The disciplinary review process depicted in the film “Scent of a Woman” raises several legal accuracy concerns. The purpose of a disciplinary review is to address behavior that is deemed unprofessional or inappropriate.
The process is a quasi-judicial hearing that includes elements like evidence presentation, a gavel, and various parties akin to a courtroom setting. However, the film takes creative liberties, particularly with the roles of the prosecutor and defense advocates, the timing of arguments, and the disciplinary board’s decision-making process.
Quasi-Judicial Nature of the Disciplinary Hearing
“Scent of a Woman” revolves around Charlie Simms, a student at a prestigious prep school, who becomes involved in a disciplinary case alongside his peer, George Willis, Jr. They are accused of not revealing the identities of students who had pulled a prank on the headmaster, Mr. Trask, who then leads the proceedings. Lt. Colonel Frank Slade, a blind, retired Army officer whom Charlie befriends, unexpectedly becomes Charlie’s fierce advocate during the disciplinary hearing.
Al Pacino brilliantly plays the role of the Slade, winning him his only Academy Award.
The Roles and Procedures
The film portrays the disciplinary hearing with a mix of legal roles and procedures. Mr. Trask acts both as the headmaster and the prosecutor, blurring the lines of impartiality. The defense advocates, including Lt. Colonel Slade, represent the students. However, the film’s depiction diverges from standard legal practices, especially in how arguments and cross-examinations are conducted.
For example, Frank’s speech, delivered during what seems to be the cross-examination phase, is more akin to a closing argument. It’s laced with profanities, interruptions, and a lack of respect that would get even the most seasoned lawyer thrown out of court.
“Sir, you are out of order!” Trask tells the Lt. Colonel during one of his tirades.
“Outta order? I’ll show you outta order!” Slade responds. “You don’t know what outta order is, Mr. Trask! I’d show you but I’m too old; I’m too tired; I’m too f***n’ blind. If I were the man I was five years ago I’d take a flame-thrower to this place!”
While dramatically captivating, the timing of Slade’s speech is unusual in a real-life legal setting, where closing arguments are distinctly separated from the questioning phase.
Hasty Decision-Making Process
I also found inaccuracies in the disciplinary board’s decision-making, which is portrayed as both swift and public, deviating from the typical private and thoughtful deliberation process in judicial or quasi-judicial settings. This rapid judgment, though dramatically effective, is reckless and inappropriate.
Lt. Colonel Slade’s Contradictory Stance on Lying
Colonel Slade, presumably a West Point graduate, faces a moral paradox. While he initially encourages Charlie to reveal the perpetrators, he ultimately commends Charlie for remaining silent, which indirectly involves lying to protect his classmates. This stance conflicts with the famous West Point Honor Code, which condemns lying, cheating, and stealing.
In a legal context, Lt. Col. Slade’s approach as a defense advocate should have been to challenge Mr. Trask’s assertion that Charlie is a liar as speculative and hearsay. Trask’s assertions are a convenient conclusion and argumentative, not fact. Purposeful omission, as practiced by Charlie, is still a form of lying. And I’m willing to bet the school has a disciplinary response to lying.
Missteps in the Legal Accuracy Dance
“Scent of a Woman” presents a captivating yet legally oversimplified version of a disciplinary hearing. The moral of the story goes beyond the hearing, earning “Scent of a Woman” several Oscar nominations, including Best Picture in 1993.
While the film succeeds in creating dramatic tension, it strays from the nuances of legal accuracy, particularly in the roles, procedures, and moral complexities involved in school disciplinary hearings.
During the iconic tango scene, Slade tells the young woman he is dancing with, “No mistakes in the tango, darling, not like life. It’s simple.”
For me, the lack of legal accuracy was a mistake in the tango of the film’s otherwise captivating storyline.