Dammit! Very good.
Smash us up against a post. Railroad Station Hurry up! Yes, this is Wilczek. Hi, Michał. l’ve put him on the train.
He’s coming to you. Who? Łukasz. What do l care if
you put him on the train? Do you know what time it is? Don’t teach me, OK? Zdzisek, Zdzisek! You still think you’re
the head student of our class? Don’t call. l’ll call you.
Bye. Special guest appearance IMMENSITY OF JUSTICE Music Photography Written and directed by The screenplay is inspired
by a true story. Any resemblance to real events
or people is unintended. – Excuse me, sir, Attorney Wilczek?
– Yes. My name’s Łukasz.
Father has called you. Yeah… yeah… Let’s go somewhere… to talk. How’s your father? lt’s been a long time.
The last time at a class reunion. Still on the go,
with no time to waste? Exactly. l know you’ve graduated, you have to
decide about your legal training, and you don’t want
to be an attorney. Not even a lawyer.
lt was my Father’s idea. What did he tell you about me? That you’ve won some celebrated
cases, and will persuade me. Thank you, Mrs. Maria. A mistake. l’m not going
to persuade you to do anything. You’ll do what you please. The best piece of advice l could get. l can still catch
the express train. Thank you. Wait a minute! You haven’t traveled six hours
to tell me you don’t need my advice. You won’t give it, so l won’t
listen to it. What’s the problem? – You could stand me vodka.
– l don’t drink it. – Coke please.
– Right away. l’m generally into beer. Miss Asia, same here. Tell you something. And you’ll draw
your own conclusions or not. What do you want to do in life? Take pictures. An artist, are you? Attracted to nudes, huh? Trees. – Trees?
– Yes. – You snap trees?
– Mostly, but not only those. – Nature in general.
– An expensive hobby. – Dad can afford it?
– l give tutorials. – Why trees in particular?
– l don’t know. They’re strong… have unusual energy. l was seriously ill once. – So trees healed you, yes?
– Yes. That’s the way it was. And you snap them
out of gratitude? Out of curiosity. l search for what can’t be seen. – To make a living?
– l don’t know. Certainly not off law. Law is too
unambiguous: from here to here. – Says you?
– Exactly. Right after the commie times. l worked in Attorney Boś’s office,
who’d given me legal training. A famous counsel for the defense
in political cases.Next he entered politics.L was alone in the office
when a married couple came.– Good morning.
– Good morning. – We’d like…
– Attorney Boś will be in the afternoon. l’m sorry.
May l help you? We’re looking for Attorney Wilczek. lt’s me. Please be seated. Yes? Our daughter’s been murdered. The murderer’s in jail
pending trial. A suspect,
not a convicted killer. We know it was him. We’re afraid they’ll want
to shelve the case. He worked in TV. His
friends are protesting already. Saying his arrest is a provocation. Yes, l know the case. We’ve been looking
for someone honest. They all pointed at you. We want you to be
the auxiliary prosecutor. lf it weren’t Jerzy Kuter… Does it change anything? My boss Attorney Boś
is his counsel for the defense. l can’t decide unless he says yes. – lf Attorney Boś agreed…
– Then yes. We’ll wait. Of course you can. lmportant to your career
no matter on whose side. lt’ll be a celebrated case. Andrzej, well into the case,
will help me. We’ll be adversaries in a sense. Only in a sense. Battered and strangled
before death. See the bruises on the face and neck? She was drowned after she passed out. The killer pushed her head
into the water with a baby quilt. The cause of death of the 8-month-old
fetus was suffocation in utero. Whose blood was it in the tub? The victim’s most likely. Policemen pulled the plug
thoughtlessly. Luckily, they took
samples of the sediment. – You got the results?
– No, none whatsoever yet. You’ve seen the fingerprints? The defendant’s. Found on the tub
among others. – That’s no evidence in the case?
– Why? He’d come there every day,
almost lived there. He must’ve bathed leaving
his fingerprints at any moment. Please read his explanations. Was any other evidence secured
at the scene of crime? Cigarette butts, locks
on the doors, other prints? What’s the point? An open-
and-shut case, that. No, it wasn’t secured! Sorry. Sorry, l’m beat. The investigation is not only
full of mistakes and just bloopers. Those first on the scene had no
homicide experience at all, but of juvenile delinquency: small-timers,
break-ins into kiosks. They just happened
to be on duty then. No thorough examination
of the scene, no evidence secured. Worse still, they soiled
all traces, assholes. Were you there? No, no, no. A young DA went there. Later, it turned out she knows
Dominika from a student theater. On seeing the body
in the tub, she fainted. – l see.
– See what? You don’t understand a thing!
We have only circumstantial evidence! Though certain it’s him, l have
no direct evidence whatsoever. Get it? What’s your indictment based on? That’s easy. On the assumption
that it could only be he. The only one with a motive: an inconvenient mistress well into
pregnancy, demanding that he divorce. Read the explanations first.
We’ll talk later. Pretty. A little younger
than l. And he? A TV journalist like her.
Her guru. Much older than she
with wife and two kids. Everybody knew
about the affair. Popular, simpatico.
A real hound dog, they say. Why should he have killed?
She was 8-month pregnant. He could’ve done it earlier. Maybe she started to
blackmail him. – Blackmail?
– l don’t know. Listen to his latest version: l worked till 2 a.m. and went
right away to Dominika, who was waiting
with a supper in fine mood. She was happy she’d
soon bear our baby. After supper, we went to sleep. l was waken up by a noise,
like the door slammed. She was not in bed, so l got
up and went to the bathroom. She was lying in the water. l tried to get her out
and resuscitate her, but she was dead. What was next? l went downstairs, got in
the car, and fell asleep. l woke when
they started a car near me. Then l drove home. lrrational and stupid. They kill his beloved and he
gets in the car and falls asleep? An educated, mature man
with imagination? His first version
is much more reliable. Who made him change
his testimony? The police? No court will ever
accept such a version. – Possibly. So we must help the court.
– Help? How? Her parents will testify that
he promised to marry her. His wife will confirm she didn’t
know anything. But it’s too little. The court must be absolutely
convinced that he lies all the time, and his version is unreliable. Talk
again to his friends, former lovers… to build an image of a man who does
not know what the truth is about. Excuse me. Dominika hid from me
that he was married. Didn’t want me to worry. My husband Staś works in
an outside telecast van. And everybody there… He was against that
relationship all along. We knew about his wife,
children… affairs. Staś worried that Dominika
was just his another flame.He even visited me here once.– Mrs. lrena…
– Excuse me for a moment. We’ll finish the talk,
but this first. l assure you
l’ll never harm her. You’ll harm someone anyway. l don’t want to. Being with her, you harm your family. – Being with the family…
– l’ll divorce. Give me some time. Don’t your children need you? Why, Maciek is 10,
Kasia is going on 1 5. Nothing will change
emotionally! l can’t see it. Give me some time. Please trust me. Excuse me. He’d deceive her,
play-acting all the time. He surpassed himself at her
door when he tried to get inside. Feigning worry while he knew
our daughter’s body was there. – Lying he didn’t have the key.
– How do you know? You defend him?
l’ll show you someone. Barbara Gamza. His former victim.
She could tell you much about him. Me his victim? You’ve amused me. Jerzy? A brilliant journalist
and a fantastic man. Unable to live
in a normal family, or to work at a desk for that matter.
Bursting with energy. l landed in a hospital once. He came once… with flowers. And then he just left,
without a goodbye. Dominika had just
been employed. Son of a bitch. Can we believe him? l don’t know. Now matter if he tells
the truth or not. We can’t lose this case.
Typical circumstantial evidence. Rather than evidence
the DA has vague suspicions. Can suspicions make a case?
An acquittal. But it’s going to be interesting. Hello, gentlemen. l’m off to the airport. To a spectacle that could be more
interesting than anything pending here. Any messages? The curia has postponed
the reception for a week. – Thank God. And?
– Another divorce suit. – Which this month?
– Fourth. People go crazy.
Will you deal with it? l already have. What’s up, Michał? lt’s hard to play in the team
doomed to lose. Sometimes it pays at least
to make an appearance. lt’s soon. – Any idea for your speech?
– Not yet. Not to worry. l have a speech in the Parliament,
but am unprepared either. Taxes? Don’t you read the rags? – The Anti-abortion Law.
– So they’ll be at loggerheads. A mortal combat.
The Reds won’t budge.They’ll give me no quarter.Again the police is to blame
for botching the job.There’s a murder
but no guilty party.For a year L’ve been trying to change
something, but it’s not so simple.l’ll have to account
for inefficiency. The crime detection rate
is going south. You want a spectacular success,
but your mistakes are… Stop! Yours and ours. Yes, which l patch up
with a dubious indictment. – You know it’s crappy.
– Just like the evidence. They can’t acquit him. Get it?!
Every moron can see it was him.So L’m not your every moron.
Lt could’ve been her ex just as well.You can’t believe that?!Good that you’ve come. l’ve looked through your notes.
We have to talk. Hello, sir. l’ll be going then. Attorney Wilczek
is the auxiliary prosecutor. – Drabik. Glad to meet you.
– Wilczek. – Call me in case…
– Sure. Bye. Come on in. Colonel Drabik is deputy
police commissioner. A real pro. Be seated, please. l’ve found nothing here
to back up my conclusions, except the story of his last lover
he ditched when she went to hospital. Whom he left
when he met Dominika. Comes to the same thing. Stick to it.
Used women… a good lead. But it’s not enough. Why don’t you dig
some more: her ex, for instance? He could know
something that could help. l know my duties, sir. We have little time. Why didn’t you tell me
of other fingerprints there? First, just one fingerprint. Second, it’s meaningless
in this case. lt may be anybody’s, a neighbor’s,
of the owner of the flat, of someone… A needle in the haystack! Don’t think your colleagues from
the office can make a use of it. Was the fingerprint checked out? l said… a needle in the haystack. – No drink really?
– No, thank you. Where was l?… – l called the guy.
– Exactly. Why? We may not have been
the best couple. But we liked each other. Ours was an open marriage. Maybe too open. That guy showed up then. Dominika
stopped sleeping with me. l wasn’t surprised,
given what we lived through. But l was when
she demanded a divorce. l felt sorry about
our relationship. Jessie, not so up-tempo. lt’s a different time. She said she loved him
and wanted out. So l met the guy… ls there a joint here where
we could talk in peace? l have to go back soon. Forget her, man. A serious guy
with wife and children, find another toy.
This may turn out ugly. – You threatening me?
– No, l’m not. l care about her. When she
steps in, she goes all the way. Then it’s depression,
booze, drugs. l’ve seen her like that
and won’t ever again. l care about her. So do l. And you’ll divorce? l don’t know. l knew you won’t. You could be her father. Fuck off! She soon got that shitty divorce. The funny thing is: l’d never wanted marriage.
A paradox, huh? l’m outta here.
Nice talking to you. You’ve been very helpful. – When will you move in with me?
– When will you marry me? lt’s important to you? No, it isn’t. Don’t go yet. l have the key to that flat.
l’d like to take a look. Will you come along? – l’m scared.
– That’s good. l’m scared too.
We’ll be scared together. Let’s leave this place, please! Fragments of broken or
trampled-on glasses of the victim. Possible.
Not everything was secured. So we have the frames
and glass fragments. Unfortunately, it contributes
nothing to the case. She wore glasses. Must’ve been
assaulted when she had them on. l thought everything happened in
the room, and in the bathroom. Maybe there was a tussle
by the door? The entrance door? Does it mean anything? Yeah? They’re really
inviting me? Wait a minute, Ann… You can’t abort
a 7-month-old fetus. ls that a human?Yes, at least the majority
in this hall will say so.And a 3-month-old that
can be killed with impunity? lt is not human yet?! Who lays down the law
about when life begins? Senator Paweł Boś’s speech
started a boisterous discussion… You still there, Ann? Something happened. l think l know how
to make the indictment. Your Honor. lt was not
a single homicide. lt was a double crime! The defendant
killed a woman and a child. lsn’t an 8-month-old fetus human? Children born in the 6-7 th month of
pregnancy can be kept alive, let alone a child several
weeks older. By strangling
and drowning Dominika, he killed the life
she was carrying in utero. Thank you. Was he acquitted? No, convicted for double murder. They put it differently, but in his speech the judge
made it clear he meant a double. Good night, attorney.
Thank you. Attorney Boś
must have been unhappy. He’d given you an argument
that may’ve tipped the scale. Do you remember the killing
of that journalist? – No, when?
– Long ago. – She was 8-month pregnant.
– The one from TV? The talk of the town.
Ten years ago or more. – He’s still in jail?
– No, President pardoned him. Fuck it!
Such a murderer walks the streets. Who should we vote for
if even President… How do you know it was him?
Because convicted?! – Pull over!
– lt’s still some way… We’re getting out! You asked about Boś’s
response to the verdict? Quiet. He wasn’t much upset. But l wasn’t
the prosecutor in the case. Along with Boś we were
the counsel for the defense. Don’t worry. lf he misses the train,
l’ll put him up for the night. No, no… We may even make friends. Forget the gratitude. Your son’s attitude
to law is quite healthy. Yes, l’ll tell him. Go to sleep. Your old man is
a pain in the ass. He says you’ve switched
off your mobile? Why did you tell me a story
you’d made up? lt’s pointless. A true story, that. But Andrzej worked
with the prosecutor. Ann was his girl. l worked with Boś till the end. – Why this game?
– Game? You want to prove something? You overdo it.
What should l prove to you? Listen to this. No… my mistake. This has nothing
to do with that.All that started
in a banal way.With a woman.Hello. Oh, l’m sorry. Come on in. This is my associate,
Attorney Wilczek. Mrs. Alicia Kuter.
Sit down. The lady has suggested that
we defend her husband, charged with art. 1 48
of the Penal Code. l see… You still need me, gentlemen? l guess not.
You’ve signed the proxy. Just one thing. We’ll be in strict cooperation. Of course, if need be. From now on any talks, suggestions,
or questions remain in this room. l understand. Thank you.Hope for the best, Mrs. Alicja.l don’t believe it. Ten minutes ago we tried to guess
in the bar who’d take this case. Big names were dropped,
but nobody thought of you. About us.We’re in it together.Yes? And Andrzej? The absent are wrong. He’s well into some divorce suits. A younger one, he can wait. Thank you, Paweł. Don’t prepare for
grandstanding or ovation. The point is not to
make the trial happen. As long as it’s preparatory
proceedings and there’s no indictment,
anything is possible. Why didn’t they think of me
as the counsel for the defense. You bring to mind political
trials, as a moral authority. ls that so? lnteresting… Luckily, some don’t mind it. A hard nut to crack, that guy. He won’t talk to anyone. The DA claims he knows
only the word ‘no’. – ls that wrong?
– l didn’t say anything. My name’s Paweł Boś.
That’s Michał Wilczek. We’re your counselors.
Your wife must’ve mentioned. Sorry, she didn’t. l understand. We’ve read your explanations. They’re not very consistent. The last time you saw Dominika
was in TV about 3 p.m. When you came to her place
at night, the door was closed. No one would open. Realizing you didn’t have the key,
you decided to wait in the car. But you fell asleep. After waking up, you rang the doorbell
again. Nobody opened so you went home. When she didn’t show up at work,
you started to look for her. You went to her parents. Was that so? Everything’s in the files. Why did you change the version
into one less to your advantage? Ask the DA and the police. l’m asking you. We’d like to help you,
to get you out of this. lt’s also up to you
if we succeed. Nothing is lost yet. Why should it be?
l haven’t been indicted. The point is to prevent
an indictment. Good bye. Bitter and twisted. A typical defensive posture. His wife cares more about
preventing the indictment than he. l’ll see him tomorrow myself. A little camel asks his dad: ”Why are those humps so big
and ugly? What for, dad?” ”When we set out across
the dessert, we carry in them: food and water, so that we
could go hundreds of miles.” The little one asks again:
”Why do we have such big hooves?” Why did he take you
rather than me? Must’ve thought
you work too much. Yeah, those divorces
make me sick already. Does he think l’m less able?
Tell me. Don’t you know how highly
he appreciates you? Don’t waste time.
l won’t change my testimony. Your wife had an accident. What accident? A car accident. Very important to your career. Provincial Court Michał, wait!
We’ll fight! So he’s taken you.
l’m really happy. No! We fight
against each other. – How so?
– l’ll be the auxiliary prosecutor! The boss OK’d it.
Bye! – A bite to eat?
– No, l’m in a hurry. We have to split the roles. l’ll contact Mrs. Kuter
and you, him… lce queen but still attractive. No kidding.
This is important. You know why the other version?
He let the police trick him. They led him to believe
in his wife’s car accident. The abandoned kids in panic. Told him he’d walk if he comes up with
a reliable version of Dominika’s death: She bathed, collapsed,
drowned while he was asleep. Once he signed they had
what they wanted: Present on the scene
when the victim died. – The rest was peanuts.
– He let them trick him? At 4 a.m. after a dozen hours
of debilitating questioning? Why not? His wife in hospital,
kids home alone… So he’ll retract it all
and say how it was. Yes, we’ve just got it.
Thank you, Marian. lt’s my treat next time. Bye. What do you make of that? The DA’s office
throws in the towel? l’m afraid you’re wrong. The truth is there’s
no evidence whatsoever. l’ve never seen such
a puny indictment. That shows how
determined you are. But they won’t correct
the investigation bloopers. – Wrong again. They will.
– How? By convicting him. You think we won’t win? You sound so convincing. Talk to Kuter.
Settle on one version. And the keys.
There were two sets. One must’ve been his. You’ve read the testimony
of her parents. Let’s not let them take us aback. Just routine examinations
and observation. We won’t suggest, let alone
prove anything. They don’t need it. Where are those court papers? l’ll tell you something. They don’t care what we write. Their legal experts will treat
our opinion as they please. Who? The judge, the DA, no matter. Your point of view depends
on where you sit. lt’s the question of
interpretation as in the movies. You wanted to talk to him?
Well, talk to him. You said the other version
wasn’t yours. Will you retract it in court? l will. – Did you have the keys or not?
– l did. But that Friday l left them
in my desk. They may still be there. l lied in court saying
l hadn’t had them. l was scared. You know what? With Dominika l had no
sense of guilt about my wife. Don’t say that in court. l wasn’t harming my family. l’d give them all they expected. l couldn’t leave them. Someone else in my shoes
would have but l couldn’t. Not that l was afraid. l just felt responsible for them. – Dominika demanded a divorce?
– Not at the beginning. Later, she’d mention
it time and again.Rather than quarrels,
they were discussions.She wanted me to move in
and start a family.Then you decided
to leave her. Yes? No. But l had certain doubts. More specific, please. lf l weren’t doing her wrong. What a bullshit! He’d better shut up! Doubts!
The court should have them, not he! l’ve got an idea. lt’s enough to read the records well. You said the water
in the tub was pink.– On account of blood?
– L don’t know.Someone had drained the water.Was the victim injured
so that she could’ve bled?No. lt could’ve been blood
from her placenta. Any wounds, scratches or such
on the defendant’s body? None whatsoever.– Any other samples from the tub?
– What do you mean?– Sediment, for instance.
– Yes.– Was it sent to the lab?
– Yes.What were the results? The sediment samples got
lost on the way to the lab. Six fingerprints were secured: two on the entrance door,
one on the fridge door,another on the door frame
and another on the tub.All were the defendant’s.lf l count correctly
five were the defendant’s. – Didn’t you say six?
– Yes. – The sixth was the defendant’s?
– No. – Maybe the victim’s?
– Not either. – You know whose then?
– No. She wanted to part with me. She wanted the divorce for
the sake of truth and feelings. – You wanted to part too?
– No.– Why?
– L had it good with her.Please face the court.l had it good with her. You still loved her? You could say so. Did you quarrel and fight
just before the divorce? Yes, but it’s normal… Did you beat her? – l hit her once.
– l understand. What did you do on
the night of June 29? Your Honor, it’s irrelevant.
l object. Objection sustained. Why? lt’s very important,
Your Honor. Please enter in the records the question
and the sustained objection. We can enter it. The objection is sustained anyway. l’ll lodge a motion in writing
concerning the matter. – Hello.
– Hello. – How do l put it?
– A motion for correction of minutes. Good show, Michał. Thank you. – lt was your idea.
– But you brought it up. l’ll be back in a day. The meeting at the
curia is especially important to you. l bless the bar in particular for their
share in building a new social order. Keep trying to struggle
for a better tomorrow. Now let’s have a bite to eat. Tell His Excellency
you want to have many kids. – Yeah? Will he ask?
– He asks everyone. lf you say fewer than four,
you’ll blow it. – The boss has two.
– He admitted to 3 illegitimate ones. Don’t say that around Boś,
or he’ll hate you forever. One who loves unborn
children will hate me? – This is Attorney Wilczek.
– How nice… l’ve heard
a lot about you… young man. You have a future.
Married? With children? – No, l haven’t thought about it.
– You should hurry then. – Will you see me off, Senator?
– lt’s an honor. So you failed. Too bad. – You could ask him…
– Come off it. Excuse me, Your Excellency?
Should l buss your ring? Michał, wait! You must withdraw the motion
for correction of minutes. – Are you kidding?
– l’ve thought about it. – When? At the reception?
– Don’t attract attention! You’ll write it right away. lt must be in court tomorrow
before the hearing. You deprive our client of
a chance of an effective defense. Her ex may’ve been the killer
just as well. He killed her in a fit of
jealousy when she left. – We must check his alibi!
– Don’t blather. His acquittal?
We have it made. What happens if we increase
the number of suspects? What? We’ll have
Mrs. Alicja Kuter involved. – Yes?
– Yes. She’s a decent woman
from a respectable family. You want the asshole DA or worse still
a newshound conclude it may’ve been she? Her motive is obvious,
so why not? Her alibi hasn’t been checked either. Don’t make a fool of yourself. Who asked you
to withdraw the motion? The host of this circus? A funny insinuation, that. Her father told me she is
taking it very badly. We have to spare her
any more humiliation. – She’s our client.
– Her husband is our client. Wrong. She commissioned us
for a steep price. They’re both our clients. What if it was she who killed? No, she didn’t do it. l disagree with Dr. Kocki. Given the records of proceedings and the results of observation of
the defendant in the mental hospital and mine own, l state that he is a neurotic type, whose complicated situation
and emotional disturbance may have made him
commit the murder. All legal experts are whores. Not all maybe… But that professor hit the bull’s eye
with that emotional disturbance. Check the victim’s biography. l wonder what she did in the past,
in that student theater, in particular. Why? They’re all out to convict him. We should prove
the girl wasn’t an angel. She was the cause of evil. She caused two
marriages to break up: hers and Kuter’s. Hence the misfortune… maybe. lt’d make sense if Kuter
admitted his guilt or were proved guilty, but… Then understand that we must
be prepared for all possibilities. Something happened? l’m pregnant. You’re kidding! Does he know? – You’ll abort?
– No. You may be done for. You’re new in TV.
They’ll fire you. Don’t think about it, Dora.
lt matters nothing. l love him and want his child. – And if he doesn’t?
– He does. We’ll soon get married
when he gets a divorce. Will you be so gullible
forever? – Miss Dorota…
– Please call me Dora. l don’t understand this, Dora. Did you know
there would be no wedding? No, but l remembered us
waiting tables on vacation once. She fell for an architect.
lt was requited love. – And he was married?
– No, he wasn’t. But she got pregnant. Was frightened first,
reconciled with it and even liked it. But there was another one,
more heavily pregnant. l don’t get it. The guy had two flames.So then she decided on abortion.Don’t worry. l speak in the Parliament
and have no idea yet either. Taxes? Don’t you read the papers? The Anti-abortion Law. A mortal combat.
The Reds won’t budge. Wish you luck! Outta here. Bye! Good you’ve found that actress. Two facts are vital: Dominika had many lovers
and aborted. Promise you’ll use it
as the last resort. Put Dora on the stand only
when Kuter’s guilt is beyond doubt. Rest assured about that.You admitted not having
promised a marriage, yes?Yes. So you didn’t want to marry her,
lying that you’d filed for a divorce.And you cheated on your wife,
having another relationship.How can you explain
such behavior?He may be forced to
defend himself actively. Let him lie that
l knew about his romance. lt wouldn’t be far from the truth. l knew as much as l wanted. l have to ask a question
not to be taken aback later. What did you know
about that relationship? l practically
knew nothing. Excellent… excellent. All will be well, Mrs. Alicja. The doubts keep growing
in this trial. l know. Tell him he can return
home if they acquit him. lf they convict him,
l’ll file for divorce. Good bye. Wonderful woman. lt’s a pity that she smokes. lt would be better for her
if they convicted him. – At least a little.
– You kidding? lt would be just. Even if he didn’t kill,
he destroyed a lot… They can’t convict you. Show some good will. The judge doesn’t understand you. What do l tell her then? That we live in a culture that can’t
reconcile a relationship with a partner and friendship with the wife? ‘Cause one would be condemned
and the other sympathized with even if she didn’t want it? You think
the woman judge understands that? lt doesn’t matter. We need new witnesses. His refusal to explain
may be quite useful. How? You’ll see. Your Honor! l move that the testimony
be considered of Dorota Derecka, the victim’s friend of the times
they worked in a theater. The court sees no objections.Lt’s idiotic.Rein in your emotions. You can’t back out now. A mistake
that will screw up your career. Your word… l did it exclusively
for his wife. She cares about her marriage
and his image too. So you couldn’t have
done it otherwise, yes? Don’t play a fool. Your name will be mud! As the word will spread even
though l promise to keep mum. How generous of you.
Thank you. You’ll return here.And did you?No. They found a replacement. l can’t recall who. l read about
the verdict in the papers. Dora didn’t testify. She agreed to say only
that Kuter had promised marriage. l’m going to bed. You can sleep in the other room. No, thanks.
l have a train soon. Thank you for the lesson. Fuck it! We open in a quarter.
Please wait. l’d like to see the records of a trial
1 5 years ago. Where can l find them? – You’re a legal intern?
– Not yet. The archive is in the second
wing on the 4th floor. Thank you. Records of Proceedings – You need a permit, you know?
– l do now. – Here you are.
– Thank you. Sentence Presiding Judge You’ve missed your train? Come on in. You lied to me. l told you two stories. lt’s up to you
what you’ll do with them. You can have a drink,
rest for an hour… l’ll be leaving then
and so will you. What’s this? Yes. l was the presiding judge. Boś and Wadecki were
the counsel for the defense. l wanted to forget about it. All that started with that air… Listen. – You’ve played it once.
– But listen… – Must it be here?
– lt doesn’t matter now. You’ve been appointed
the presiding judge. – How do you know?
– Boss told me. That’s why l’m here. l don’t believe it. Good evening. – Excuse me.
– All right. Go. – l preside over the Kuter’s trial.
– Yes? – You know what that means to me?
– l don’t know. A trial everyone would like
to preside over. – She told you?
– She’ll be the reporting judge. – Always well-informed.
– That’s more than a distinction. Have dinner with me
after the show, OK? – What’s that?
– l don’t know. The most beautiful erotic
scene was in The Ghost. With Patrick Swayze
and Demi Moore. – How? With a ghost?
– Why not? Remember
When Harry Met Sally? They were in a restaurant…
and she… And remember the woman at the next
table telling the waiter: ”l’ll have… ”…whatever she’s having”? l wonder if she’ll have the same. Scandal! We’ve scared patrons away. To your success. Tell me about the trial. A guy killed his pregnant lover. – That l know.
– Much more than l know. l don’t even know if he killed. A typical lawyer,
businesslike to the hilt. Doubts have seeped in.
Doubts galore. You’ll manage. This indictment is too puny. You saw what evidence
the police had secured. So why did they hurry
with the indictment? Well, doesn’t everything
fall into place? – l don’t see that.
– God, what a weather. Kuter will undergo
psychiatric examinations. Just now? That woman doctor convicted
of killing her lover’s wife? They waived the examinations of her acc-
omplice. The Court quashed the verdict. The case had to be
reexamined. You know why? Because of ”ignoring the elementary
conditions of procedural justice.” – Of course!
– But we won’t. – When do we vacate the flat?
– There’s no need. Łucja is with that attorney
Wiktor Danko, the funny one. A poor prospect, he. That’s no relationship for her. – They keep a low profile.
– A judge and an attorney? lt’s illegal. lf it’s just socializing,
it’s legit. Anula? Hi! How was it? Great! My congratulations. You had lunch? Too bad. ls dad home? Tell dad mom had to
stay overtime… No, not long. Kiss you darling… Bye. Stay awhile. By battering her, strangling,
and drowning in the tub he killed her. Act as charged by art. 1 48
of the Penal Code. Thank you. Defendant should rise. You’ve understood the charge? Yes.– Pleading guilty?
– No.Do you sustain your explanation
during the preparatory proceedings? No. l gave the true version
right after the apprehension. The door was locked. – What about the keys?
– l don’t know. How come? Driving over the bridge you dropped
the keys into the river. – Yes?
– Yes. What did you do with the keys? Why did you change
your explanations? Because the policemen
promised something.– What?
– That L’d be released.This is the record of
Mr. Kuter’s questioning. Why was it made at 4:25 a.m.? May l see it? An obvious
mistake of the recording clerk. At 4:25 p.m. not a.m. – Not in the middle of the night?
– Of course not. Didn’t you tell him his wife had had
an accident and gone to hospital? Nonsense. He came around noon. l was home with
my younger daughter. He asked about Dominika… And l was surprised. – Why surprised?
– l thought they were together.And then?The three of us ran to the car… …and we drove there. The door was locked. When l entered… l saw… Don’t come here! l began to shout at him: ”You murderer… you’ve killed my child!”How did the defendant respond?He didn’t respond. Thank you.
No more questions. Coffee? No, thank you. – l wonder whom to believe.
– You’re new here. Right? – Just a few months.
– A pensioner too? No, a downsized teacher. My friend, a lay judge,
talked me into signing up. You have doubts? There was no outside pressure. The counsel told him to retract
his incriminating testimony. He did and prevaricated more. Why was he the last one to enter the
bathroom and wouldn’t let anybody in? He knew there was a corpse
in the tub. Why didn’t he deny when
she called him a murderer? Because he’d killed. An innocent man
doesn’t act that way. l don’t know. And you
who want to study law? Yes, Your Honor… l believe him. With no
material evidence, l think… Belief is good in church,
not in court. ln the records of proceedings,
l found only a few photographs. Why so few? And those from the room
where the victim’s open bag was found? And those from the hallway? They got lost. Got lost… But you have the negatives. Right? Got lost with the photographs. The negatives too… Maybe the defendant’s
desk keys got lost too? – Like the photos.
– No, they didn’t get lost. As they had never been found. – He praised you?
– No. Something important. So secretive? His first divorce hearing tomorrow.
He’s off to meet the lawyer. Not bad. lf all goes well,
it’s an August wedding then. You’re invited. l couldn’t tell her l
didn’t believe in that wedding. ln fact, no one did. lt was mystification. What for then? To have peace and quiet.– Whose?
– Everybody’s.Could Jerzy Kuter
commit the murder? No, never. He knew what he wanted,
but wouldn’t have harmed anyone. He couldn’t have killed for sure. Change something.
We can’t go on like this. – What do you mean?
– Don’t be such a softie. Soon Boś will keep you
under his thumb. l can’t forbid him
to ask questions. Can’t you be more decisive? The defendant is no doubt
sensitive and intelligent. Too intelligent to have left
his car outside the victim’s house and to have sat in it,
having committed the murder. No, no, no. Only a primitive man
would’ve done so. One without imagination.
lt couldn’t be the defendant.– How long was your relationship?
– Several months.Right after l came to Poland. How often did you meet the defendant? Often.
A few times a week. – When did you part?
– Over a year ago. Why? Something happened? l fell ill. l had a surgery… and l was not available…
in a sense.Ln what sense?Your Honor, l object. lt’s irrelevant to this case. Moreover, why some intimate
confessions in front of the reporters
and the spectators present. Objection sustained. What did you do then? l object, Your Honor.
lt’s irrelevant to this case. lt’s good you stopped
that harassing of the witness… – What witness?
– The one who fell ill. l mistake them all the time. But why did you stop the counselor
from asking the victim’s ex? – He could be a suspect too. Right?
– Yes, indeed. The preparatory proceedings
excluded such a possibility. lt’s not in the records. He
could’ve got a chance to answer. Don’t be such a Sherlock Holmes
wearing a skirt. Didn’t you hear the legal expert
psychologist say, ”…his emotional disturbance may
have made him commit the murder”? Yes, but the psychiatrist said
something quite opposite. Mrs… – My name is Maria.
– Please think, Mrs. Maria: Only he had a reason to kill. No one
else! We warmed it over many times. He wanted the most comfortable
way out of the situation. Comfortable? lt was clear he’d have problems. All knew she was his lover,
so he’d be the first suspect. You don’t think about it.
Contrary to experience. The judge can confirm it, right? l can’t confirm it
for lack of such experience. – We were supposed to meet.
– Change of plans. – You angry?
– Don’t clown. One show was enough. What’s your problem? You wanted to ingratiate with the old
or the young ”Yes, Your Honor”? We have no such experience,
having killed nobody! Does that bother you?
lt’s nonsense… To you, not to me. Bye! The victim’s broken glasses
were found in the apartment. Did Dominika usually use them? No. Do you know when then? Only to watch TV. She had only a Polish channel
she watched till the sound off. Thank you. Your Honor. On the floor, her bag and glasses were
found, with which she’d only watch TV. So she was assaulted,
unlike what the prosecutor claims, while watching TV. lt could’ve been a robbery. The killer was a pro, as all
traces were blotted out well. – Any money missing from the bag?
– No.– Did she have any jewelry?
– Yes.– Any jewelry lost?
– None. Thanks.
No more questions. Wait… What’s the trouble? A cramp. lt’ll pass. Why don’t you call in sick? Out of the question. Tomorrow it’s
the prosecutor and counselors. lmpossible. Good it’ll soon be over.
Take care of yourself. Let’s get away
for a week at least. – The verdict is tomorrow?
– No, certainly not. A very hard case, this. So? Back to the records of proceedings. When will you be back with us? When he opened the bathroom
a crack, he said, ”She’s dead.” How did he know? She could’ve just needed help. No! He knew she was dead. How? Given this, can we believe
in the alleged accident or in his forced change
of testimony. The answer is clear. Your Honor, these proceedings
have substantiated the charges. l demand that the defendant
be found guilty of the killing and… excuse me… be sentenced to 1 5 years
in prison. There is this old saying: ”Keep order and it will keep you.” By deceiving all, not only his wife but
the woman who loved him and her parents,
the defendant destroyed that order. Even living in sin
you could be honest, by declaring your true intentions. That’s what he didn’t do. He exploited the woman’s love,
killed her and their child also. So the charge should be reworded: He killed for, having come to senses,
he tried to save his marriage and family and to have peace of mind.
he wanted to hide his grave mistake. Your Honor, l move that
the defendant be found guilty of the double murder and receive
the most severe punishment. Your Honor! Having examined the evidence
revealed during these proceedings,and having listened to
the speeches of the prosecutorand the auxiliary prosecutor,L declare that the evidence
gives no groundsfor accusing the defendant
of committing that criminal act.The motive of killing, based
on presumptions is not enough.Lt cannot pass for
the missing objective evidence.L dare say that the perpetrator
has not been found.The law enforcement authorities
are trying to help convict a personwho has not
committed the criminal act.His sentence will
only absolve the incompetence and ignorance of the law
enforcement authorities. Someone will pay dearly
for their improper conduct. Given the exceptional
complexity of the case,the verdict will be pronounced,
pursuant to a deliberation,in this hall in three days at 10 a.m. l understand your doubts.
l have mine too. About the evidence,
but not about his guilt. Do you have the clear conscience
to say he didn’t do it? That double murder of exceptional
cruelty? Everything falls into place. To acquit him now? Why couldn’t he have blotted out traces
in the flat and feigned a robbery? – So inanely anyway.
– So you have doubts too. Could that legal expert
psychologist have been wrong? l can’t say…
You know those experts. l think she wasn’t.
Have you read the news? The press has pronounced:
”Not guilty.” Should l bother? Are we to pass a verdict
his colleagues expect? They’d say, ”Broke under pressure.” l don’t care what they’d say. No? You know what they say
already? The verdict will show what we
are more than you think. Says who? They… ln the corridors,
rooms, at social meetings? – They may be right.
– What’re you talking about? We have families too, meet
on the sly… just like them.A substantial difference!Remember the auxiliary
prosecutor saying, ”You can be honest even
living in sin.” And we are! We settled on do’s and don’ts, we have families, don’t cross
each other’s ways nor hurt each other, right? This may be a bigger
lie and hypocrisy. More honest than we, possibly,
he couldn’t cope with all that. That’s why he killed. Yes? Acquitting him would mean
solidarizing with him.That’s how they’ll receive it:They acquitted him
to justify their own actions. What nonsense! Nonsense? You know people. The defendant’s guilt has been
proved beyond any doubt. – So… Your Honor?
– Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. – Guilty… but…
– Thank you. l like your unanimity. We have to be
consequent with the punishment. Battery, strangulation, and drowning show that the defendant’s
intention was to kill. l find Jerzy Kuter guilty of
committing the criminal act described in the indictment, sentence him
to 25 years of imprisonment, and deprivation of
public rights for 10 years. Please sit down. The court will
present the motives of the sentence. The court to which the defense
appealed upheld the sentence in force. l soon parted with the court. For 8 years l’ve been handling white-
collar offences only as an attorney. Why judge others when you
pose a problem yourself? Come, l’ll see you off to the station. – No, thanks. l know the way.
– But l could use a walk. We’ve disappointed your father. But that snapping of trees
really got me. lf you won’t be angry,
one more question. Perhaps too personal… How my romance with
Bożena ended? ln a banal way. My wife soon left me. She couldn’t reconcile with
what she’d heard about that. Let’s hurry
or you’ll miss the train. You all wanted to punish him for
different reasons no matter his guilt. ln the name of supposed justice
and presumed truth. – This is law in practice?!
– This is not so simple. Nothing is! But weren’t you interested
personally if he’d killed? Why? He was convicted. You’re afraid. You don’t even want to know the truth, ’cause it could turn out
you sentenced an innocent man. Don’t see me off any further. Cool, but personally
l’m not into digitals. Same here.
But it can be useful. As a matter of fact
taking pictures is forbidden. lf l could be helpful,
please tell me. – A place to sleep for a night.
– A youth hostel 200 m away. – Thanks.
– You’re welcome. Your father called. Stop it. You won’t change anything. – l may know the truth.
– Truth… Whose truth? lf in need, you know
where to find me. l’ll manage. Almost there.
The house on the other side. – Till tomorrow.
– Yeah. Thanks. That’s what you wanted.
The 1990 issue. Something in particular? – The TV program.
– l see.We close in 1 5 min.This is it.– Blow it up.
– The watch?A little larger? Good. l can’t any more. Good evening. lt’s me.
We talked by phone. – l remember.
– l must find Mr. Kuter. – lt’s very important.
– How could l help? l seem to have a proof
he didn’t kill Dominika. l must check something. l haven’t seen him since then
nor know where he lives. Her best friend,
you must’ve visited her. Of course. – Did she have a dish?
– Dish? – A satellite dish.
– Why? l must know if she had only
a Polish channel or others too. Only Polish. She regretted she couldn’t hone
her English or French without a dish. – You sure?
– Absolutely. Wait! You’ll find him in a hospital,
but l don’t know which. That woman is very ill
and he’s there all the time. – Thank you.
– Good luck. No. Definitely not. l won’t apply for acquittal. You couldn’t kill. She was
murdered when she watched TV. Hence the glasses she never
wore in other circumstances. The program sounded off
before 2 a.m. l checked it! She had no other channel as you
said and her friend confirmed. You worked till 2 a.m.
You have an alibi, witnesses: the editor, colleagues, staffers… She may’ve fallen asleep
with TV on. – And the watch?
– What watch? Hers. lt stopped when the murderer
drowned her in the tub… At 1 :1 5 a.m. Blurred a bit. That’s all you have to say?
Blurred a bit… You saw that watch? How do you know it broke? The picture might’ve been
snapped at 1 :1 5 a.m. Or the watch may’ve stopped. l don’t believe
such circumstances. Why do you refute
my every argument? The prosecutor
would do it in court. This is evidence.
Do something about it. l won’t even if it were
unquestionable. But it isn’t. Don’t try to convince me. l want no truck with the judiciary. This is my past,
so please respect it. Please! The people must know. They must know the truth! This is all the truth
about us, our life. This calls for humility. My truth is dying over there
on the female ward. lt may be curtains for me
at any moment. But l’m here by her side,
believing she’ll pull through. This is my truth. Which is of no interest
to anybody and you too. The evidence the
DA based its indictment on were the defendant’s explanations
during the preparatory proceedings. But guilt should be borne out
by objective evidence even if the defendant admits
to being guilty at the trial. We should assess with more
caution his explanations during the investigation and
retracted at the trial. ln this case no objective
evidence was found. Despite that they wanted to
convict him not only by breaking the basic
principle of alleged innocence, but by applying the rule contrary to
the in dubio pro reo one, by deciding about the doubts
to the defendant’s disadvantage, which is a gross violation of
the judiciary criminal law. Scandal! Who’s responsible
for the choice of this case? The organizers. Questioning the fairness of decisions
means attacking the judiciary. Please stay.
This is an elocutionary contest. lt’s a shot on your own goal,
young man. l wonder why this case has
surfaced just now? Excuse me. Please continue… Cast Text: Jerzy Siemasz
Subtitling: Dariusz Makulski