By far the best part of this courtroom thriller directed by Clint Eastwood is the cast. There are additional elements in the film that may be of interest to forensic psychiatrists, such as intimate partner violence, confirmation bias, jury selection, and jury deliberation in a murder trial.
In the film, the defendant, James Michael Sythe, played by Gabriel Basso, is on trial for allegedly murdering his girlfriend after a public dispute in a bar on a rainy night. Although there is a big reveal at the outset of the film, there is still an element of suspense throughout because of the ambiguous moral judgment of the protagonist, Justin Kemp (aka Juror #2), played by an unassuming Nicholas Hoult. Incidentally, the talented Toni Collette who plays the prosecutor, Faith Killebrew, also played Nicholas Hoult’s chaotic mother, Fiona Brewer, when Nicholas Hoult was young Marcus Brewer in the film About a Boy in 2002.
The public defender, Eric Resnick, played by Chris Messina, maintains that his client is innocent and attempts to prove it. As the opening statements are made, Justin Kemp flashes back to the same night in October that the murder allegedly took place. He was at the same bar and had ordered a drink but left the bar with his drink untouched. A sober alcoholic, he had been grief-stricken because it was the due date of his twins who were never born. At the time of the trial, his wife, Allison Crewson, played by Zoey Deutch, was in her third trimester. Justin wanted to get out of the trial, but Judge Thelma Hollub, played by a no-nonsense Amy Aquino, would not hear of it.
The film focuses on the jury deliberations more than the trial itself, which is uncommon for courtroom dramas. At the initial polling of the jury, the majority believed the prosecution’s theory. The prosecution had posited that the person responsible for Kendall Carter’s death was her abusive boyfriend, James Sythe. It came out in the trial that the two had a tumultuous relationship and would often have severe verbal fights. James testified, taking responsibility for making many bad choices, including not making sure Kendall was safe that night after she left the bar in heels in the pouring rain without a car. He also swore he had nothing to do with her death and would never have harmed her.
The only two holdouts in the jury were Justin Kemp, who had inside knowledge that James did not kill Kendall, and a retired detective who had not revealed his profession to the attorneys because they “didn’t ask.” J.K. Simmons, as Harold, begins investigating the theory that it was a hit and run that caused Kendall’s demise. He narrows the possibilities down to 15 people based on his search of auto body work done close to the date of the crime. He is dismissed from the jury when it comes out that he is a retired detective who violated his oath as a juror by actively investigating the case.
Before he was dismissed, Harold explained to the jury his “hit and run” theory and how the prosecution did not explore any other suspects besides James. The concept of confirmation bias was explained by another juror. Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias where data that support a preexisting theory is weighed more heavily than data that do not. O’Donahue and Cirlugea1 recently explained that forensic evaluators are not immune to this confirmation bias and suggested ways to reduce the risk of this type of cognitive bias when performing child sexual abuse interviews.
As National Public Radio (NPR) reviewer Linda Holmes2 aptly pointed out, there are many holes in the plot of the film. It seems that the prosecutor only looked at one suspect and did not even consider a hit and run when a woman was found at the bottom of a quarry on a dangerous road late on a rainy night.
When Justin Kemp suspects that the deer he hit that night was not actually a deer, he seeks out the help of his attorney friend and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, Larry Lasker, played by Kiefer Sutherland. After reminding him of the common AA phrase that Justin is “only as sick as [his] secrets,” Larry advises him not to come forward with the truth. He said that no one would believe that Justin was not drinking that night because he is a recovering alcoholic. Instead, Larry advises Justin to make sure they get a conviction or an acquittal, but not a hung jury.
The idea of punishing a “savage crime committed by an evil man,” as the prosecutor in the film states, is much more appealing to the public than an accidental death committed by a grieving man who loves his wife and unborn children. Later in the film, the audience learns that the defendant is a known drug dealer involved with a dangerous gang. When the trial is over, there is an unusual idea put forth that maybe “the truth” and “justice” are not always compatible.
The prosecution’s theory hung largely on an eyewitness testimony of an older man who was only shown one picture to identify the suspect. When questioned off the record about his testimony, he said that the people who showed him the picture and asked him to identify it were “nice” to him. Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be unreliable in general and especially when the power of suggestion is involved.3
When Justin Kemp was driving that night, he was grief-stricken. A study noted that many people actively grieve when they drive, which can distract and negatively affect the decision-making capacity of the driver.4
Despite the problems discussed with the plot, the film’s all-star cast make it well worth the watch. In addition, the moral questions that Juror #2 evokes regarding who is deserving of punishment and other aspects of the criminal justice system are interesting and relevant to many forensic psychiatrists.
- © 2025 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
