Like so many others, I’m hooked and thought it’d be fun to write about it from an unusual perspective: is Downton Abbey legally accurate about their criminal scenes?

Remember, Mrs. Bates was accused of killing that scoundrel (and sexual predator), Mr Green.  The prosecution dug up an old incident when Mrs. Bates was younger.  She’d also been attacked in a sexual assault and had reacted by stabbing her assailant.  (didn’t kill him)  The prosecutor threatened to use that evidence against her in the Green murder trial.

Can the prosecutor do that?  Since the Downton Abbey producers/director pride themselves on historical accuracy, would this procedure have been legally accurate?

1.  Today, we look at victims of sexual assault in an entirely different light than courts did in 1924.  Nevertheless, the first stabbing could have been considered self defense.  The alleged killing of Mr. Green would have been murder in the 1st degree.  Even though he sexually assaulted Mrs. Bates, that act would not be a defense for her in a murder trial.

2.  Why would the prosecutor want to use the prior stabbing?  As was explained, briefly, during the Downton Abbey episode, the prosecutor wants to show that Mrs. Bates’ character is violent—particularly when involved in a sexual assault.  If she stabbed a man in a previous incident, that could be evidence for a jury to consider in deciding if she acted in a similar response to the assault from Mr. Green—and killed him as a result.

3.  Is the Downton Abbey episode legally accurate?  Could a prosecutor use old evidence in the new case?  Of course, the program is set in England in 1924 and I don’t know what the law was then, but just for fun let’s look at what would happen today.

In the federal courts in our country and many of the state courts, it is possible for the prosecutor to introduce evidence in a trial of a defendant’s  prior “crimes, wrongs, or bad acts.”  It can’t be used to prove the violent character of the accused.  But it can be used to prove things like motive, intent, or plan.  The prosecutor could argue that Mrs. Bates had a motive to kill Mr. Green—as she did when she stabbed a previous perpetrator.

4.  How does it work?  The use of this kind of evidence is not automatic.  The judge would listen to arguments from both sides at a hearing conducted prior to the trial and without the jury.  The judge would weigh the benefits to the prosecution against the bias and prejudice against the defendant for something he did long ago.  If the judge allows the other evidence into the trial, the prosecutor would have to bring in witnesses to tell the jury about the old crime.  In the case of Mrs. Bates, that would probably be the man who assaulted her and was stabbed as a result.

What would you do?  Would you allow the previous incident into the murder trial?

The post Is Downton Abbey Legally Accurate? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Later in the episode, Robert discovers a letter written by Matthew, giving all his share of the estate to his wife, Mary.  Is this proper?  Will the will stand-up in court?  Why did he need a will anyway?

Most of our laws in the U.S. regarding property ownership and inheritance of those come from ancient English law.  I’m certainly not an expert on the state of English law in 1922, but it’s interesting to think about what would happen if Downton Abbey were located in Minnesota in 2014, for instance.

If a person dies without a will, it’s called “dying intestate.”  (Old English term)  Just like the laws that dictated the inheritance of Downton Abbey in 1922, in most states in the U.S. there is a statutory rule that we can follow.

If Matthew died without a will in Minnesota, Mary would get everything.  If she were dead, their child would get it all.  If he’s gone, Matthew’s siblings (if any) get it and, if none, his mother would get his share of Downton Abbey.  Imagine Robert and Ms. Crawley running the estate . . .

A person makes a will to avoid the above-listed outcomes and create as “road map” that shows exactly where the person wants their assets to go.

What makes a valid will?

In the U.S. the courts have been liberal in interpreting this question.  A will doesn’t need to be drafted by a lawyer but must state clearly the intentions of the deceased and how he wants his assets divided and to which people.  It must be signed by the maker and witnesses by two people.  The letter signed by Matthew would clearly be accepted as a will.

Why does a will need to be witnessed?

In the U.S. a valid will requires two witnesses to sign after the maker of the will.  This is primarily to assure that, if challenged, the person making the will was of “sound mind.” and was doing it freely and understood what he was doing.

Should everyone have a will?

Yes.  Even small estates can cause fighting among the surviving family.  A will makes it simple: everyone can say, “this is what the deceased wanted.”  End of any arguments.

The post Downton Abbey and the Law appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.