Juror Four
Juror Four is solely interested in the facts of the case. Although he is a skeptic, he abides by the rules of his position. At times he can make offensive generalizations without recognizing the emotions of others.
Evidence
Factual
Act I, Page 316, Column 1: The Jurors are arguing non-constructively. Four interrupts with, “If we’re going to discuss this case, let’s discuss the facts.” His comment shows his focus on the facts of the case.
Act II, Page 324, Column 1: The Jury is discussing the woman’s testimony. Four immediately identifies her testimony in detail. “The woman saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevated train. The train had five cars, and she saw it through the windows of the last two…” This shows that Four paid close attention to the facts and testimonies during the trial. Perhaps he took notes. Either way, he is able to recite the evidence with great detail. Once again, his comment shows his focus on the facts of the case.
Skeptic
Act I, Page 319, Column 1: Eight suggests the boy lost his knife and someone else with a similar knife stabbed his father. In response Four asks, “Aren’t you trying to make us accept a pretty incredible coincidence?” His question shows he is a skeptic because he is questioning the aspects of the case that have not been proven with hard evidence. He feeds on facts and is cautious about anything else.
Act III, Page 336, Column 2: A third vote shows nine are in favor of acquittal and three still believe the suspect is guilty. Four is among the three without reasonable doubt, even though the old man’s testimony has been torn apart, among other bits of the prosecution. This also shows his skepticism.
Respects The Rules
Act I, Page 318, Column 2: Eight requests to see the knife used to carry out the murder. Three thinks it’s a pointless idea, and asks for Four’s agreement. Instead Four says, “The gentleman has a right to see exhibits in evidence.” So even though Three and Four have a tendency to back each other up, when the rules are in the balance, Four will stand his ground regardless of Three’s opinion.
Act III, Page 339, Column 2: After debunking the woman’s testimony of seeing the murder in the middle of the night, Eight asks if anyone still thinks there is not a reasonable doubt. Four gives in, even though he has been a hard skeptic the entire case. He swallows his pride and says, “There’s a reasonable doubt in my mind.” Thus, Four abides by the rules of the jury that state one must vote not guilty if reasonable doubt exists.
Can Be Insensitive
Act I, Pages 317-318: Four makes the comment, “…This boy—let’s say he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood and a broken home. We can’t help that. We’re not here to go into reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals. They are. I know it. So do you. The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” This offends Five, who grew up in a slum. Four simply did not think about the emotional effects of his blunt generalization. This shows he can be insensitive, even without meaning to be.
Act I, Page 316, Column 1: The Jurors are arguing non-constructively. Four interrupts with, “If we’re going to discuss this case, let’s discuss the facts.” His comment shows his focus on the facts of the case.
Act II, Page 324, Column 1: The Jury is discussing the woman’s testimony. Four immediately identifies her testimony in detail. “The woman saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevated train. The train had five cars, and she saw it through the windows of the last two…” This shows that Four paid close attention to the facts and testimonies during the trial. Perhaps he took notes. Either way, he is able to recite the evidence with great detail. Once again, his comment shows his focus on the facts of the case.
Skeptic
Act I, Page 319, Column 1: Eight suggests the boy lost his knife and someone else with a similar knife stabbed his father. In response Four asks, “Aren’t you trying to make us accept a pretty incredible coincidence?” His question shows he is a skeptic because he is questioning the aspects of the case that have not been proven with hard evidence. He feeds on facts and is cautious about anything else.
Act III, Page 336, Column 2: A third vote shows nine are in favor of acquittal and three still believe the suspect is guilty. Four is among the three without reasonable doubt, even though the old man’s testimony has been torn apart, among other bits of the prosecution. This also shows his skepticism.
Respects The Rules
Act I, Page 318, Column 2: Eight requests to see the knife used to carry out the murder. Three thinks it’s a pointless idea, and asks for Four’s agreement. Instead Four says, “The gentleman has a right to see exhibits in evidence.” So even though Three and Four have a tendency to back each other up, when the rules are in the balance, Four will stand his ground regardless of Three’s opinion.
Act III, Page 339, Column 2: After debunking the woman’s testimony of seeing the murder in the middle of the night, Eight asks if anyone still thinks there is not a reasonable doubt. Four gives in, even though he has been a hard skeptic the entire case. He swallows his pride and says, “There’s a reasonable doubt in my mind.” Thus, Four abides by the rules of the jury that state one must vote not guilty if reasonable doubt exists.
Can Be Insensitive
Act I, Pages 317-318: Four makes the comment, “…This boy—let’s say he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood and a broken home. We can’t help that. We’re not here to go into reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals. They are. I know it. So do you. The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” This offends Five, who grew up in a slum. Four simply did not think about the emotional effects of his blunt generalization. This shows he can be insensitive, even without meaning to be.