Legal opinion of the plot of the movie 'Con Air.'

I entirely agree with your opinion.

But in my opinion I also believe it is not unrealistic that this man could have faced charges and felt pressured into a plea deal.

I have read a countless number of stories of "clown world insanity" that have happened in the justice system. The point is that just because you and me view it as "clown world insanity" does not mean it is unrealistic and could not happen.

That is something I have learned over the years. What I think is obvious and rational is not always going to be how many other people see things.

Imagine some female prosecutor who thinks Poe should have followed the pleas of his girlfriend and run away, but instead his "toxic masculinity" and pride would not let him. In this world today, it's easy to imagine some prosecutor in some super progressive city viewing Poe as already guilty for choosing to engage in a fight, or for even attempting to defend himself when his life was probably not at stake.

 

This was a post that appeared on Reddit:

What movies would have been a lot shorter if the main character had a competent attorney?
Was watching Con Air when a lawyer friend pointed out Cage must have had the worst lawyer in the world to even get him put on trial. Started a conversation about movies that entire plots were because of incompetent attorneys. My Cousin Vinnie was one that was brought up, the Fugitive was another. Simple things that should have come up in the investigation that any lawyer would have spotted long before a grand jury was convened.

Con Air was probably not meant to be scrutinized at all, but I will say that they did explicitly mention (whether it's reasonable or not) that Nick Cage's character was not subject to the same leeway normal people are when provoked because he can respond with deadly force; also, they show the knife being scooped up after Cage kills the guy, so he couldn't have reasonably argued his life was in danger.
​

 

Why the hell would you think that?

 

Maybe because he was in a bar?
Is it more likely he was just drinking Dr. pepper there?

 

I think the main issue in this movie scene is that the two surviving men fled, apparently never to be identified, and one of them picked the knife off the ground and ran off with it. So there was no evidence that the man who was dead had had a pocket knife.

This then very much weakened the self defense claim.

We can probably presume that the man's girlfriend who was on the other side of the car never happened to see the man pull out the knife, so she would not have mentioned it when pulled aside for the police report.

The way the man had pulled out and was holding the small knife was low and on the opposite side of his body from where the car was, so the girlfriend would not have been able to see it. And in the rain with the commotion of the fight, neither would she have noticed when it fell to the ground.

 

Being drunk is no excuse to assault anyone, especially with a switchblade knife

 

Partially at fault for what?

Convicted for what?

How do we know that he was drunk?

 

Where did you source this from?​

So this wouldn't have been a "jury trial?" The judge himself would have found him guilty?

 

The script said he pleaded guilty to first degree manslaughter.

already answered above

Once he pleads guilty, then the judge decides how much prison time he should be sentenced to.

That's the whole idea behind a plea bargain. The defendant is rewarded for saving the justice system the trouble and expense of holding a jury trial. Or sometimes when there is only a probability that the accused might be found guilty, the prosecutor views it as preferable to have a certainty that the accused will at least spend some time in prison. I'm guessing the prosecutor probably would have decreased the charge from second degree murder down to first degree manslaughter, or would have agreed to "recommend" a lower sentence to the judge. (Judges usually follow a prosecutor's recommendation, but not always)

 

It's more likely that he was merely seeing his wife there! His wife who worked there! You seem not to be familiar with the movie one tiny little bit!

 

Any thoughts on the relevance of the knife being "scooped up?" I don't see why this would mean that he couldn't have reasonably argued that his life was in danger.

 

Because his girlfriend did not happen to see the knife, even though she was watching the fight.

People would interpret that as him likely lying about there being a knife.

 

Yes. At the initial appearance, the offender is informed of the charges against them. At the bail hearing, bond/bail is set. At the initial hearing, the prosecution must show probable cause exists to continue to the next phase.

For any number of reasons, those 3 steps are often combined into two steps or just one hearing where the offender is advised of the charges, the right to counsel, bail is set, and the prosecution shows probable cause.

After that, it's the discovery phase. If you retain an attorney, they'll file a Notice of Appearance, Demand for Discovery, and Request for Evidence, and probably a Motion to Preserve Evidence, which is an order from a judge that police, prosecution and other parties are compelled to preserve evidence (rather than destroying it which some police and prosecutors do/did).

At that point, everyone lays their cards on the table.

There are 3,007 counties, parishes and boroughs in the US, but they don't all have the same budget for their criminal justice system.

Prosecuting criminals isn't free. It costs money, and plea bargain saves money.

That's probably the primary consideration.

The "CIS Effect" has done a lot of damage. Juries somehow expect the prosecution to spend $3 Million on forensic analysis for even the lowest level felony offenses. They'll plead nearly everything, unless there's a compelling public interest.

Actually, it's based on the sentencing recommendation prepared by the parole department, if the State permits parole, or by the probation department if it does not.

Granted, sentencing recommendations are typically what the judge/prosecution wants to hear, but there are instances when the recommended sentence is a lot less (or more) than what the prosecution wants and judges have granted it.

 

Actually, she did not see the knife. Don't you remember from the video clip? After Poe was taken to the ground, she ran off back to the bar to get help. When she reappears, Poe is standing victorious above a dead thug animal!

 

The chemistry effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis_effect

 

Partially at fault for the guy getting killed? Wasn't he TOTALLY at fault for the guy getting killed? I mean, the guy didn't kill HIMSELF! Poe killed him. The question is whether or not it was justified.

 

You obviously haven't seen the movie.

 

Where did you source this from?

How do we know that he was drunk?

 

Decent movie with a strong cast. John Malkovich was great as usual. I always thought the trial was ridiculous. No way he would have gotten that sentence. It was self defense all the way. The 3 of them attacked Poe and knocked him to the ground before he even threw a punch. I realized that they need to put him in jail to setup the story but they should have just used the standard wrongly convicted story-line instead. I am glad to see Cage making a bit of a comeback now.

 

What is the standard wrongly convicted story-line?

 

Mistaken identity. Setup by another. Betray by a friend or partner. Movies like the Fugitive, Shawshank Redemption, The Rock (Another Great Nik Cage movie but Sean Connery was wrongly imprisoned for decades), The Count of Monte Cristo, Captain America WInter Soldier, US Marshals, Hang Em High(technically Clint Eastwood was not locked up but he was hung for a crime he did not commit), Romeo Must Die, Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country... Seems like a standard Hollywood plot device.

 

Here is an additional factor to consider. The bartender who arrived on the scene only saw Poe standing over the dead body. He did not see the other two thugs who had fought Poe. Neither did he see any knife.

So there are two witnesses who can verify that Poe killed the man, but only one of those witnesses - who happens to be Poe's girlfriend and therefore might have an incentive to lie - saw that there had been two other men who fought Poe.

It is not totally unrealistic that the prosecutor might try to push Poe into a plea bargain.

The judge's sentence was still drastically excessive for the situation and at the far upper end of what the judge should have sentenced Poe to in that situation. So the judge was not applying rational logic to the details and complexities of the case. But then again, that is not entirely unrealistic either. Judges can make bad decisions like this in real life.

 

The wife was there at the beginning. Also didn't he only kill one of them. The other 2 could have talked and there were lot of people in the bar that could be witnesses for the original altercation.

 

You didn't read this thread. The other two fled the scene, and presumably the authorities never figured out who they were.

And she probably also told the authorities in the police report that she had pleaded with Poe not to fight them but he did anyway.
Which would not look good for Poe's case.

Yes, if the police had bothered to listen to Poe (whom at this point they suspected of an unlawful killing) and made the effort to fully investigate the story.
But in real life, that so often does not happen.

They likely would have seen little reason to waste the effort to investigate that because even if it could be verified it would not help Poe's case much. That still would not prove that Poe had fought 3 people.

 

Its been a long time since I watch the movie. Didn't realize that was part of the story. You would think if the other 2 fled it would reinforce Poe's innocence. If they were the victims why run? It kind of implies they know they did something wrong. You would think the lawyer or cops would point that out. Poe could simply assert he was attacked and the other people are not even there to give their side of the story.