The Runaway Jury by John Grisham
Takes place in Biloxi, Mississippi.
MAIN CHARACTERS
Nicholas Easter – (real name is Jeff Kerr) Juror that was a plant on the jury. He and his girlfriend Marlee had money motives. Nicholas molded the jury from day one to vote his way.
Marlee – (aka Claire Clement - real name is Gabrielle Brant) Nicholas Easter's accomplice on the outside of the courtroom.
Rankin Fitch - Ran the show of high-priced lawyers and consultants for the defendant, Pynex (tobacco co.). Directed all the illegal proceedings going on outside the courtroom for the defendant.
Durwood Cable - Head lawyer for the defendant team.
Wendal Rohr – Plaintiff's, Mrs. Jacob Wood, head lawyer.
Judge Frederick Harkin - the presiding justice for this case.
This story was about how two very smart and focused individuals who could manipulate a jury and the defense team in a multi-million dollar legal battle to receive a very large cash payment. The defense was Pynex, a tobacco company, and they had very deep pockets and were willing to pay for the correct verdict. A verdict for not guilty.
The story starts with the very laborious job of jury selection. The tobacco industry has on their payroll a man by the name of Rankin Fitch. Fitch foresees the selection of the lawyers and consultants. Fitch and the consultants foresee the selection of the jurors. Each perspective juror is investigated and watched. The defense as well as the plaintiffs want to secure a verdict so they only want jurors sympathetic to their side. Fitch along with Rohr, the plaintiff's lawyer, also had high priced detectives tailing perspective jurors. Anyone who was the least bit wrong for their cause had to be eliminated from the process.
One person both sides couldn't find any information on was Nicholas Easter. He seemed rather neutral which is good for both sides but not being able to find out his past made them nervous. Nicholas had covered his tracks rather well along with Marlee his accomplice. The two of them wanted Nicholas on that jury for personal as well as monetary reasons. Their hard work was paid off because Nicholas along with eleven other people was selected as the jurors.
The case had to do with Mr. Jacob Wood. He died in his early fifties from lung cancer. The plaintiff was trying to prove that the lung cancer was directly caused f...
... middle of paper ...
...t she would double their money in days.
As Nicholas was swaying the jury towards a plaintiff verdict, Fitch was finding out about Marlee's true past. Her mother and father both died of lung cancer and they were heavy smokers. This was Marlee's pay back for her parent's deaths. She got money from Fitch who was the tobacco co. and then doubled it by playing with cigarette stocks. She then would really hit the tobacco co. where it hurts with a large verdict for the plaintiff. It would be a double bang.
The verdict came in, the jury found for the plaintiff $2 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages. The vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff. Nicholas slipped into the night and had a Learjet take him to Marlee.
Six weeks after the trial ended Marlee showed up where Fitch was eating lunch alone. She gave Fitch back the $10 million since she already made her money from using it in the stock market. She explained to him she was returning the money because it wasn't hers and that she did this for her parents. She told Fitch she would always be watching him and if they went to trial again she and Nicholas would be there in some way.
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
Henry Drummond - the lawyer for the defense. He is famous for taking the cases of unpopular clients.
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
This section of the book is the whole process in how a jury is selected. The author uses real life examples and gives the reader real instances that have occurred throughout America. By doing this he uses the characters in the books as examples of the jury process selection. This is where both lawyers, Bernstein and Ryan, and Judge Whitaker get to meet and ask questions to each juror. If the lawyer does not feel he or she is "intelligent" enough, fair enough, responsible enough or even if they do not like the color of their skin, they way they are dressed, they way they are sitting, they could easily be asked to leave and be dismissed from the case.
While waiting for the court’s final decision, Facher proposes a final offer, “...20 million dollars. Now, that would put things into perspective for you, wouldn’t it?” [3]. Counting the established settlement between Beatrice and Schlichtmann as well as Grace and Schlichtmann, the closing payment would be a whopping $65 million. Instead of agreeing to this offer, Jan Schlichtmann sets his destiny, as well as his clients, by ripping the twenty dollars produced by Facher in half, ultimately declining the offer. Back in the courtroom, Judge Skinner rules, “With respect to W.R. Grace, the jury has answered ‘yes’ to question 1 regarding trichloroethylene contamination, requiring we proceed further in the case against Grace to a second stage of this trial. In regard to Beatrice, the jury has answered ‘no’ to question 1, in all it’s points pertaining to contamination. Which renders question 2 and 3 inapplicable.” [4] By losing Beatrice, Schlichtmann forfeited 45 million dollars, ultimately only gaining $375,000 for each of the families. All in all, Jan Schlichtmann was unable to provide the plaintiffs with a successful
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room, the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task, as instructed by the judge of the court, was for the jury to identify if the death penalty should be used.... ...
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness.
Seemingly juror ten exists not only for conflict, but to demonstrate to the audience that personal biases may affect the way the jury thinks. Being one in a room of twelve individuals, juror ten truly withholds the essence of an angry
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.