MovieChat Forums > Juror #2 (2024) Discussion > Would they be able to convict (spoiler)

Would they be able to convict (spoiler)

posted a month ago by redban (6644)
11 replies | jump to latest

So at the very end, we’re led to believe that they will arrest the main character. Do you think they can get a conviction?

He says that he sold the car that he used for the hit and run. it’s possible that a lot of time has passed since the actual hit and run. And the drug dealer’s conviction would undermine efforts to prosecute and convict the main character

However:

1). They still have the paperwork involving the car repair
2). The ADA ruled out all the other vehicles that got auto repairs consistent with a hit and run
3). With the theory that the girl died from a hit and run, the medical examiner will be able to pinpoint evidence that a hit and run caused the death (just as the Chinese juror girl did)
4). They can show the main character’s photo around the bar to see if anyone remembers seeing him that night, or whether they remember that he was a regular in the bar
5). The ADA can pinpoint his behavior during the trial, such as how he unusually showed up at sentencing

[–] letess (1660) a month ago

Interesting movie. Eastwood consistently makes compelling movies but he’s made much better.

Spoilers:
Do you think they can get a conviction?
Yes. He’s going to jail for a while. They discovered it right away helps.
He did admit to the DA (Colette) that he was responsible by saying he was not really at fault for the Kendall’s death. He then taunts the DA that she won’t do anything because she will lose public support for her newly appointed job and they will come down on her for aggressively pursuing a guilty verdict without doing due diligence. The more important point being that her boyfriend didn’t do the crime as he made a u-turn. Juror #2 was willing to let someone do life without the possibility of parole for something he did. He seems to say he’s a good guy with a family so he is more deserving than the other one who has a history of bad behavior. There’s a lot of substantial circumstantial evidence but there is also his admission. If asked again, he will tell the truth - he’s not going to lie. It’s just the question of how long would he be sentenced. He should get another attorney other than Kiefer.
I disagree with Kiefer at the beginning - I do not think he would have gotten 30 years if he had come forward on that first day of jury duty. He did not leave the scene of a crime knowingly because he thought he hit a deer. He was not driving recklessly or drunk. There was no visibility that night due to heavy rain on a non-pedestrian unlit bridge. He’s a recovering alcoholic but there is no proof that he had ever gone off the wagon. An alcoholic would never stop with one drink anyway. The eye witness saw a man get out of a car and he was not wavering. His wife could testify that he was sober. I think he would have gotten off and would even be commended for coming forward because that takes courage. I think Kendall’s parents would want to know. Now he’s just a coward. The worst nightmare for an alcoholic.

[–] Carlo (121) a month ago

"He admitted to the DA (Colette) that he was responsible for the death of Kendall."
No, he did't. That conversation has no legal value at all.

[–] TheEndIsNigh (476) a month ago

You thought Cry Macho, The Mule, and The 15:17 To Paris were compelling?

[–] letess (1660) a month ago

Sorry. I have only seen these: Play Misty for Me, Dirty Harry, Hight Plains Drifter, Breezy, The Eiger Sanction, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Gauntlet, Bronco Bill, Firefox, Honkeytonk Man, Sudden Impact, Tightrope, Pale Rider, Heartbreak. Ridge, Bird, White Hunter Black Heart, The Rookie, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, Absolute Power, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, True Crime, Blood Work, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Torino, Hereafter, J. Edgar, American Sniper, The Mule.

And Juror #2. Did you?

[–] TheEndIsNigh (476) a month ago

Yeah, I've always found Eastwood very inconsistent as a filmmaker. But you know, it's all subjective.

[–] letess (1660) a month ago

I agree on some. But I think 3 are superior for me - The Outlaw Josey Wales, more than Unforgiven; Million Dollar Baby; and Gran Torino.

When I saw Juror #2, I felt like I was seeing a “regular” movie like one that maybe was made in the 90s or early 2000s. More Grisham than 12 Angry Men. There will be a lot of different viewpoints and that’s the whole point. It’s ambiguous to some - not to others. It’s shot in Savannah. A place I am guessing Eastwood liked because he made Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. I am not saying this is a great movie but it is a fairly good one - better than maybe the ones you listed, some of which I have never seen. It also puts it out there about our justice system work, are juries relevant, are some people doing time not guilty but not innocent. They only released this movie to 50 theaters which is itself an injustice. I saw it in a theater. It should be seen in a theater. Actually, everything should be seen in a theater.

[–] letess (1660) 24 days ago

There might be a bit of problem with the writing. I am not sure anyone consulted with legal professionals. But there still is a charm to this movie and it is entertaining. But Eastwood in his robust film career does have some excellent films and some not as good.

[–] Creamofdacrop884 (2123) a month ago

The Mule was good. The other two were not.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8822) 24 days ago

The 15:17 to Paris is a really interesting film. The choice to use the real participants was an interesting one. The results are mixed but I don't regret having seen the movie.

[–] sonans (1666) 24 days ago

I always assume the movie ends with him just selling the car, which means after the selling, the police immediately send CSI to check the car. Finding some skin tissue or blood on a car is not hard.

[–] Boricanator (1458) 5 days ago

1) It won’t do anything. He will just claim he hit a deer in another road as he told his wife. Or he’ll just keep quiet.

2) See above

3) Maybe. But that is not enough.

4) They would have to do a photo array. Not just show his picture. They are not going to remember some random quiet guy that left the bar a year ago. Especially when the defendant and his girlfriend were taking all the attention. They wouldn’t even know which direction he drove off to. The movie established that this was a one time thing

5) He was fine during the trial. It was during deliberations that they might have something. Even then, he would just come off as juror conflicted about a defendant’s guilt, which is perfectly normal.