Short Story: The Verdict of The Jurors

Juror #5…A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in the case seriously, but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.On page 36, juror #5 sees reasonable doubt in the case so he changes his vote to not guilty. He goes on to mention the old man who lives downstairs and brings up the doubt about him actually seeing the boy run down the stairs. This, in turn, leads to the demonstration (lead by 8) of the old man getting up and getting to the door.

Vocab of Character:

Conformist: one who goes along with expectations, rules and trends

Docile: obedient

Fickle: unable to make decisions easilyIntrovert: a shy person

Perspective: observant or insightful

Submissive: inclined or ready to submit or yield to the authority of another; unresistingly or humbly obedient

Humble: not proud or arrogant Juror #5 speaks no fallacies himself, but responds to those spoken by others.

When Jurors no. 3 and 4 were talking about kids who grew up in the slums and how they are “potential menaces to society” and how they were bad people, he said he lived in the slums his whole life and took what they said a bit personally.

When they did the secret ballot, #3 assumed he was the one who changed his vote because of his outburst, even though he actually voted guilty. Jiuror #3, because of the what he said about living in the slum, thought he was being sympathetic to the kid accused. Quotes:“I’ve lived in the slum all my life… I used to play in a backyard filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me… There is something personal!” Page 21“I was going to tell you, but you were so sure of yourself.” Page 28A couple of jurors were outraged and started yelling at me, asking why I changed my vote. But soon, Juror 9 confessed that he had, in fact, changed his vote. And, although Juror 3 apologized, didn't accept it, because he didn't mean it, but it's not like anybody noticed. Later, Juror 8 started to ask me questions about the slums, and since I’ve lived there, I felt very helpful. Soon, I realized that the boy was actually innocent, so I changed my vote to "not guilty, changing the vote to 9-3, in favor of guilty. Then, they decided to bring in a diagram of the apartment because nobody remembered exactly where each apartment was specifically.

After it was brought in, Juror 8 quickly proved that it was impossible for the old man to get up, go into the hall, go down the hall to the front door, open it, and look out, all within 15 seconds, by reenacting the scene, while Juror 2 timed it. Then Juror 3 said that when a person says they’Il kill someone, they mean it. However, he later got angry and shouts "Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!" making this own words backfire.The guard came in after hearing the yelling, but quickly left, as the Foreman said that there was nothing wrong. As the arguing simmered down juror 11 reminded us that we are lucky to have even been able to decide the fate of the accused as a jury of twelve. We, then, had another vote to see where we were, in an open ballot, to Juror 3's request. The Foreman, and Jurors 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 voted “guilty," while Jurors 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and I voted "not guilty,” making the vote 6-6. After some more arguing, we decided to vote whether we are a hung jury, or not. And even on this, there was a 6-6 vote. However, Juror 4 decided he wanted to hear why the other jurors believe that the boy is not guilty, and changed his vote to “no, we are not a hung jury." Then, uror 4 started to talk about how the old man could've been wrong about just the timing, and then went on to the reconstruct the crime scene, which was 29.5 seconds, and if you add the time to climb down the staircase, it was definitely possible for the man to have seen the boy.

This made me change my mind, swinging back towards “guilty.” I knew was right the first time. Juror 8 asks me if I've ever seen a knife fight and flashes of dark streets, the glint of knives in the moonlight, dark shadows, and blood run through my mind.Then, it dawns on me that an experienced knife fighter would never use a switch knife downward, but rather so tell him that, while I demonstrate with the switch knife that had been handed to me earlier, It was then that Juror 8 posed a curious question: "Is the kid smart or is the kid dumb?” He soon explains that at the moment of murder, which would have taken great hatred, the boy should have handled the switch knife as best as possible, but he handled it as an inexperienced knife fighter would, while he still remembered to wipe the fingerprints off, and even wait until an el train passed by. All the while, the boy was still dumb enough to do everything he could to associate himself with the switch knife. This caused me definite and final doubt and made me sure that the boy guilty. Soon, it was 9-3, in favor of not guilty, leaving only Jurors 3, 4, and 10 for “Was not guilty.” Juror 10 starts to rant on about his beliefs, as the bigot he is.

I became impatient with his racist comments and stood up and turned my back on him with several other jurors following me as well. However Juror 10 stopped when Juror 4 stared him down and threatened to split his skull. Soon, the woman across the street's testimony is also proven wrong and thrown out, causing Jurors 4 and 10 to believe that the boy is not guilty leaving Juror 3 all alone. Everybody walks out, except for Jurors 3 and 8, and in a few moments I hear Juror 3 say loud and clear, “Not guilty!”