I chose to approach Juror 2 utilizing Uta Hagen’s nine questions to help me better understand him as well as his actions, motivations, and point of view.
Who am I?
My name is Edward “Eddie” Harlan. I am 32 years old and I live in an apartment in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I’ve lived in New York my whole life and while the city can be overwhelming at times I love it here. I love to sit in the park to read and people watch.
I’ve lived in the city my whole life and have no aching desire to leave. Because of this, I have a pretty strong accent native to New York. In my professional life, I’m an accountant at a firm here in the city. I make enough money to live well. I have a nice place. I do however share it with my brother and best friend, David. So I don’t pay the rent entirely on my own.
Although I am single, I aspire to marry and have a family someday. I’m just not great at meeting new people. I try to make a good impression by dressing nice and being generally inoffensive but I feel like people want more than that which I struggle with. I don’t feel that I have always been treated fairly.
Part of that is my fault. I fear being outspoken when I need to advocate for myself or others. This has caused me to feel excluded and ostracized. I sometimes wonder if the reason I am so afraid and anxious is due to my being bullied back in school. I never quite felt like I fit in and was made fun of often.
I graduated college 14 years ago with a degree in accounting and haven’t moved up in my field much since. I’ve had a promotion and plenty of raises but I haven’t advanced much. This is okay with me. I would rather not move into a position where I have to spend more face time with other people. I prefer working on my projects alone. I like numbers. You cannot disagree with numbers. They have been the way they are for years and they will stay that way for millions of years to come. You cannot argue with math.
In addition to reading and people-watching, I love music. I try and go see it live as often as I can. I also listen to it on the radio a lot. I love Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong. I also have bad eyesight. Sometimes even when I have my glasses on I can’t totally read my watch. I sometimes verbally count the minutes to make sure I’m seeing it right. I’m even worse at reading things far away.
I am also very organized. I like to keep a tidy workspace regardless of whether that’s at my office or at my seat in the deliberation room. I prefer for the area around me to be tidy too but of course, that isn’t always able to be the case. Besides rent, I tend to spend a lot of my money on clothes and books. I like to dress nicely to make a good impression on others. I feel like it will make me seem approachable and encourage them to think highly of me.
What time is it?
It is mid-July in 1957. The time is around 4:30. Because of the time of year. It is hot in the courtroom as well as the deliberation room so we are forced to have the window open as well as be regularly dealing with the heat in the way of fanning ourselves and getting water regularly. Many of us also remove coats and other garments we are wearing in order to help us handle this heat.
The year is significant as we have to adhere to the norms of manners and behaviors in the 1950s. For example, men would not have worn a hat inside the room. Hats were essential to be worn outside but not inside. Additionally, the show’s period is reflected in the costumes. Many of us will be wearing garments are are not familiar with which will be a new obstacle to approach. Furthermore, some of the language in the show is outdated and uses words and phrases we may not be familiar today. There are also things referenced in the show such as the movie theatre being the only place to see films, which are just not relevant today.
The time is significant as it illustrates the fact that we have been in court all day. We are tired and fed up with how long it has taken. Approximately 30 minutes into the deliberation marks the end of a typical workday.
Where am I?
I am in New York City. More specifically I am in the jury room of the New York State Supreme Court building in Manhattan. I sit at the end of the table next to jurors 10 and 12 before moving towards the center of the table between the Forman and Juror 3. I also spend a lot of time at the water cooler towards the front of the room.
The state Supreme Court building is one that I have become very familiar with over the last 6 days. It has become the same as going into the office despite making far less and enjoying it far less.
My proximity to other Jurors has made it easier for me to make connections with them. Two of the people in the show I feel closest to are Juror 12 and the Forman. The only reason I don’t feel the same about Jurors 3 and 10 is because they have been aggressive and rude to me.
What surrounds me?
For starters it is hot. We are getting a bit of a breeze from the open window but it is still sweltering. Fortunately, there is a water cooler towards the front of the stage which dispenses cold water. I am sure to take advantage of this amenity. On the walls, there are framed images of judges. It almost seems like they are looking down at us, evaluating our judgment skills, and making sure we make the right decisions.
Besides the judges, there is a framed map of the city above the water cooler. I find it fascinating to glance at. The layout of the city is so complex and interesting. It’s something you’d never be able to fully grasp just by walking the streets. There is also a corkboard with various forms and information on the wall opposite the water cooler and map.
On the front wall of the room, there is an image of the founding fathers on one side and a large print version of the Bill of Rights. On the tables, there are ashtrays for the smokers on the Jury. Personally, I am not a smoker; it gives me a headache. As a matter of fact, I can’t even stand the smell.
Also on the table are notepads and pencils for note-taking. Despite being a relatively organized person I am not as much of a notetaker. I haven’t really found it to be a hindrance as I am great at keeping lots of information in my head. Besides the large table we sit at there are two other tables in the room, one holds some legal books and forms, and the other holds the cups for water. Above the door, there is a large clock. I have a watch so I don’t really need to look at it. Plus, it doesn’t have a second-hand and my watch does.
Outside the window, I can see an apartment across the alley. The windows are open so I wonder if the tenant can hear the deliberation, especially when it gets loud. Speaking of loud, we can hear the traffic and people on the street below. It’s one of the few downsides of having the window open. It is sometimes distracting but tend to try and tune it out to focus on the important task at hand.
I am also surrounded by eleven other Jurors. They all have varying ideas and opinions regarding the trial and deliberation, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t. Throughout the trial and deliberation, I build the opinions of the people around me.
What are the given circumstances?
For the past 6 days, we have been sitting in a courtroom listening to a murder trial. The victim’s son has been accused of the crime and we were all summoned to witness the trial and eventually decide the boy’s fate. Plenty of evidence has been laid out in this trial. The two key witnesses were the old man in the apartment below where the crime took place who claims he heard the boy yell and saw him run downstairs, and the woman across the street who claims she saw the crime through the windows of the last two cars of an elevated train. The trial was boring and the defense council did an incredibly poor job of defending the boy. The courtroom was hot and we all hoped that the jury room would be at least slightly cooler if not air-conditioned. Walking from the courtroom to the jury room, Juror 12 struck up some small talk with me. She told me all about her interesting career in the world of advertising.
When we get into the jury it is just as hot if not hotter than the courtroom so Juror 12 and I immediately get water. Eventually after some small talk and the door being locked, I take a seat next to Jurors 12 and 10. We vote early and discover it to be an 11-1 vote in favor of guilty. Juror 8 voted not guilty which confuses me. Juror 11 closes the window as it is blowing on her neck which is incredibly annoying as the rest of us would rather have it open. We switch chairs which solves the issue. I am sad to leave my friend, Juror 12, but soon become acquainted with the Forman who I become even closer to. Eventually, I make my point on why I believe he’s guilty which boils down to the fact that he just obviously is which makes sense to me. Why restate the points made in court? We all heard them.
The first big development is that somehow Juror 8 has an identical knife to the one used in the killing which was said to be unique. This prompts me to start thinking more critically about my opinions as not everything is as it seems. We then vote by secret ballot which Juror 8 abstains from. One person votes not guilty so the vote has now changed to 10-2. Jurors 3 and 7 are adamant about finding out who it is but Juror 11 insists it should be kept secret. In my opinion, we have to know who it was or we cannot change their mind! We originally come to the consensus that it must be Juror 5 until Juror 9 speaks up and says it was him. I go to the water cooler and talk to Juror 4 about why they think this way and what the consequences of our verdict will be. It is a good moment and it helps me build a bond with Juror 4. Her words encourage me to begin thinking more critically.
Jurors 3 and 8 then get into a little argument which spooks me. After, we talk about how loud elevated trains are and the possibility that the old man didn’t hear the boy scream. I speak up and say that it is a possibility. I am nervous to share but I feel it is the right thing to do. Juror 9 talks about the idea that the old man could have made himself believe he told the truth. He proves this by saying he knows from experience and shows us a scar from self-harming himself. This scares me but I also feel bad for the man. This creates a lot of tension which I attempt to break by offering cough drops to the jurors. This doesn’t work until Juror 8 accepts one from me. Juror 5 changes her vote which honestly doesn’t shock me.
The times are then challenged so we do a demonstration and find that the old man could not have made it to the door in the 15 seconds he stated, it was closer to 40 seconds. This prompts me to change my thinking as numbers do not lie so it is very possible that the old man did not see the boy. Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8 saying “I’m going to kill you,”. This proves an earlier point of Juror 8 which is that we don’t always mean that when we say it. We then vote out loud and I along with 2 others change my vote to not guilty. This changes the consensus to 6-6. It is proposed that we should do a majority rules vote to see if we are a hung jury. This also yields a 6-6 result. I am then asked to share why I changed which is actually based on the numbers but out of fear I do not mention real reasons and just talk about the character of Jurors 3 and 8. This is challenged by Juror 4 and I respond “That’s true,” and think more critically going forward. This is the second time she has prompted this response from me.
We then time the actual crime which has a final time of around 29 minutes and 30 seconds which doesn’t include the boy running downstairs. This changes my vote again. Numbers do not lie and they seem to line up here. I get the courage to speak up again to ask about the awkwardness of stabbing someone someone half a foot taller than you. Juror 3 gives a demonstration and almost stabs Juror 8 as a joke. This joke is not funny and is actually incredibly dangerous. Even so, Jurors 5 and 8 show how even though Juror 3 accomplished the stab, it was still awkward, especially for a trained knife fighter.
Juror 8 asks to tie it all together and I make a joke about needing to time this too. This does not go over well. No one finds it funny and in fact, some of them give me dirty looks. Juror 8 points out that we consider the boy smart when it is convenient and dumb when it is. This is an interesting point I hadn’t considered before. This certainly changes things for me. I change my vote for the final time to not guilty. The vote becomes 9-3 in favor of acquittal. Juror 10 proceeds on a very offensive rant which moves me to get up away from the table and face the window. It is appalling. When it all calms down I finally take my jacket off. I still care about my appearance but not so much to continue sacrificing my comfort. I have sat in the heat with a jacket on for far too long and I don’t know how much longer it will be.
As Juror 4 explains the fact that the woman across the street’s testimony is still foolproof I notice that my watch needs to be wound so I take it off to do so. I then notice some annoying spots on my glasses so I take them off to clean. After I do so I begin thinking about how long we have been in the room so I look at the clock. I cannot see it without my glasses and so I ask for the time. It is 5:50. This prompts a realization, led by Juror 8, that the woman wore bifocals and wouldn’t have put them on after tossing and turning just to glance out the window. This changes Juror 4 and 10’s votes to not guilty so Juror 3 stands alone. She flips out prompting me to protect my expensive hat. After a bit of prodding, she finally agrees to change her vote.
I put my hat on and tidy up my space as well as the spaces around me to the best of my ability. I then grab my coat, put it on, and walk out of the room tipping my hat at the guard as I do so. After the deliberation, our verdict will be announced and the various parties involved will react to the news, we will then all return to our homes and our lives.
What are my relationships?
David Harlan – David is my brother and my best friend. He is a year younger than me and we have always been close. He is my only sibling so we grew up close. We went to the same school and despite being younger, he always stood up for me. He was more into sports than me but I did my best to learn some to talk to him about it. In the same vein, he read books that I recommended so we could talk about them. When we moved out we did it together and now share a nice apartment.
The Guard – We do not have a close relationship. We are always friendly but we haven’t had any real conversations. I appreciate everything he has done for us throughout this stressful process.
The Foreman of the Jury – The Foreman is the juror I am closest to, both in proximity and in relationship. He and I have the same ideas regarding the decorum in the deliberation although he is far more outspoken about it than me. We always gravitate to talk to each other about the case in between points being made. We tend to agree on most things but when we disagree we are both always respectful about it. The one issue I do have with him is that he is a smoker and I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. Other than that, the Forman is a connection I am glad to have made throughout this process.
Juror 2 – It is important for me to touch on my relationship with myself. I am not confident in myself. I do not feel like the things I have to say are valid whatsoever. I also don’t think that anyone else thinks I am a person of interest. This holds me back from the things I really want.
Juror 3 – She spends most of the deliberation getting mad and insulting people. She puts on this smart persona when in reality, Juror 4 is giving all of the good points in favor of guilty. I try to connect with her but typically she doesn’t reciprocate. She has a strong personality but it does not help me like her any more than I do which is already not a lot.
Juror 4 – While I do not agree with everything she says, I admire Juror 4 more than most of the other jurors. She is everything I wish I could be. She is outspoken, focused on facts, nuanced, and keeps others in line. More than once she has shifted my entire view on the case and is honestly one of the most valuable people to have on the jury. After our moment at the water cooler, I feel that I have gained an ally in her.
Juror 5 – I do not communicate much with Juror 5 but I do admire her ability to speak up, especially when she feels that her person and home are being thrown under the bus. She is also helpful when it comes to demonstrating how to use the switchknife which was very helpful.
Juror 6 – I never communicate directly with Juror 6 but I relate to her in the sense that it seems she doesn’t get many moments to speak her opinion. This makes it even more admirable when she does get the chance to speak her mind and I give my undivided attention.
Juror 7 – I only have one moment to communicate with Juror 7, but when I do she is rather rude. I do not hold it against her but I did not feel welcome standing next to her even though all I asked was how she’s doing.
Juror 8 – Similarly to Juror 4, I admire her ability to speak her mind even if we do not always agree. It is especially admirable considering she does this when no one agrees with her. It does take time for me to even understand the validity of her points but when I do I listen to her even if I do not fully understand or agree with her. I also commend her desire to include everyone and make sure we all have the ability to speak our minds. She is incredibly kind to everyone in the room until it is necessary to not be. I admire this.
Juror 9 – He is the first to change their vote to not guilty, similarly to Juror 8 I admire the courage he has to do this. After learning more about him, especially the fact that he suffers from depression and has self-harmed, I feel sorry for him and am sympathetic to his story.
Juror 10 – I do not like Juror 10. I hate how prejudiced she is. It almost seems like she has no shame about it either. She is loud, rude, distracting, and an all-around bad human being. I do my best to interact with her as little as possible. She does rudely request pencils from me for the secret ballot and while I am temper to ignore her, I do give them to her to not cause issues. She also tugs at my sleeve to see my watch which bothers me. All in all, she is my least favorite person in the room. At least Juror 3 makes an effort to be kind at moments.
Juror 11 – I have mixed feelings about Juror 11. She makes strong points regarding the importance of our verdict and the privilege we have to participate in jury duty which are things we all need to hear. However, she annoys me when she opens the window and doesn’t seem receptive to the needs of the group. I have to move just to make her comfortable. She also bothers me when she talks about keeping the ballot secret. I appreciated the secret ballots to eliminate bias but after the vote, we need to know who voted differently so we can change their mind. How can we do that without knowing? However, I am sympathetic to her struggles and do not think that anyone’s resentment towards her is just.
Juror 12 – She is my friend. We build a relationship through conversations at the beginning of the show. I am the only one who finds her advertising talk interesting at First however by the end of the show even I got fed up with it a bit. Similarly to the foreman, we disagree some but overall we still get along and remain allies throughout the show. We resume our banter from the cooler during the demonstration of the crime and the demonstration about how the boy stabbed downward.
What do I want?
In life, I desire to be liked and to have a circle of people around me who I can be myself around. This can be in the sense of friendships, family, love, or any other form of connection between other people.
In the deliberation, my goal is to make the right decision. I am not entirely sure what that decision is going into the deliberation but I plan to figure it out. Going into it I believe he is guilty from the evidence but I could be convinced otherwise. All that I really want to do is the right thing, whatever that may be.
What is in my way?
Juror 8 is in the way as she wants to sit and talk through the notion we all come into the room with. Jurors 3 and 10 are also in the way for the opposite reason. They don’t have the ability to have a conversation about making the right decision. They only hold up the deliberation rather than actively help make the right decision. It does not help us make the right decision but rather holds up the deliberation and hinders our ability to figure out and make the right decision.
What do I do to get what I want?
I listen carefully to the words of the other jurors when they make their points. I analyze their thoughts and form my opinions based on that. Even though I don’t always speak up I make it a priority for me to make informed decisions base on the evidence presented. When I am confused about something I make an effort to have it explained to me. I communicate with my neighbors at the table to better understand their opinions so they can understand my thoughts on the case. I also write notes to keep the most important moments in my memory. Lastly, when a demonstration or a diagram is being shown I get out of my seat and move to a place where I can see what is happening to better understand what is going on.