Just Mercy (2019) tells the true story of Bryan Stevenson (played by Michael B. Jordan), a young Harvard-educated lawyer who founded the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) and dedicated his career to defending those wrongly condemned to death. The film centers on Stevenson’s fight to exonerate Walter “Johnnie D” McMillian (played by Jamie Foxx), a Black man sentenced to death in Alabama for murder despite evidence that proved he was at a church fish fry 11 miles away when the crime occurred. 

When Stevenson visits the death row inmates at Holman Correctional Facility, each person explains how their prior lawyers all made promises but either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep them.

McMillian is one of the inmates Stevenson meets. McMillian sums up his case by explaining that racist culture results in convictions and that, as in his case, “they don’t have to have no evidence.” Stevenson listens and takes McMillian’s words to heart. He stays up all night reading McMillian’s file, and reaches the same conclusion.

Later, after EJI colleague Eva Ansley (played by Brie Larson) receives a bomb scare related to her work on behalf of McMillian, she and Stevenson have a heart-to-heart about the case. Eva asks what they should do next. Stevenson says, “We start the investigation from scratch.”

And that’s exactly what he and Eva do. You see them knocking on the doors of witnesses, diving into law enforcement records, and talking with people and listening carefully to what they say. And it’s in the course of that basic but diligent and methodical investigation that Stevenson finds the keys to McMillian’s prison cell.

Just Mercy does a good job of showcasing the importance of good investigative work. As you watch the “do-over” investigation begin and progress, notice how Stevenson does not defer to the attorneys who worked the case before he did. He brings his own mind and critical thinking skills to the task.

For pro se litigants, investigation is also important, yet it’s often minimized or overlooked. Many people assume it’s enough that they know what happened. But knowing and proving are different things, and investigation is the bridge between the two.

So what does a good investigation look like? The answer is, as always, “it depends.” It depends on variables such as what the case is about, the theories of liability, defense theories, legal standards, the facts you need to prove the elements, and even who the parties are.

Investigatory methods fall into two broad categories: formal discovery devices and open source intelligence (OSINT). Formal discovery includes tools like interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and depositions that legally compel the other side to provide information once litigation has begun. OSINT involves gathering publicly available information—business filings, property records, social media posts, court dockets, and other accessible sources—that can be collected before or during litigation. Each approach has its place, and understanding when and how to use them strategically can mean the difference between a case that can’t cross the finish line and one that builds momentum toward resolution.

Speaking of building momentum toward resolution, note that the fruits of Stevenson’s investigation did not cause McMillian’s prison cell door to fly open. The evidentiary keys were necessary, but insufficient on their own, to turn the locks.

We see Stevenson use procedure and persuasive rhetoric to both get the evidence into the record and to frame that evidence within an emotional context. The methodical diligence Stevenson brought to his investigation he also brought into the courts. 

Note that Stevenson’s persuasive rhetoric is on display near the end of the movie. While this may be for dramatic effect, it also hints at the reality that successful themes or narratives aren’t necessarily written at the outset of litigation. The theme or narrative that seems determinative at the beginning may need to be molded in response to new information obtained along the way.

Here is most (but not all) of Stevenson’s final argument in court: