The Rainmaker

The Rainmaker (1997)

1 corrected entry

(3 votes)

Corrected entry: Rudy goes to Cleveland to get depositions under oath from four employees of Great Benefits. He gets quite angry when he realizes that the first two he calls had been fired and can't be heard. The third one is Everett Lufkin who wrote the infamous last letter to Dot Black. Rudy says that he is going to get the deposition from him and pack up and leave after that. We never find out who the fourth one is and why Rudy is not interested in getting his/her deposition. (01:01:55)

NancyFelix

Correction: Not a mistake since Rudy is still green around the gills as a lawyer. He could have forgotten since he was so upset that he is getting the run-a-round from Great Benefit's lawyers.

William Bergquist

Continuity mistake: When Rudy comes to the Black's place the first time and Donny Ray's nose starts bleeding, blood drops on the letter in which Great Benefits deny their claim for the eighth and last time, calling Dot Black "stupid, stupid, stupid". The letter dates from April 25, 1995 and is signed by Russell Krokit. When the same letter is produced as evidence when Everett Rufkin is heard as a witness the letter dates from July 7, 1994 and is signed by Everett Rufkin with copy to Russell Krokit. (00:10:50 - 01:17:30)

NancyFelix

More mistakes in The Rainmaker

Rudy Baylor: Sworn in by a fool and vouched for by a scoundrel. I'm a lawyer at last.

More quotes from The Rainmaker

Question: I have two questions.1. Why would it be important, as Leo Drummond says, that his objections have to be noted, even after they are overruled? 2.After Rudy was finished with the C.E.O., Leo Drummond is allowed to ask the C.E.O. some questions, what good does it do to say that he rests on his objections?

Answer: 1) Having his objections noted into the court records would make it easier if the defense decides to appeal the verdict, allowing counsel to cite what aspects of the trail he felt were mishandled. 2) Having him repeat his objections after cross-examining the CEO reminds the jury that Drummond felt it was inappropriate to use stolen documents as evidence in the case, perhaps generating some sympathy.

Answer: 1) A lawyer has only to object one time and it be acknowledged by the judge to preserve his right of appeal related to a given legal ruling. He might choose to object a second time in order to eliminate the highly unlikely possibility that the court reporter misheard and inaccurately recorded his first objection and/or it being overruled. 2) The CEO had just been destroyed on direct examination by the plaintiff's lawyer, Rudy, to the point where no questions Drummond might ask had any chance of rehabilitating his client's testimony, and so he passed on asking any questions. Saying, "No questions, your honor, as we instead rely on our earlier objections", Drummond was making a somewhat feeble attempt to imply to the jury that the reason he wasn't asking any questions wasn't because he didn't have any that could help his case, but it was actually because they should not have been allowed in the first place. It was weak, but it was all he had under the circumstances.

More questions & answers from The Rainmaker

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.