Asimow, Michael R., "12 Angry Men: A Revisionist View." Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 82, p. 711, 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1095488>

 

 

            In this paper, the author, Michael Asimow, takes a very different view of the jury of 12 Angry Men. While it is widely assumed that the jury of 12 Angry Men serves as an example of an ideal jury, the author of 12 ANGRY MEN: A REVISIONIST VIEW argues that instead of supporting the jury system the movie serves as an argument against the jury system. The author bases this on the idea that while the juror number eight is able to poke holes in the evidence, there is still enough circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, and that the jury should find him guilty.
            Michael Asimow argues in his paper that if the son didn't commit the murder then someone else did, but there was no sign of theft or break in at the apartment. Also the father was killed by a very unusual knife, and even though the juror number eight found a similar knife at a local shop, the probability that the killer and the boy had the same unusual knife is very small. The boy also did not remember anything from a movie that he said he saw. Juror number eight explains this by asking a juror about a movie that the juror saw couple of days ago, who was playing in it and its name. The juror remembered most of the information but not all, and so this was used to disregard the idea that the boy was lying about seeing a movie. The juror not remembering the movie he saw couple of days ago in no ways diminishes the fact that the boy remembered nothing. Also the boy's alibi was not confirmed by anyone as no one saw him at the theater. So even if disregarding the evidence from the two eyewitnesses there is enough evidence to find the defendant guilty. This movie is seen by many as a model for a jury, but in Michael Asimow's view it 12 Angry Men should not be viewed as a movie that supports the idea that jury deliberations leads to the right decision.

Asimow, Michael R. “Divorce in the Movies: From the Hays Code to Kramer vs. Kramer.”
Legal Studies Forum 24.2 (2000): 1-62. (available for download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=214869)

    This article by Asimov catalogues the appearance and depiction of divorce in American cinema from the 1930’s to the 1980’s. He discusses the important of film history as tool to understanding previous generations and their morals, values, and social goals. Asimow pays particular attention to the influence of the Hays Code and Production Code Administration on film and changes in its effectiveness, composition, and reputation among filmmakers and the public. As a legal professional, Asimow identifies other important legal shifts that changed divorce in cinema. Asimow also relates the depiction of divorce in cinema to the cultural context of the time, including changes in gender roles, the feminist movement, and the overall increase in divorces over the past half-century. In addition, Asimow deals with the religious, specifically Catholic roots, of the code and cinema censorship and demonstrates how movies trailed behind the progressivism of the middle and late twentieth century. The last third of the article focuses on an analysis of Kramer vs. Kramer as it relates to the depiction of divorce in America cinema. Asimow praises the film as an exemplary piece that accurately deals with the complications of divorce, including interfamily conflict and how such conflict is dealt with through family law. He enumerates the most essential qualities of a dramatic piece focused on the modern institution of marriage and divorce and explains in detail how Kramer vs. Kramer, uniquely deals with each.
    This article relates to the research topic as it places Kramer vs. Kramer in a cinematic and historical context. In addition, this article is particularly useful in its assessment of the movie because of its clear but thorough assessment of what is necessary in a movie such as Kramer vs. Kramer. Finally, the article contrasts well with Malloy’s “Kramer vs. Kramer: A fraudulent view” as Asimow praises the movie for the exact same aspects that Malloy criticizes it.