The Goldman Case (Le procès Goldman)

April 1970, Pierre Goldman is charged with four armed attacks,

one of which led to the death of two pharmacists.

December 1974, the trial court sentences him

to life imprisonment,

but he proclaims his innocence in the pharmacy case.

October 1975, publication of his book in form of a plea, written in prison,

"Obscure Memories of a Polish Jew Born in France".

November 1975, the appeal court cancels the initial ruling

and transfers the case to the Amiens Criminal Court.

Paris, April 19, 1976

Mr Chouraqui is here.

Thank you.

Hello, Mr Kiejman.

Thanks for coming so quickly.

I'll read something that concerns you.

"Mr Kiejman,

My defence will henceforth be handled by Messrs Bartoli and Chouraqui

who will ensure it without you.

I'm sure you would have fought hard to obtain my acquittal,

but I also believe

you delight in what harms and disorientates me.

You take pleasure in it.

Disinclined as you are to discuss client-lawyer relations,

this carefully considered decision,

whose impact I measure one week before my trial,

lets me assert my liberty, given your attitude.

With sincere thanks for all your work. Pierre Goldman."

Did you know?

Yes, he wrote to me a few days ago.

Why didn't you tell me?

His letter seemed too ludicrous.

Do you have it here?

It's at my office.

Can someone bring it over?

No one's there now.

It's important. I'd like to read it.

Call.

Since you insist...

I'll read a few extracts for the tone.

"Francis,

I wish to calmly explain the hostility I feel towards Kiejman.

If someone declares his friendship and I give mine in return,

it implies a genuine relationship.

But I see now that Kiej remains in the foul swamp of society life.

That matters little as I believe he can defend me well,

but I swear, Francis, I cannot stand the guy now..."

- Shall I go on? - Yes, go on.

"One:

because of him, the sick errors in my book's 1st edition

still exist in subsequent impressions.

He had to find a legal way to keep my dough safe.

All his solutions were crap.

Two: I asked him to get me work in the press.

Not only didn't he do it, but he jokingly replied,

'They can always hire you as a runner.'

Three: he hasn't said if Christiane will attend the trial.

She must not testify and be subjected to the law's sick voyeurism.

Four: instead he talks of a premiere with Signoret and Montand

or seeing Depardieu and Adjani in Amsterdam. Screw that."

I'll spare you the rest.

Spare me nothing. Go on, please.

"I can't stand the guy's irony frivolity and armchair Jew's pettiness.

He pulled every string,

even using my friend Régis Debray, to get this case,

while pretending to do so reluctantly. It sickens me.

The paranoia of prison may magnify this but the sad truth

is that Kiejman plays sincere

when I'm his chance to hog the legal spotlight.

What a fine stage for him!

I hate him possessing me. He demoralizes me

and that's bad before my trial.

Contact with him is unbearable.

I want to dump him,

but I won't make any decision without your opinion.

Answer me soon. Your friend, Pierre."

How did you reply?

That it'd be a huge mistake.

You see, he didn't listen.

He did, I just saw him. He'll write to you today,

asking you to ignore his letter.

An armchair Jew!

How dare he? Who does he think I am?

I had to work hard to get here.

I'm from a poor background.

My illiterate mother raised me and my sisters alone.

He's the armchair Jew with his bestseller and leftist groupies.

Ignore his words. He's on edge with the trial.

That's too easy. Who isn't on edge?

It's huge for me. I've done few trials.

I've worked on this case day and night for weeks.

The idea he could be guillotined makes me sick and keeps me awake.

And now he insults me?

Quite frankly, I feel like quitting.

No, don't abandon him, for pity's sake.

Why not? Give me a reason to go on.

He won't manage without you.

I know how much you care about the case.

Why defend someone so reluctant to win? He's suicidal.

For him, the charge is a curse,

linked to his people's fate.

He sees himself as a martyr.

An excuse not to answer the charges.

No, he wants to answer them all, point by point.

He believes he can defend himself better than anyone.

As his first trial showed.

Try to understand, he feels he's the victim of an injustice.

You don't ask yourself if he's guilty?

I won't consider it.

I want to help a friend, a brother in difficulty...

- A brother? - Yes, a brother.

A Jewish brother.

Bring the scapegoat in from the desert.

Please. Where did you meet? At a Talmud class?

No, at karate.

Being from a good family, it's hard meeting a specimen like him.

So? What do you plan to do?

I'll defend him, not for the reasons he thinks.

Help me control him.

We need to work serenely to succeed.

THE GOLDMAN CASE

Amiens, April 26, 1976

Mrs Signoret!

Mrs Signoret!

Mr Debray, please.

Over here...

Mr Goldman, Mrs Goldman...

To the right.

Miss, look over here to the right.

Young man...

Look at me. Again, look at me.

Mr Garaud!

The plaintiffs' bench. Have a seat.

Thank you.

Goldman, innocent!

The photographers must leave the courtroom now.

All arise!

The court and the jury.

Please stand and confirm your surname, first names,

date and place of birth, profession and address.

Goldman, Pierre Bernard,

born in Lyon on June 22, 1944,

no profession, no fixed abode, and held in Fresnes Prison.

You may sit.

We'll move on to the indictment.

Pierre Goldman, these are the charges against you:

on December 4, 1969, at around 8 PM,

the armed robbery of the sum of around 2,500 francs

from Mr and Mrs Farmachi, at their hardware shop,

25, Rue de la Butte aux Cailles, in the 13th district of Paris.

On December 19, 1969, at 8:10 PM,

the armed robbery of a pharmacy in the 11th district of Paris,

and the wilful murder of Simone Delaunay

and Jeannine Aubert, the two pharmacists,

and the attempted murder of Raymond Trocard and Gérard Quinet,

both wounded by gunshots at point-blank range.

On December 20, 1969, at around 7:30 PM

the organized attack on VOG, in the 8th district of Paris,

by three men, two black,

for a sum of 22,675 francs.

On January 16, 1970, at 7:45 PM,

Passage Ramey, in the 18th district of Paris,

the theft from Social Security

of a sum totalling 7, 800 francs,

again with a black accomplice.

We note that Pierre Goldman recognizes all the charges against him,

except the pharmacy attack

for which he has an alibi.

He claims that on December 19, from 7 to 9 PM,

he was with a friend, Joël Lautric,

who resides at 47, Rue de Turenne, in the 4th district of Paris.

We also note that his sole prior criminal offence

was avoidance of the draft,

and that the defence has not called character witnesses.

Gentlemen,

can you explain that?

It's our client's decision, Your Honour.

Mr Goldman,

can you explain?

I shall call no witnesses for my defence

as I am totally innocent in the case of the pharmacy attack.

Therefore, I stand before you with my sole innocence,

without the means usually employed in trials,

that add to the pomp and theatricality, which disgust me.

Silence, please!

I should add that, concerning my moral character,

it is clear that, for the law and society,

I am rather lacking in it after three armed robberies.

It would therefore be absurd

for anyone, however prestigious or honourable,

to tell this court I am drowning in moral qualities.

I am innocent because I am innocent,

not because others testify to my character or my behaviour.

It is well-known that many murderers

were often very kind men

with seemingly fine morals and a peaceful nature.

In short, I wish this case to be judged on the facts alone

and I intend to help, as best I can, to rid this trial

of any artifice clouding the issue.

Thank you!

Thank you!