Just saw this movie for the first time on FLIX, and I couldn’t help but think about O.J. Simpson, Lorraine Bobbit, and all those other real-life cases where a jury returned a “not guilty” verdict despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. It didn’t help that Henry Fonda supported his initial N.G. vote by saying, “I dunno, I just think we should talk about it first,” and a lot of the evidence they came up with seem rather speculative.
For instance, the glasses. Juror #3 had an excellent point – how do they know the witness didn’t wear reading glasses, or sunglasses, or any type of glasses at all? It sounded like a question that should have been asked in court (and I was beginning to wonder if the kid had Lionel Hutz for a defense attorney…) Probably no way to find out except declare a mistrial and start over, but if that’s what it takes, so be it.
And, the knife. Sure, Fonda proved that the knife wasn’t all that rare, but it still seems like too much of a coincidence given that the accused DID own a knife of that type (and claims it fell through a hole in a pocket…yeah, right.) The whole business about how he would have stabbed his father was totally pointless.
But what’s most damning is the kid’s sucky alibi – he claims he was at the movies, but DOESN’T REMEMBER WHAT MOVIE HE SAW!! Maybe things were different in the 50’s, but I know what movie I’m going to see before I even watch it, no matter how badly it sucks!
And I definitely would have waited an extra hour to get a free dinner on the government’s tab.
So, what do you guys think? Was justice served, or was it a case of jury nullification?