Professor Christine A. Corcos, Associate Professor of Law, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy), a U.S. judge sent to Nuremberg, Germany, to preside over the trials of four Nazi judges after World War II, and Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster), the eminent scholar and jurist on trial for his life, are opposites in their approaches to law and life. They illustrate the complexities of being a judge and the strength of character it requires. Haywood demonstrates fidelity to the highest calling of the judge, while Janning loses his way.

A “country judge,” Haywood finds himself somewhat unprepared for the spotlight on this international tribunal. However, his thoughtful devotion to the law guides him through the bewildering complexity of the moral decision-making his job requires. He ultimately reduces the legal problem before him to the question of the judge’s duty: to do justice according to the spirit of the law and, if one cannot, to resign one’s position rather than to be complicit in evil.

Like Haywood, Janning has spent his life in service to the law. But he failed to understand that he cannot serve a government that is corrupt and evil. He recognizes that he should have resigned but instead chooses self-preservation, telling himself that it is equivalent to his duty to the letter of the law. He tells Haywood that he never knew that his choice to enable the Third Reich to murder its citizens legally would result in war crimes. As Haywood discerns, any judge who tells himself that is on the way to destruction. He tells Janning, “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”

Haywood knows that judges might be called upon to be the last defense against dictatorship and that, if they are, they must be ready. His deliberation and understanding demonstrate that he is the most effective kind of judge because he holds himself to the same standard that he applies to others—to put devotion to the spirit of the law ahead of one’s own self-interest or one’s party. He understands the consequences of that standard and foresees the results if a judge deviates from it—not just one’s own downfall, but the destruction of the legitimate legal system.