It's obvious that towards the end of the trial the DA had reasonable doubt...
...so why keep prosecuting?
shareShe wanted to win the election.
share
MovieChat Forums > Juror #2 (2024) Discussion > It's obvious that towards the end of the...
Spoilers below
I think the bigger question is why didn’t Juror #2 come forward the first day of jury duty when he found out. He wasn’t driving under the influence; the bridge was a non-pedestrian one with no visibility due to weather conditions and no lighting; he didn’t leave the scene of the crime but stopped to survey; he realized he saw the plaintiff make a u-turn which would exonerate him.
I think Justin had just moral dillemma because he had his wife and unborn-child dependant on him and at the same time he didnt want to convict the guy. After he talked to his lawyer (Kiefer Sutherland character), his lawyer warned him that he could be charged with first-degree vehicular homicide just by the fact that he was sitting at the bar before eventhough he didn't drink any
I agree to the moral dilemna part. In the beginning, a person might say to themselves - let’s see how this plays out. If the jury doesn’t convict, then the only harm is to the parents - which is difficult to grasp in itself. When Kiefer gave his legal opinion, I was totally in disagreement as he was saying it. Circumstantially, J2 had nothing that would convict him. He stopped and had a witness. At the bar, an alcoholic would not stop at one drink. What actually happened is believable. But letting an innocent person get life in prison is really heinous. Where he was concerned and empathetic at the beginning, he was outright indignant and brazen at the end - “I didn’t do anything wrong.” This is where he was spineless, selfish, immoral. And, it’s not good to be spineless and alcoholic. Even if they had not become aware of him or he wasn’t held accountable, this would weigh heavy on his mind and soul and he wouldn’t stay sober for long with the new family - in my opinion.
share