Let the Circle Be Unbroken Chapters 1-8 Summaries

The case “Justice for the Jena Six” took place in the quaint, southern town of Jena, Louisiana. Tension between colored and white students began months earlier when a white student hung nooses from Jean High School's notorious “white tree”. The “white tree” was an area where only whites congregated. The nooses were the spark that initiated the fire, causing the the peaceful, Southern town to retrogress to its previous state of racial tension. Fights between the colored and whites were perpetuating causing the District Attorney Reed Walters to prosecute six black teens for the vicious attack against Justin Barker. Justin Barker was an innocent, white teen who was knocked unconscious by a blow to the head by initiator Mychal Bell. While

Juror 3 an emotionally distraught man who has not been in touch with his estranged son votes guilty based on biases to young children who have lack respect to their elders this is shown when he points out to Juror 2 “I’d think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble” this enrage provokes a sense of dislike in the audience to Juror 3 as he believes that violence is the key to problem-solving. In relation to both jurors there is always seems to be tension amongst them when Juror 8 constantly reveals Juror 3’s weaknesses that is delaying them from reaching a final verdict. Rose uses these two jurors to shows how there is always one juror who will always bring out people’s imperfections.

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

Each man brought their own experiences and attitudes to the case and thus, this complicated the process for Davis in all of the men seeing eye-to-eye. Some men believed that the boy was guilty simply because the jury said so. Others believed that the boy was guilty because all poor people who lived in the slums were no good and lastly, the most stubborn juror wanted to convict the boy because of personal issues he had with his son. Nevertheless, through logical arguments and an impressively calm temperament, he was able to open the eyes of all of the

Can anyone truly be sure if what a person is saying is the truth if there isn’t proof to show it? This question is one of the many jurors have to ask themselves while making decisions in cases with purely circumstantial evidence. On March 25th 1931, Haywood Patterson, Clarence Norris, Andy Wright, Roy Wright, Ozzie Powell, Willie Roberson, Charles Weems, Eugene Williams, and Olen Montgomery- also known as the Scottsboro boys, were charged with rape by Victoria Price and Ruby Bates. The girls claimed to have been raped by the Scottsboro boys after fighting broke out between them and a group of white men. The alleged crime happened on a train, during that time period hoboing- travelling by train in search of jobs, was incredibly popular. Key witnesses to this trial were the Scottsboro boys, the 15 white men on the train, Dr. R. R. Bridges- the doctor who examined the women after the alleged rape, and the eyewitness Ory Dobbins. The final verdict in the trial let four of the Scottsboro free while four were sentenced to serve in prison for a long period of time and one was sentenced to death (The Trials of "The Scottsboro Boys": An Account, Linder). The Scottsboro boys trial was unfair and biased due to public, media, jury bias, incorrect trial proceedings, and finally witness bias.

From their first introduction, it is obvious that jurors 3 and 10 stand out from their negativity toward the case, stemming from their prejudice against the accused boy. Whilst Rose has juror 10’s thoughts apparent from the beginning – “the kids who crawl outa those places (slums) are real trash” – it is only toward the finale that we see 10’s true sinister point of view – “they are–wild animals”, “they’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut us up”. Whilst juror 3 shares a similar stance, his prejudice targets the youth over slum people. As it is revealed that he has had an inconvenient history with his son, 3 uses the trial as revenge on him, thinking all kids are the same, and placing himself in the position of the murdered father, as he eventually “[could] feel that knife goin’ in”. As mentioned by juror 8, the moral compass, “it’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this”, bringing attention to a recurringly problem with the validity of the justice system. “Prejudice obscures the

Two drunken white men raped a young black girl, Tonya Hailey, who was walking from a small store where she bought groceries. When the news reached her father, Carl Lee Hailey, he went to their hearing, where he shot and killed the two men, while also wounding a police officer. Carl Lee hires a white attorney, Jake Brigance, to represent him in court. Many people and organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, tried to sabotage Brigance’s likelihood of winning the case. With the help of a liberal law student, Brigance successfully acquitted Carl Lee Hailey for the murders of the two rapists.

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

They lied to the 5 teens saying, the other in the group is telling them they did the crime and if they admit it they can walk out a free man. Manipulating and pressuring the teens to do something or say something they want to hear is a terrible persona. That is a tough situation for a teen to be in; they are not used to being locked up for days and being interrogated by the police. In their head, they thought the only way to get out was by saying something the prosecutor and detective wanted to hear, which untimely ended up hurting them the most in the trial.

Craig Mullaney definitely made many challenges for himself and accepted challenges from others with no questions asked. Being the thriving Valedictorian of his high school class and earning other prestigious accolades he stood out from the other entire student. But at West Point, Mullaney would be intertwined with hundreds of other classmates with the same, if not more achievements, making it seemingly impossible to be any kind of a predominant student.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

The Klan continues to threaten Jake with a bomb and burning crosses, Jake’s wife and child have to leave town to avoid danger. Judge Omar Lewis decides to turn down Jake’s request for a change of venue on the grounds that it would be impossible to find a fair and impartial jury in any county in Mississippi. Jury selection begins with protests to “Free Carl Lee” and the Klan protesting outside as well, tensions are high and a riot breaks out. A Klan member is set on fire, the black sheriff is beaten, and Jake is stabbed in the leg. The day ends with the inevitable all white jury. The Klan continues to terrorize the city by burning crosses and burning Jake’s house down. The National Guard is brought into town to prevent riots for the remainder of the trial. The DA, Buckley opens the trail by bringing Cobb’s mother to the stand and showing the gun Carl Lee used to the jury. At the end of the first day Buckley calls Depute Dwayne Luny, the cop who was accidentally shot in the leg the day Carl Lee murdered the two men. Much to the surprise of everyone, Luny does not blame Carl Lee for the loss of his leg, in fact he admits he would have done the same thing if Tonya had been his daughter, he then turns to the jury and repeatedly shouts, “He’s (Carl Lee) a hero- you turn him lose!” the court room uproars in mixed reactions.