Skip to main content

Juror #2–Trial by Fire or Twelve Angry Men?

In this latest Clint Eastwood movie (2024), we see the jury selection process for the trial of  a brutal murder of an abused young woman, Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood).  After an odious fight with her abusive boyfriend, James Sythe (Gabriel Basso of “The Night Agent”) in a local bar, Kendall is found dead, bloodied and battered in a ravine.  The pending trial in Juror #2 seems likely to result in  a predictable verdict of guilty for the former drug-addicted abuser.

Enter Justin Kemp (a remarkable Nicolas Hoult of “The Great” and “The Menu”), a freelance journalist with a high-risk pregnant wife who has miscarried several times.  Justin attempts to be disqualified as a juror in order to be with his wife, but is selected as “juror #2”.   

After jury selection is completed, the highly skilled prosecutor and candidate for state attorney, Faith Killebrew  (Toni Collette of “Knives Out”, “Pieces of Her” and “The Staircase”) is absolutely certain that the jury will return a verdict of “ guilty” within two hours of deliberation.  But they don’t.  Furthermore, the suspect’s public defender (Chris Messina of “Mindy Project” and “I Care a Lot”)  is equally certain that his client, James Sythe, is innocent.

To render a verdict, a unanimous decision must be made.  Juror #2 is struggling with multiple dilemmas, both ethical and familial.  He tentatively presents his opposition to what seems a unanimous guilty verdict by his fellow jurors.  Then a retired cop, Harold (J.K. Simmons of “Whiplash”, “The Accountant”, and “Oz”) plants a seed of doubt, arguing that the police failed to adequately investigate  and that the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be met  for a guilty conviction.

Without spoilers here, suffice it to say that there are more clues with enough interpretations to confound any jury.  And Juror #2 has the fate of the suspect in his hands.

What family responsibilities and lies are we willing to live with?

As a courtroom drama, Juror #2  is replete with moral ambiguity, self-interest that pits family against social justice, and a  reminder of the fragility of justice when jurors bring their own personal biases and experiences into the courtroom. And can they help themselves and really be impartial? Twists and turns in evidentiary implications and analysis of not only the criminal act but judgements about the suspect subvert expectations.  Jurors are convicting the person as much as the crime. 

Provocative and well worth watching!

Availability:  max

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to my Newsletter

* indicates required
Mar0 Posts
Apr0 Posts
May0 Posts
Jun0 Posts
Jul0 Posts
Aug0 Posts
Sep0 Posts
Oct0 Posts
Nov0 Posts
Dec0 Posts
Jan0 Posts
Feb0 Posts
Mar0 Posts
Apr0 Posts
May0 Posts
Jun0 Posts
Jul0 Posts
Aug0 Posts
Sep0 Posts
Oct0 Posts