• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How can I make a courtroom thriller interesting in this way?

I have an idea for a courtroom thriller and wrote out a few drafts. However, some readers have pointed out a huge plot hole, in that the lawyers, are surprised by witnesses testimony and did not see the ambushes coming... where as logically, the lawyers would have already known what the witnesses were going to say before trial. They would have found out at the deposition.

I suppose that's true after thinking about it, the lawyers would have already known what the witnesses were going to say and what evidence would have been presented in the deposition. There would be no surprises at at the trial, cause all of that would have been covered at the deposition.

So I am thinking I should change the story to a deposition instead of a trial. In a deposition both lawyers meet in a small office room and just bring in the witnesses, one at time, and ask them questions, instead of a courtroom.

However, I feel this would lack suspense. The defendant isn't even there to face his accusers. Even though his lawyer would logically do the talking, him not even being there I think would take away a lot of the intrigue of how the reader perceives the situation, if he is not there to emotionally react to it all, even if it's mostly internal.

There are also people in the back of the courtroom who have personal involvement in the case, such as loved ones, of the victims, who would have reactions while watching the case, who would also not be there in the room as all of this investigating and cross examining of the case goes on.

So I was wondering, is there any ways I can make the deposition equally suspenseful, even though the defendant and the victim's loved ones, will not be able to there to react to everything, realistically?

I also feel that not having a judge there to decide on what is relevant, admissible and fair, and what not, also can remove some of the intrigue.

The deposition allows for the prosecutor and defense attorney to be surprised and not know what witnesses will say, and not know what evidence will bring till they go over it. The surprises are more important for the story to go, where I want it go, but it would be nice to have all that little drama as well, if that's still possible.

What do you think? Thanks for the advice and input. I really appreciate it.
 
Okay thanks. I got differing opinions on it. Some say it will make into court with the prosecution having to prove authenticity, and others say that it would be rejected long before it even made it to trial, on the basis of not having an actual person source to corroborate it.

What if in my script the video of the crime was shot with a long range zoom lens, so at some point, the killer's face is zoomed in close and looks just like him to everyone, and they can prove that it's not special effects at all?
 
There was more to it than that.

Also, the way I understand the rule, is that the 'sourceĀ“ must be authenticated. The source could be the camera in which the video was made. It could have markers on it that only that place uses, such as its method of dates and time, initials, and it could also be proven by other landmarks that the video could not have come from any other place or camera.

The defence then must prove - or at least create reasonable doubt - that the video could have been faked. This will likely turn 'motivation' in a new direction (plot point).

a

Okay thanks. Do you think I could just write it like how Enemy of the State and 24 did and have video evidence that is admissible without authentication? I mean they did it in Enemy of the State and 24, so if the audience is willing to suspend legal disbelief in those cases, could I get away with it as well?
 
Back
Top