Talk:The Rainmaker (1997 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:John grishams the rainmaker.jpg
Image:John grishams the rainmaker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal opinion re use of doctor's letter
As an attorney, I take issue with the following statement: "Drummond also deliberately breaches evidentiary law, most notably in attempting to introduce a letter from the Black's family doctor as evidence. Legally such evidence is hearsay, opinion evidence, and a breach of doctor-client privilege. It is only the involvement of Deck Shifflet that sees this contested."

I don't know that one "breaches" evidentiary law. Also, it wasn't hearsay or opinion, since it was offered (ostensibly) only to impeach the credibility of the witness in saying she received no such notice. I'm not aware of any privilege that would extend to the mother of the patient. If there is, it should have been raised at discovery... not at trial.

I thought the movie dealt with the evidentiary issues quite well, but disagree with the article's description, for the reasons given. The comments also don't belong in this section. It would suffice to say that he attempts to introduce the letter in the movie, and doesn't in the book (assuming that's accurate). John2510 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * John, if you've read the book and you are an attorney, you should realize that it is a cynical parody of the legal system. Nothing in the book happens the way it should in real life. In the book, evidence is admitted that should not be admitted, or vice versa; things that affect the outcome of the case on appeal are done off the record and a lawyer doesn't realize it; the protagonist does many things that should get him disbarred but he gets away with them. In the end, in the book, the hero and his girlfriend literally ride off into the sunset... Your points are legally valid but ignore Grisham's subtle comedy, and in the movie, once removed from the very misunderstood book, they simply blew off any legal things. (I wrote a long essay about this book that I published on usenet when I was practicing law, some 30 years ago. I wonder if it's still around.) It would be hard to portray Grisham's cynicism in the movie, so they ignored that and made it a simple success story. That's Hollywood for you. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric