I love jury interviews following an intense and hard-fought trial. Without a doubt, they make the best writing workshops in the world. For what else do the prosecution and defense do but compete to write the best, most convincing story? (Except with immediate, real, tangible, urgent stakes. Not that writing lacks stakes, but court really has them.)
Just look at the Michael Jackson jurors, and the statements they made, post-verdict:
- A few jurors believe Jackson may have molested children in the past, but there was just not enough evidence in this case, which is all they were supposed to judge. "We had our suspicions, but we couldn't judge on that because it wasn't what we were there to do," said juror Eleanor Cook, according to the Associated Press.
- Some, like Raymond Hultman, made a distinction between total "innocence" and being found "not guilty." (Yes, there is a distinction. I can think of many trials where I would have voted not guilty, even though I did not find the defendent innocent. It all comes down to reasonable doubt, the evidence presented, and a strong defense.)
- Many jurors took offense at the mother. She snapped her fingers at the jury. She allowed her child to sleep with a 42-year-old man she did not even know. Her disheveled appearance came off as pure theater - an attempt to look "pitiful" as Cook put it (again quoted in the Associated Press.)
- The fact that the accuser and his mother visited an attorney & psychologist before reporting the molestation to the police tainted their credibility - especially given their history of lawsuits, perjury, welfare fraud, and celebrity gold-digging.
So what evidence actually worked for the prosecution? A very short list: the videotaped interview between the accuser and police; and the testimony from two other boys. But the testimony from other boys was not supposed to be considered for guilt - only for a pattern of behavior. And the videotaped interview did not seem credible in its full context.
Think about this in terms of revision. How might the story change if the characters used different gestures? If the mother was consistent about hair and makeup, so she did not seem to elicit pity? How might it change if certain witnesses were cut alltogether? Or if the accusers had not done certain things? (Although only in fiction can we alter events like that ... )