"Criminal Justice" is a journeyman quasi-docudrama TV flick which takes the viewer step-by-step through the US criminal justice system from crime to punishment. The film breaks down the whole let's-make-a-deal process using a Brooklyn N.Y. robbery/assault case as an example in which the players are Whitaker as the accused; LaPaglia as the public defender; Perez as the victim; and Gray as the Asst. D.A. The film plays no favorites as it takes a didactic and dispassionate look at the problems facing both sides in a case where justice must be dispensed even though no one, including the audience, knows who committed the crime. "Criminal Justice" is an earnest project which is more interesting than entertaining and is worth a look by anyone with an interest in the title subject. (B-)
8 Reviews
A Plodding Process
LeonLouisRicci15 August 2012
Dry account of the procedural path from crime to arrest to trial. This made for HBO movie is OK if not totally engaging.
The major fault does not lie in the execution of the realistic portrayal but in the realistic problem of the overloaded court system. It is not overstated or made to be entertaining and so we have a picture as plodding as the procedure.
The ending is bit of a letdown, however, as the stats show before the credits roll, ultimately right on realistic. It is that realism that handcuff this from being any more than a chronological account of an inherently involved process that leaves little to the imagination and a lot to the non-exciting plea bargain processes.
A good primer for pre law students but at best an easy homework assignment for the rest of us.
The major fault does not lie in the execution of the realistic portrayal but in the realistic problem of the overloaded court system. It is not overstated or made to be entertaining and so we have a picture as plodding as the procedure.
The ending is bit of a letdown, however, as the stats show before the credits roll, ultimately right on realistic. It is that realism that handcuff this from being any more than a chronological account of an inherently involved process that leaves little to the imagination and a lot to the non-exciting plea bargain processes.
A good primer for pre law students but at best an easy homework assignment for the rest of us.
The Gears of Justice
view_and_review24 March 2020
The ending credits of this movie began with a statement:
"Last year, over 300,000 criminal cases were disposed of in New York City. 58% of the defendants pled guilty in plea bargains. Less than 2% had their guilt or innocence determined by trial."
So ask yourself: of the 58% who took a plea bargain, how many do you think were really guilty and how many just took a deal because they were afraid of the prospect of being found guilty?
"Criminal Justice" is about just that. Jessie Williams (Forest Whitaker) was accused by Denise Moore (Rosie Perez) of robbing her and slicing her face. Jessie demonstrably professed his innocence while Denise stood by her story. Both of these people were terrible clients.
Jessie already had a rap sheet and a very weak alibi, however staunch he was about it. Denise also had a rap sheet and she was smoking crack at the time the attack happened, however sympathetic she would be as a defendant with a huge scar on her face.
The movie really reminds me of the Jodie Foster movie, "The Accused," in which she was a rape victim that used drugs and alcohol. Because she was less than angelic as a victim the prosecutor opted to offer a light plea bargain just to secure a conviction.
"The Accused" focused more on the victim whereas in "Criminal Justice" the focus is on the two opposing attorneys who are trying to build their cases. They know what it takes to win a case and they know what could sink a case. It's not that they don't care necessarily, or that they don't believe their clients, it's just that they are trying to get the best thing possible. And I've used this line before from Jamie Foxx's character in the movie "Law Abiding Citizen":
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."
"Last year, over 300,000 criminal cases were disposed of in New York City. 58% of the defendants pled guilty in plea bargains. Less than 2% had their guilt or innocence determined by trial."
So ask yourself: of the 58% who took a plea bargain, how many do you think were really guilty and how many just took a deal because they were afraid of the prospect of being found guilty?
"Criminal Justice" is about just that. Jessie Williams (Forest Whitaker) was accused by Denise Moore (Rosie Perez) of robbing her and slicing her face. Jessie demonstrably professed his innocence while Denise stood by her story. Both of these people were terrible clients.
Jessie already had a rap sheet and a very weak alibi, however staunch he was about it. Denise also had a rap sheet and she was smoking crack at the time the attack happened, however sympathetic she would be as a defendant with a huge scar on her face.
The movie really reminds me of the Jodie Foster movie, "The Accused," in which she was a rape victim that used drugs and alcohol. Because she was less than angelic as a victim the prosecutor opted to offer a light plea bargain just to secure a conviction.
"The Accused" focused more on the victim whereas in "Criminal Justice" the focus is on the two opposing attorneys who are trying to build their cases. They know what it takes to win a case and they know what could sink a case. It's not that they don't care necessarily, or that they don't believe their clients, it's just that they are trying to get the best thing possible. And I've used this line before from Jamie Foxx's character in the movie "Law Abiding Citizen":
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."
Most realistic depiction of the criminal justice system I've ever seen and I'm a lawyer and former Brooklyn prosecutor
CineManic24 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The synopsis/summary and the other two reviews gave the plot and basics of the story. I wanted to add that, as a former Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney, I found this film the most realistic depiction of a criminal case I've ever seen. All of the elements were accurate, including the heavy caseloads of the public defender and assistant D.A., the difficulty of working with witnesses, and the mechanics of trial and pre-trial preparation. I have to disagree with the reviewer (oeoaa) who thought the movie copped out at the end or that it revealed that the accused, Jesse Williams, was the actual rapist. I felt that the ending was still ambiguous regarding the accused's guilt. What it did was show was that, when faced with the actual reality of a trial where a guilty jury verdict would have meant a much harsher sentence, the accused decides to take the lighter plea. This is a very common result. Defendants often wait until the last possible moment to see the strength of the prosecutor's case and whether the complaining witness (i.e. the victim) will show up or prove to be a poor witness.
Great film about the justice system...until the last 5 minutes
oeoaa24 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Criminal Justice" is an outstanding film, well-acted, well-paced, and one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. You no doubt are aware that this review contains spoilers. How ironic since this film's ending spoiled everything that came before. Rosa Perez plays a hooker who is raped. Forest Whitaker is a street thug accused of the crime. It's unclear throughout who actually raped her. This film is like a documentary-style expose of how prosecutors and public defenders do their jobs. And it's all enlightening and entertaining. This film showed the kind of nuts-n-bolts grunt work pushed aside in other films looking to roll right through its plot. It's more of a behind-the-scenes film. The film would've worked just sticking to that. But then at the end it turns into --no offense intended--a "TV Movie of the Week" or "Lifetime" melodrama. Whitaker's revealed as the rapist in a cheesy courtroom scene with Perez starring him down while he tries to cop a quick plea-- a plea he refused earlier while declaring his innocence. It makes no sense--he was going to see her at the pretrial. Meanwhile, she was being prepared for the witness stand. So, why wait to take the plea at the pretrial? So the film could have some big dramatic moment. It didn't work. and before the credits role, a disclaimer about plea bargaining is shown. The ending didn't provide a twist, it was a cop out, a manipulation, and completely undermined an otherwise good movie.
TLD - Chicago
TLD - Chicago
authentic courtroom drama
pjlb200825 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As someone in the field, this story accurately depicts the process in the criminal justice system. I saw this story when it came out about 20 years ago. I recently saw it again. It is not dated at all. You have an all-star cast with well-developed characters. Perez is compelling as the victim. Whitaker presents as a sympathetic victim of the system. Lapaglia and Grey accurately portray overworked public servants. The judiciary is also overworked. They make it clear to the defendant that if he turns down the plea offer, and he is convicted, there will be grave consequences, not out of meanness but as a way to control their dockets. The case is presented from start to finish. The audience is given the information necessary to follow along. I liked the ambiguity as to whether Whitaker is in fact guilty. The end result is inevitable. As the Lapaglia character says at the end, "we all cut a deal." Lapaglia looks utterly helpless at the end of the movie, realizing he is caught in an endless loop of insanity. A thoroughly enjoyable movie from start to finish.
Cannot Go Lower Than 10
fatcat-7345023 July 2022
Those who rated it less than 10 perhaps didn't understand it.
This is an educational film that shows the delicate balance that the criminal justice system deals with on a daily basis.
Some girl gets robbed and gets her face slashed in a dark alley. She sees (or claims to see) the face of the perpetrator and makes a very firm accusation. The guy passionately claims he was nowhere near the place and that he didn't do it.
The guy tries to prove his innocence and seems sincere but doesn't have a strong enough alibi to get him out of it. On the other hand, the woman is completely firm in her conviction and credible. In the end he takes a plea deal for about 3 years. If he was innocent, it's a terrible miscarriage of justice that he has to rot in jail. If he did it, then the victim thinks he won't have gotten nearly enough time since he left her with a large permanent scar on her face. Both parties are left dissatisfied.
All the while the lawyers and the judges look at the situation rather callously. The lawyers seem to see it as a game for professional points while the judges just want things to move along as quickly as possible.
Encapsulates the criminal justice system quite neatly and is a perfect example of what an educational movie should be - dramatic but instructive.
Honourable Mentions: Doubt (2008). I suppose Doubt has a similar concept - you never know who's telling the truth. Or at least it was meant to have a similar concept, but actually you get the impression that nothing was ever in doubt anyway. Good movie either way and great performance from Meryll Streep.
This is an educational film that shows the delicate balance that the criminal justice system deals with on a daily basis.
Some girl gets robbed and gets her face slashed in a dark alley. She sees (or claims to see) the face of the perpetrator and makes a very firm accusation. The guy passionately claims he was nowhere near the place and that he didn't do it.
The guy tries to prove his innocence and seems sincere but doesn't have a strong enough alibi to get him out of it. On the other hand, the woman is completely firm in her conviction and credible. In the end he takes a plea deal for about 3 years. If he was innocent, it's a terrible miscarriage of justice that he has to rot in jail. If he did it, then the victim thinks he won't have gotten nearly enough time since he left her with a large permanent scar on her face. Both parties are left dissatisfied.
All the while the lawyers and the judges look at the situation rather callously. The lawyers seem to see it as a game for professional points while the judges just want things to move along as quickly as possible.
Encapsulates the criminal justice system quite neatly and is a perfect example of what an educational movie should be - dramatic but instructive.
Honourable Mentions: Doubt (2008). I suppose Doubt has a similar concept - you never know who's telling the truth. Or at least it was meant to have a similar concept, but actually you get the impression that nothing was ever in doubt anyway. Good movie either way and great performance from Meryll Streep.
Floored me! ! !
ray_bradley1 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I've practiced law for 30 years. I've never seen any courtroom drama (except for perhaps "To Kill a Mockingbird") that comes anywhere close to this film in terms of brutal authenticity. The gut-wrenching hollowness that sinks into you with the deliberately unsatisfying ending is SO REAL and SO TRUE of a demonstration of how "the system" really functions, as to leave you in tears. The film is a beautifully crafted, unparalleled indictment of the fundamentally screwed-up justice system in this fundamentally screwed-up country. Whitaker is wonderful, and never gives away the truth of his character (whatever that might be). Anthony LaPaglia as the defense attorney is remarkable, as it the script. Rosie Perez's performance is of an intensity that is typical of the actress... she is never insincere, and, whether you're convinced by her obviously contrived sympathetic rantings or not, you WANT to believe her. The film is an un3expected gem with stunning performance all around
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
