Who am I?
I am Cecelia Martin and I am in my late 30s. I am a public school teacher that lives in an apartment in Manhattan. I did well in school and enjoyed learning, which is part of the reason I became a teacher. I am currently middle-class, but my family was poor growing up, but we were never in slums or tenements. I like storytelling, learning new hobbies, early mornings, exploring, reading, and people watching. I dislike strict schedules, being interrupted, yelling, meeting a lot of new people at once, being wrong, not being in control of the situation, and blatant biases. I am scared of losing everything that I have worked for in my life. I believe that most people can be good, even if I disagree with them. I believe that dialogue is necessary for social change. I believe that people need to be more welcoming to others.
What time is it?
It is mid July in 1957. The summer heat is unbearable – it’s the hottest day of the year. We enter the Jury Room around 4:30pm.
Where am I?
I am in the New York County Courthouse in Manhattan. We have just left the courtroom and are now in the Jury Room.
What surrounds me?
The sweltering heat from outside has fully permeated the Courthouse. The courtroom is hot, and so is the Jury Room. There are only two places in the room to try to escape the heat: the water cooler in the corner and the window at the back, where I can occasionally catch a breeze. Outside of the window is a busy street that is constantly filled with people walking and cars driving through. The Jury Room consists of a table with 12 uncomfortable, wooden chairs around it. There are pencils and pads for everyone to take notes as they please. There is also a coat rack by the window, where I shed my hat and sweater. The walls of the room are lined with paintings of past justices that stare down at us dauntingly, constantly reminding me of our responsibility.
Given Circumstances
Past
A murder has occurred, and a boy is being tried for killing his father. I have spent the past six days in the courtroom listening to the case. The trial was hard to sit through – the prosecution went hard on the boy, while the defense didn’t do much to help him. While listening to the trial, we were shown different pieces of evidence, heard 3 different testimonies, and took a trip to the apartment where the murder took place.
Even though I wasn’t allowed to talk to the other jurors, I could tell by the way the trial was going and their reactions in the courtroom, that a few of them are already convinced that the boy is guilty. I don’t fully believe this, and I think that the boy may be accused of something that he didn’t do. Too many facts of the case were just glossed over, or taken as gospel without any questioning. This has been keeping me up at night, and last night I decided that I want to be ready for the deliberation today. I know that some of the jurors are going to be hard to sway, so I took time to gather as much evidence and gaps in the case as possible. While doing this, I found myself in the boy’s neighborhood where I came across a knife that is very similar to one in the case. I bought it and have it with me today. The judge has just released us to begin our deliberation.
Present
The jury is beginning to start discussing the guilt or innocence of the boy. I slowly file into the Jury Room behind everyone else. This room is just as hot as the courtroom, which is a major disappointment. Even though we have spent many hours over the past week together, this is the first time that I am hearing people speak at length and getting a look into who they are as people. I knew that some of the jurors would have strong opinions about the case, but I’m shocked by how many of them do, and how harsh some of them are about their opinions. It begins to set in that my plan to advocate for the boy’s innocence may be a harder task than I expected, but one that I am willing to do. I spend my first moments in the Jury Room mentally preparing myself for this, while also trying to cool off. I am genuinely shocked when the Foreman gets my attention, and everyone is already seated and ready to begin. This is a bit embarrassing, but I quickly sit down so we can get started. We begin our deliberation with a vote, to see who stands where. 11 hands go up for guilty. I knew that there would definitely be people in the room who voted this way, but I didn’t that that everyone would vote guilty. This has definitely made reaching my goal a lot harder. It is terrifying to face everyone else alone when I vote not guilty. I can feel all of their eyes on me, and I am immediately met with confusion and anger from the other jurors. I stand my ground and tell them the truth – I don’t know if the boy is guilty or not, but that’s enough for me to not want to send him off to die. The tension in the room continues to rise, and it feels like it is everyone against me. As Juror 11 gets up to close the window, I realize just how tense, and just how different everyone in this room is. One of the jurors has an idea to go around the table so everyone has a turn to speak. While I’m not happy with the idea that they just want to convince me instead of talking about the boy, I think that this is a step in the right direction. If we can start a dialogue, I might be able to get somewhere. As we go around the table, I am appalled by the lack of care and attention to detail. These people want to send a boy off to die because it is somehow the easier thing to do. So quickly, some of the biases in the room are revealed. After my turn, 3 asks that we talk about the facts, like the unusual knife used for the murder. I’ve been weighing whether or not I would bring out the knife that I bought last night, but this seems like a perfect opportunity, and possibly one of the only ways that I may be able to get through to them. Everyone is shocked when I reveal my knife, and I think I’m starting to get through to some of the jurors that may have been more on the fence. While the room is still very much against me, I now feel a little better about how my arguments have impacted the room. This is a big gamble, but I have a sliver of confidence that I may have gotten through to someone in the room, so I propose the idea to hold another vote that I will not take part in, and we’ll take in whatever that verdict is. As I look around the room, and as I listen to the Foreman read out the votes, I’m becoming more nervous that I made the wrong choice. I have failed this boy, and he will most definitely be killed. But the Foreman reads out one not guilty vote, and my confidence and hope for the rest of this deliberation has been restored. Even one vote is a huge step in the right direction.
Naturally, some of the jurors are outraged by this change, namely 3 and 7. The room continues to argue and toss out accusations until someone admits to changing their vote: Juror 9. I don’t know if I expected this from him, but my perspective has definitely changed. I also find that it’s a lot easier to stand in front of the room knowing that at least one other person has my back. Juror 9 addresses his doubt primarily to a feeling, which is something I completely understand. While I do think that there are gaps in the case, what initially led me to looking into these gaps was a feeling during the trial. While a “feeling” may not be enough for most people in the room, I think that it can be a good start to instilling doubt. If they are able to empathize with the boy in any way, they will be more likely to be open to changing their minds. I become outraged to see Jurors 3 and 12 completely disengaged from the case, and using this time as a social hour. If we’re going to spend time on this jury, we need to focus on the trial and on the boy. Everything else can wait. In what I can only describe as a fit of rage, I snatch Juror 3’s pattern from her. While I feel justified in doing this (there is a life at stake), I am genuinely shocked by my own actions. This trial has always been important to me, but I didn’t realize just how much it is affecting me and my behavior. Holding a boy’s life in my hands is such an extreme situation that I’ve never been in before, and it is making me react accordingly. I have never wanted anything as desperately as I want these jurors to at least give him a chance. After seeing the room’s reaction to having doubts due to a “feeling”, I know that I will have to present a more logical argument to appease many of them. I point out the details of the train, which seems to sway Juror 2 a little bit. I then have a moment of realization about the testimony of the old man: his story seems to be so unlikely as the details don’t line up. I make the jury look at the diagram again, and even put together a demonstration, hoping that it will identify the holes in his testimony. I don’t know if this will work, but I am willing to try anything. After the demonstration, I can tell that while many of them are not fully convinced, they are beginning to realize some of the flaws of the trial. This is another step forward. Juror 3 is not having any of it though and won’t even consider what I am proposing. Just as I am passionate about defending the boy, she is passionate about sentencing him to death. In this moment, I realize just how personal this case is for her, and that her guilty verdict isn’t from a lack of care, but more so caring too much. She cares so much that she threatens to kill me for insulting her motivations.
The room has to take a second to recover from that threat and attempted attack, but I’m feeling better and better about my goal. This feeling is correct, because after another vote, the verdict is split down the middle – six to six. This is more progress than I thought I made, but I’m excited to see that people are opening their minds even more. There are others in the room that want to declare a hung jury, but I think this is once again them looking for the easy way out instead of having a discussion. Arguments and a vote take place about whether or not we’re a hung jury, and by the end of it we decide to keep going. Juror 4 takes the time to begin questioning the arguments that I have provided, and I cannot deny that she making valid points. I want to be fair and encourage further discussion, so I don’t argue with her and let her make her demonstration. I feel like I’m grasping at straws as people begin to change their votes back to guilty. Juror 2 points out an interesting discrepancy of the case: the angle of the stab wound. Juror 3 feels the need to demonstrate how this happened, and I volunteer to “get stabbed”. Even though she has been brash and has even threatened me outright, I’m not scared of her. I feel safety in that we are in a government building, with 10 witnesses watching. With this being said, I was not expecting her to actually try and stab me, even if she did it as a joke. This has shown me how unphased she is by violence, and how she even seems to get some joy out of it. I’m still sorry for her and how she views the world. After calming down from this moment, I make another realization: handling the knife is overhand is incredibly awkward. Thankfully Juror 5 backs me up on this and offers her own expertise in this area. I think that I have swayed Juror 5 back again, along with some others, but I know that more needs to be done to convince most of them and we are running out of time. If I don’t wrap this up soon, I fear we actually will be a hung jury and all of this will be for nothing. I am so desperate to move the room, that I point out the inconsistencies of everything we’ve talked about today, and how we’ve still been biased in how we view the boy. He is either a genius or an idiot whenever it’s convenient for the narrative, but this doesn’t make sense in reality. This has changed the vote to 9 to 3 in favor of not guilty. This is major progress, but I know that I will have to do the most work to convince Jurors 3, 4, and 10. Juror 10 releases a rant full of hatred and bigotry towards the boy. I am so disgusted that there are people that think this way and has been letting her bias be the main thing to lead her opinion. I am relieved to see that everyone else feels similarly, and even after disagreeing and arguing all day, I feel like this is the most unanimous we’ve ever been. Juror 4 goes on to get the deliberation back on track and discusses the testimony of the woman. I am at a true loss for what to say, until Juror 2 can’t see the clock. This is something so simple, but so undeniable. The testimony of the woman is unreliable if she cannot see what she claimed she saw. This has convinced Juror 4 and 10, and now only 3 is left. I am shocked by her desperation to still declare the boy guilty, but I recognize that this is her own relationship with her son coming through. I use this fact to convince her otherwise: she will never be able to forgive herself if she goes forward with it, and it will not repair things in her life. She reluctantly agrees and we all get up to take in the verdict. After Juror 3’s outburst, I need to make sure that we are on the same page. She holds my knife out, threatening me. She has an opportunity to do whatever she wants, and I give her the space to make her choice. She finally recedes, and I am filled with relief as we leave the Jury Room.
Future
We take in a not guilty verdict and the boy is set free and alive. The judge dismisses the jury and many of them leave as quickly as possible. I don’t want to be in the courthouse anymore, but I am also in no rush. My chest is a lot lighter as the boy is still alive, and I am so filled with relief.
What are my relationships?
While The Foreman is just another member of the jury, I respect the his and his desire to fulfill this duty, even if we don’t see eye to eye. I expect him to do his job fairly throughout the deliberation. I also depend on him to keep things orderly – things get a little rowdy sometimes, but he will stop things before they get too far. I hope.
Juror 2 seems like he would be nice enough outside of the jury room, but I think that he has been swayed by the poorly done trial and the rest of the jurors. He’s obviously a people pleaser and has trouble speaking his own mind. He frustrates me because I want him to speak and think for himself, and not be intimidated by the other jurors in the room. However, I have a feeling that his desire to make other people happy will make it easier to change his mind.
Juror 3 is the most frustrating person here. Her behavior and attitude is just rude, and I hate that she intimidates the other jurors to get her way. She is so close-minded and won’t even let herself consider other possibilities. At first, I was disgusted by how violent she could be, but I have come to understand that it’s something that keeps following her, even if it’s not her fault. So much of her anger isn’t actually towards the boy or even me, but her own life and relationship with her son. This is a woman that has experienced terrible things and has yet to heal from them. While I argue with her and want to shut her down, I have to remember what she’s been through. I’m sorry for her.
Juror 4 is the most challenging person on the jury. She is clearly well educated, and her opinions and thoughts have a lot of weight in this room. She’s probably the smartest person here and she knows it. I appreciate how reasonable she can be, but I think she can almost be too blinded by facts. She would be easier to connect with her if she let herself feel something for the boy, instead of just looking purely at the facts. She is stubborn in a way that is different to 3, and definitely the hardest person to convince. Whatever I say is never enough for her.
Juror 5 is hard to read. She stays to herself and her knitting for the most part until she is addressed. She is very polite, but she doesn’t seem to be shy. I’m shocked when she tells us that she lived in a slum; surely that would make you sympathize with the boy more? While she disagrees with me in the beginning, she is one of the least hostile, and still gives me the space to speak and plead my case. I also sympathize with her, as she has to listen to and experience the biases held by the other jurors firsthand. I want to extend kindness to her, even if we disagree.
Juror 6 is very respectable. I appreciate that she takes the time to listen to different arguments before deciding on her vote for sure. Even if she’s not agreeing with me, I can tell that she’s working things out for herself and won’t just believe something because someone tells her to. We would be in a much better place if some of the others listened like she does.
Juror 7 can be infuriating. Her little comments and need to make jokes make me angry. She seems to have the least respect for the responsibility that we have and acts selfishly for most of the deliberation. This whole thing seems to be a joke to her. She is hostile towards me while we disagree, because I am what’s standing between her and going home, but I don’t care. Whatever she has going on can wait.
Juror 9 is the most reasonable juror. At the beginning of our time in the Jury Room, he was just as confused as the others when I voted not guilty. I have noticed that he’s not afraid to admit when he is wrong. I wasn’t expecting him to be the first one to change his vote, but it makes sense with his willingness to reflect and listen. I feel incredibly sorry for him when he shares just how much he relates to the old man. Juror 9 is still so young, and yet has spent enough of his life feeling invisible and unimportant that he connects with the witness. His life and experiences are just as important as the boy on trial.
Juror 10 is someone that I struggle to be reasonable with. I can’t stand how willing she is to preach her biases, and I am disgusted by her beliefs. More than with the other jurors, I want to put her in her place. I want to give everyone the space to make their own decisions, but every time she speaks, I hold my breath.
Juror 11 is honorable. I recognize that she has a much different perspective than anyone else in this room and has likely had experiences that none of us can relate to. Her dedication to justice and fairness makes me respect her. She is another juror that I know will not be swayed by her peers but will instead make her own conclusions and stick to them if she feels that they are right.
Juror 12 is a bit difficult, but not the hardest person to interact with in the room. I find myself frustrated with her constant distractions and segways; we have a job to do and socializing isn’t helping to do that. She seems very sure of herself, perhaps even a little cocky, so it’s hard to change her mind.
While I only see the Guard briefly, I have respect for him and hold a bit of fear towards his position. I know that I am stirring the pot, and that the guard can inform the court of any behavior he deems inappropriate if he so desires. When I see him, I feel the need to remain in his good graces, so I do not get in trouble and throw away everything I’ve worked so hard for in the deliberation.
What do I want?
I want the other jurors to actually have a dialogue, and put their own biases and beliefs aside to empathize with the boy on trial, so he can have to chance to move on and grow from his situation. I want to shed light on as much of this case as possible, and help the others to see the flaws of the trial and why it is so important for us to take out time with this.
What is in my way?
The heat and passing time are in my way because they are making everybody irritable and less willing to take their time with the conversation. The other jurors’ biases and lack of care towards the boy. The other jurors trying to poke holes in my arguments, namely 3, 4, and 7.
What do I do to get what I want?
I get what I want by laying out as much evidence as possible, in as many ways as possible. It is important that my arguments appeal to both emotion and logic in order to grab everyone’s attention. I also use forcefulness and kindness. There are 11 different people that I need to convince, that will all be affected by different strategies differently. I make myself credible by trying to be more patient, and by asking the room questions, that way, they are more likely to accept a conclusion that they come to instead of feeling like I’m telling them to believe something.