knew, that
it was the police who started the riots. Schultz was forced to take on the job.
However, he did not lose his integrity even knowing that this case would earn
him merits. Schultz could have taken advantage of the fact that Judge
Hoffman was partial, but he did not. He even paid respect to the cause fought
by the defendants.

As for Kuntsler, he was not afraid to challenge a judge who was partial.
It did not matter to him that he had been cited 30+ times in contempt. He
knew that he was on the right side. I would have also risked being cited in
contempt if the law which I swore to uphold was just arbitrarily exercised by
the judge. He gave it his all despite the odds. He could have just thrown away
the case and relied on the appeal. However, he saw to it that his clients were
served with competence from the start until the end.

4. What legal skills did you learn from the movie?

I think I learned how to question and cross-examine a witness. The

questions asked by the lawyers were impressive not because of the
technique, but merely by its simplicity. The lawyers know the right questions
to be asked and when to stop asking questions. There were little to no
objections to the manner of examining the witnesses. Most of the objections
were on the motions raised by the defendants.

The prosecution had 20+ witnesses. If I were one of the jurors present
in that case, I would also believe that the defendants are guilty. However,
when it was time for Kuntsler to ask questions, the scales were even again.
No matter how perfect Schultz conducted the examination, Kuntsler was able
to cast a shadow on the prosecution testimonies. He was able to bring out
another angle to the story.