1. Who set the focus and what was it?
A: The people who set the focus of the meeting of the jurors are the following:
1. JUROR NO. 8
• He insisted that the boy on trial should be given a fair chance and that they should not come to a conclusion before any discussion.
• He refused to go along with the decision of other jurors and gave a not guilty verdict forcing others to deliberate over the matter.
• In order to convince others that the proofs submitted in the courtroom were not fool proof he brought in a switch blade knife that was identical to that of the murder weapon.
• He also demonstrated that the testimony of the old man and lady was not reliable and that the boy should be given the benefit of doubt.
2. JUROR NO. 9
• Juror no.9 …show more content…
Fundamentally there are four types of conflict handling strategies namely avoiding, accommodating, competing, collaborating and compromising. Juror 1 used collaborative type which is a win win situation for involved parties. Usually it involved refraining the problem or challenge and having several rounds of discussion of facts and figures related to the murder case. In the end logic prevailed over emotions. Juror 10 used avoiding styles where he did not address the conflict at all. This was a temporary measure as the problem was charged with high …show more content…
Another juror came with his own set of prejudice, due to emotional scars left by his own 22 year old son. He analyzed that some of the jurors were change resistors (as mentioned above) and some would get convinced either by normative or informational influence.
STEP SIX- CREATE SHORT TERM WINS
Henry wasn’t rigid. He tried to convince jurors one by one. He slowly gathered support from each one of them by giving logics and breaking their bounded rationality. . He takes out a similar knife and made them realize that it was possible that another knife was used. He showed exactly how an old man couldn’t have possibly been able to see the murder (boy) run down the stairs in 15 seconds. Every time a member changed his stand due to his logics, was a small win for him.
STEP SEVEN- DON’T DECLARE VICTORY TOO EARLY
Henry explained every juror with the same effort and didn’t give up till the end. Even though some jurors shouted at him, he was firm. His constant efforts helped him to change the situation of 11-1 in favor of ‘guilty’ to an amazing 12-0 in favor of ‘not guilty’. At the end, juror 9 spotted that one eye witness had nose marks caused by spectacles and most probably women wasn’t wearing them at the time of
A: The people who set the focus of the meeting of the jurors are the following:
1. JUROR NO. 8
• He insisted that the boy on trial should be given a fair chance and that they should not come to a conclusion before any discussion.
• He refused to go along with the decision of other jurors and gave a not guilty verdict forcing others to deliberate over the matter.
• In order to convince others that the proofs submitted in the courtroom were not fool proof he brought in a switch blade knife that was identical to that of the murder weapon.
• He also demonstrated that the testimony of the old man and lady was not reliable and that the boy should be given the benefit of doubt.
2. JUROR NO. 9
• Juror no.9 …show more content…
Fundamentally there are four types of conflict handling strategies namely avoiding, accommodating, competing, collaborating and compromising. Juror 1 used collaborative type which is a win win situation for involved parties. Usually it involved refraining the problem or challenge and having several rounds of discussion of facts and figures related to the murder case. In the end logic prevailed over emotions. Juror 10 used avoiding styles where he did not address the conflict at all. This was a temporary measure as the problem was charged with high …show more content…
Another juror came with his own set of prejudice, due to emotional scars left by his own 22 year old son. He analyzed that some of the jurors were change resistors (as mentioned above) and some would get convinced either by normative or informational influence.
STEP SIX- CREATE SHORT TERM WINS
Henry wasn’t rigid. He tried to convince jurors one by one. He slowly gathered support from each one of them by giving logics and breaking their bounded rationality. . He takes out a similar knife and made them realize that it was possible that another knife was used. He showed exactly how an old man couldn’t have possibly been able to see the murder (boy) run down the stairs in 15 seconds. Every time a member changed his stand due to his logics, was a small win for him.
STEP SEVEN- DON’T DECLARE VICTORY TOO EARLY
Henry explained every juror with the same effort and didn’t give up till the end. Even though some jurors shouted at him, he was firm. His constant efforts helped him to change the situation of 11-1 in favor of ‘guilty’ to an amazing 12-0 in favor of ‘not guilty’. At the end, juror 9 spotted that one eye witness had nose marks caused by spectacles and most probably women wasn’t wearing them at the time of