Dragonetta, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you may have missed the point when SLJ's lawyer said "Now imagine that little girl is white." I also think that many of the jury with their eyes shut had been imagining a little white girl in the story ANYWAY, so when he asked that question at the end it shocked them as they had already identified/empathised with the suffering of a character of their own colour.
But I don't think that crucial line was said to get the jury to better understand the pain and humiliation of a little girl if she's white or to identify more with a white child-
Imagine the jury. They hear the details of a horrific tragedy where a little girl is raped, defiled and tortured beyond belief, they sit and cry for that child and her pain, as they listen they feel anger and frustration against the people who did it and overwhelming sadness that someone's baby was made to suffer in that inhuman way ..."Now imagine that little girl is white."
MY first response without thinking was 'What difference does THAT make!!!???'
I think THAT was the point behind the line; after the details of that dreadful crime, whether she was pink, white or blue who would care? -She was a little girl in pain, crying for her daddy.
reply
share
kanenite17
16 years ago
But that entire closing argument by Brigance was, legally speaking, a textbook example of legal irrelevance. If the charge is homicide, and the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove that Carl Lee did in fact fire the bullets which ended the lives of the two victims, then a plea of "not guilty" requires Brigance to prove one of several possible options:
1) Carl Lee was acting in defence of either himself or someone else
2) Carl Lee did not actually intend to kill the two boys
3) Carl Lee was mentally incapable of understanding the world around him and distinguishing right from wrong (i.e., legally insane) when he committed the act
The defense only made the faintest effort at proving the third possibility, but Brigance's closing argument didn't even try. In a real court case, closing arguments would have been followed by the judge issuing instructions to the jury (which can take a very long time) before sending them off to deliberate. One of those instructions would have been to remove any sort of emotional bias and judge Carl Lee's guilt or innocence based on the factual evidence presented and the existing law.
Brigance's "He had a really good reason" argument would have thus been completely disregarded (assuming that the prosecutor didn't object and have the whole thing stricken, as arguably he could have done) and his client would have been left out to dry.
reply
share
ladytawny
16 years ago
Yes kanenite17, in many ways you are technically right. BUT technically, juries are meant to look purely at the evidence and find beyond reasonable doubt- they are meant to be wholly unbiased (as is the judge, though are often is NOT so!) and thus reach a fair verdict 'by the people, for the people' type thing.
However, in this film it was indicated that it was likely that the jury were not impartial and in all liklihood going to convict SLJ because he was black (most of them had made up their minds on the first day of the trial without even hearing all the evidence ANYWAY).
Brigance had a summation all prepared as he stated but I believe at the last minute realised that while the jury WAS probably racist, he decided to go with his heart and get them to understand the feelings of SLJ by telling them the horrid details; only in his shoes could they assess and understand the mentality that drove him to commit that crime of passion. After that, it didn't seem to be important that he actually DID shoot those boys because the jury had experienced that temporary insanity almost and judged him hard to blame and punish (guilty)
And it also seems in many trials that the jury find as they please whether right or wrong or really based on evidence or opinion (imo the basic huge flaw in the jury system) and if they pronounce Not Guilty or Guilty, the court has to stand by that decision regardless (and not everyone is entitled to appeals either!).
reply
share
jkono29
13 years ago
Yes the key for Jake's closing argument was not "what would you have done in the same situation" but "would you be able to remain sane in the same situation." Combined with W.T. Bass's testimony (which he reminded them was still valid despite the shaky statutory rape conviction), this convinced the jury that Carl Lee was not of sound mind at the time of the shooting.
reply
share