Great movie. Jack Black should get an Oscar nod for this. The DA (Danny Buck or whatever his name is) seems like a real tool, per the movie. No way 1st degree murder should've been the charge. One of Linklater's best.
Enjoyed it immensely, especially all the "locals" who offer opinions on various matters. As to the charge, what exactly do you charge a person with who shoots an old lady in the back four times? Intentionally causing the death of somebody is first degree murder. There was no evidence of sudden passion arising out of adequate cause, or self defense or any of the usual factors which would merit a lesser charge. His old girlfriend was a pain in the ***. If that is grounds for escaping a first degree murder charge, half the homicides in Texas would go unindicted. And keep in mind that the movie's comic narrative is driven by the idea that what he did was almost inevitable because, to paraphrase one character, she was evil and he was nice and she was more evil than he was nice. Whether the relationship was as manipulative as depicted in the film is known but to the guy who shot the old lady in the back four times. If he was a conniving POS murderer, it kind of ruins the narrative. The jury heard the evidence, we just saw a movie. And I hope lots of other people do as well, because it is howlingly funny.
I saw the ad for this and had an instinctive gag reflex when I saw that Jack Black was in it. Why can I not stand that guy? I’m sure it’s irrational but there it is.
Really enjoyed the movie at the Violet Crown Cinema, first visit there. I didn't understand why the guy got charged with first-degree murder, either. Second-degree sounds correct. Great technique used to tell the story by the director Linklater, with the real townspeople relating their feelings about the characters and the trial. The movie explores the fine line between humor and tragedy, and does it very well.
Perham: read Chapter 19 of the Penal Code. Intentionally killing somebody is first degree murder. If convicted, the defendant can present evidence in the punishment phase of the trial to the effect that he killed the victim as a result of sudden passion arising from adequate cause and if the jury unanimously agrees the offense becomes a second degree felony. There was nothing in the film that suggested he offed the old lady as a result of sudden passion; it had been building for some time. Nor was there adequate cause, as it is defined. The average person wouldn't shoot her in the back because she was a mean old ***** who made fun of his weight and sexual orientation and demeaned his qualities as a servant. The average person would have quit accepting the gifts long before and had nothing to do with her. Murder was the correct thing to indict him for and he appears to have been guilty. I would not think that a long sentence would be an appropriate punishment, but then i have all my teeth and no tattoos and so would not get on a jury in that county.
OK, maybe it was first-degree, but the punishment was excessive. Clearly, the guy snapped, and unless the entire portrayal was wrong, he would not be a threat to society if he got out of prison at some point.
I say "appears" out of an abundance of caution; I have prosecuted/defended off and on for over thirty years and I can't tell you the number of times people said they committed crimes they had not. It appears Bernie shot his ancient amour, but what if one of his gay friends, assuming he had some, shot her out of jealous rage (not that there would be anything wrong with that) and Bernie was so enchanted with the act of love killing that he decided to take the rap? That would be no more far fetched than the story served up on the screen and I had a case in the panhandle decades ago where I was pretty much convinced that was happening. People caught up in the criminal system do and say the weirdest things---frequently. To anybody reading this thread: go see it; it is tragic, funny as a bagful of chimps and wonderfully insightful about our beloved state.
