Thread by @SethAbramson

(🔒) RETRO launches its new Film section with an article entitled "What the Worst-Ever Courtroom Scene in Any American Film Tells Us About the Coming Verdict in the Rittenhouse Trial." An annual RETRO subscription is just $35 (see the post after this one). retrostack.substack.com/p/what-the-wor…

(🚀) RETRO is now running its first-ever subscription sale! From now until November 30 you can get 30% off an annual subscription—a reduction to $35 from the already discounted $50 (a monthly subscription is $5). If you love pop culture, you'll love RETRO! retrostack.substack.com/p/the-first-ev…

(PS1) This article aims to serve not just as a film review and an article on the Rittenhouse trial but a primer on how criminal cases work. Eviscerating the worst-ever legal scene in any US film offers ample opportunity for a trial lawyer and current professor to try to educate.

(PS2) I've practiced criminal law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts—in fact, in the very courthouse Will Hunting is supposed to be in in Good Will Hunting. I've represented guys from Boston with rap sheets identical to Will Hunting's. And I have a lot to say about it all here.

(PS3) I bet many people don't realize, for instance, that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck knew *so* little about the criminal justice system in 1997 that they put into Will Hunting's criminal record one of the most violent and frankly disgusting crimes in the whole Massachusetts code.

(PS4) If you didn't know what Will was convicted of when he was convicted of Mayhem—an actual criminal statute in the Commonwealth—you're going to find out in this article. And you're going to get a good sense of how terrible almost every courtroom scene in every film really is.

(PS5) But more importantly, my hope is that as a former trial attorney and criminal investigator and a prelaw professor I can offer to readers a sense of how degraded our discourse over the criminal justice system has become—and how much of a problem this degradation is becoming.

(PS6) I think most of you know that when I announced the launch of RETRO as a culture/history publication with Substack's lowest-allowable subscription rate—$5/mo—I wasn't going to be writing about anything without trying to bring a moral, ethical, and (yes) political lens to it.

(PS7) As those who've read the RETRO-exclusive 2021 Substack Newsletter Price Guide know, the median monthly cost of a Substack newsletter is between $6 and $7—and *rising*—so my hope is having two $5 newsletters will allow many folks to subscribe to both. retrostack.substack.com/p/2021-substac…

(PS8) In any case—whether you subscribe or not—I do hope you'll consider retweeting the first tweet in this thread. I promise that what's included in that tweet is a good-faith attempt at illuminating elements of our criminal justice system that too many folks remain unaware of.

(PS9) The law is ritualistic by design—and one of the worst things a judge can do is deviate from tradition for no apparent reason, as it invites the appearance of impropriety and suggests non-lawyerly instincts and motivations. Thus, this stupid decision:

https://twitter.com/StarTribune/status/1460635375127433222

(PS10) To clarify, an annual RETRO subscription is (through November 30) under $3/month—see below—so when I say I'm hopeful that some will see $7.90/month for PROOF *and* RETRO as a deal in view of many substacks being $8/month or more, that's what I mean. retrostack.substack.com/p/the-first-ev…