From the point of view of the film alone, of course we will easily accept the final verdict, but what if we stand from the point of view of the jury?
I just watched the American crime story before. Regarding the Simpson case, a juror said this (to the effect), "You may believe that Simpson did it. Fuck, I may believe it too, but you can say that the prosecutor did prove him." Are you guilty? '
This involves the positioning of the jury. What the jury believes is not the same as making a verdict based on what is presented in the trial.
In the case of the Grand Trial, the testimony of the last nurse of the plaintiff has been excluded, and only the testimony of the old black doctor is left. If you were a juror, how would you judge it? Note that during the trial of the jurors (it seems) to be completely closed, all judgments are based only on the court. Then make malicious guesses, the nurse who suddenly appeared on the scene is also suspected of being manipulated (of course, it is difficult to draw this hypothesis from the perspective of the film narrative). Those tears and explosions seem to be true from the point of view of the jurors. The plaintiff’s What did the closing statement say? Of course, we can say that it is very touching, but to be rational, there is nothing but sentiment in the closing statement. In other words, putting this large paragraph of closing statements in other cases has no effect. And can emotional things be used as a basis for judgment?
The film seems to have done justice, but it still seems to be a little underwhelming. It deviates far from procedural justice and becomes apparent justice. This is the case for the time being.
Recently, I watched the killing of a robin, the rush of the night, and the American crime story, and I became more interested in the jury system. Reconsideration.
View more about The Verdict reviews
