Nowadays, a critic has to watch 700, 800 films a year, and I know through experience, being a juror in prestigious film festivals where supposedly the best films are arriving, from twenty films maybe you see two that are good, one that is so-so, and one that is extraordinary. And the other sixteen are terrible.
The average juror is not Mr. Spock. If he were, then a trial-court judge's job would be much easier. He could instruct the jury in broad strokes - instructing only as to the bare elements of the crime, perhaps - and be confident that the jury would deduce all of the finer-grained implications that must logically follow.
I regard myself as a grand juror waiting to hear the evidence from the prosecutor, the Judiciary Committee. I'm diametrically opposed to Nixon and everything he stands for, but I want to see the evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors first.
Juror #3: [to Juror #8 about the El-Train drowning out the supposed death threat] You're talkin' about a matter of *seconds!* Nobody can be *that* accurate!
Juror #8: Well, I think testimony that can put a boy into the electric chair *should* be that accurate.
Juror #8: [after Juror #10 explains that he believes the boy is guilty because of the testimony of the woman across the street] I'd like to ask you something: you don't believe the boy's story. How come you believe the woman's? She's one of "them", too, isn't she?
Juror #10: [the smile vanishes from his face] You're a pretty smart fella, aren't you?
Juror #6: [when Juror #8 asks him to "suppose" the defendant's innocence] Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin', but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this, and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?
