During the process of voire dire I believe the lawyers would have been very favorable towards juror #8 because he possesses qualities which enables him to be sympathetic to the boy, we can see this in the remarks he makes early in the movie by the way he sticks up for the boy because of is background with his mother having died at an early age and his father having spent time in jail as well as being abusive.
What the Lawyers have to look at are the more abstract characteristics that juror#8 has that makes him seem to go on the favor of the boy than just the overly trivial theory that someone similar to your client would be a good juror in the case.
Jurors # 8 profession could have been a hard one to read for the lawyers though, on the prosecutions side they could make the mistake by relying on the stereotype that because juror #8 is an Architect and is at a higher station of life than the common man being selected that he would be less likely to be sympathetic to a boy of Hispanic ethnicity from the slums, not following one of the key rules in the voire dire process the relatively few stereotypes will hold up to be true.
Once the lawyer has examined all of the aspects and issues that will arise at
I think that what you can draw from juror #8 in favor for the defense is that from his profession that he obviously had been educated and was a custom to critical thinking on a day to day basis, with this the lawyer could also think with more education the likelihood of strong prejudices would be lessened, you could also figure that he would be good at problem solving and knowing how thing have to balance out, this could also explain his inquisitive nature as to how things really work as he proofed by going down to the slums and purchasing the switch blade knife like the one that was used in the murder to see if all the evidence really did add up. His critical thinking also helped in bring out the point of the old mans leg problem to bring up the question if he really could have been where he said he was.
On the defense side I think Juror #8 would have started out by saying that even though that might have thought that they had no possible chance of winning the case that is no reason to put no effort into the trail. That the lawyer himself thought that the evidence was to good to try to find any fault with. Like he stated in the deliberating room that the lawyer had nothing to gain from the case, so why would he work very hard and would ask the defense had really forg
Example Essays Home
