After hearing the witness testimonies, direct examination, and cross examination, you, the jury, now have valuable information to help you determine the verdict of this case; is Tom Robinson guilty of raping Mayella Ewell?
We can all pity Mayella, a girl brought up in poverty who despises those who may have a higher social standing than her. She didn’t choose to be brought up that way. Tom’s only crime against Mayella is being respectful and helping her out.
Throughout the trial there have been various verbal and physical signs that raise questions regarding the credibility of the State witnesses. Let’s start by connecting the dots: Mayella was beaten by someone who primarily uses their left arm. Bob Ewell has proven that he writes with his left hand, while Tom cannot even move his left arm without the help of his right. Even just by looking at these simple pieces of evidence it is clear that Tom could not have caused the injuries that Mayella sustained.
Mayella’s body language also provides key clues to the gaps in the State’s case. Throughout her examination her nervousness was more than obvious. She sat there seemingly terrified of something, now what was it? Being in the presence of her so-called rapist or the thought that if Tom is proven innocent she believes we will assume that she may have broken our invisible laws saying she cannot have relations with a black man?
Mayella Ewell, while she is a victim of a horrible crime, is not a credible witness. Through examination of her body language it is obvious that she is afraid. Let’s go back to the cross examination, she can barely recollect vital details of her claim. When asked if Tom hit her face she replies with “No.. I don’t recollect if he hit me… I mean yes! He hit me! He hit me!” (TKM 1:18:54-1:19:12). She is obviously uncertain of her answer, leading us to assume that she doesn’t even know the truth behind her story. In addition to the obvious nervousness displayed by Mayella when asked about the details of her crime she showed similar amounts of anxiety when asked about her father. Her father is known around Maycomb County as a drunk, extremely racist, and occasionally violent. Based on his reputation how much can we really trust from his testimony?
As a community we seem to have similar values regarding the separation of race. We believe that a black person is required to do what a white person tells them. They must show respect towards us or they may be punished. Apart from the questionable story given to us by the State, has Tom Robinson violated any of these expectations? He tips his hat when he passes the Ewell house, and he helped Mayella when there was no one else. In addition, he would not accept payment from Mayella for helping her. Tom Robinson meets all of these values and more, so why are we so eager to rid our society of him?
Put yourselves in Tom’s shoes for just a second. He has kids and a wife to come home to after a long day of work. He tries his best to provide for his family even in the hard times that are hitting Maycomb County. Sound familiar? Tom lives a life just like we do, now imagine it was you up here being accused of something you did not do. Imagine how your families would feel knowing their husband or father was sent to jail because a jury couldn’t look past their bias to the obvious answer right in front of them. Our families are what matter the most to many of us sitting in this courtroom. Don’t settle for the easy answer and send an innocent man away from his family. Do what is right and use what we have learned from this trial to put the true evil of this town away.
Our justice system relies on facts and an honest jury who will put all other opinions aside to do what is right in the name of the law. There is no medical evidence to support this case, and there are large gaps in the case against Tom; everything is based on testimonies that cannot be completely trusted. Regardless of the standards of this town, you, the gentlemen of the jury, must understand that justice must be served.
Work Cited
To Kill a Mockingbird. Robert Mulligan. Universal International Pictures, 1962. Swank Motion Pictures. Web. Sept 13 2017.
This was an excellent summation of the facts presented during the trial. The author seemed to use all three of the rhetorical triads: ethos, pathos and logos. However ethos and pathos were most clearly identified.
First logos was used primarily in the beginning as the details of insufficient evidence were brought to light. In terms of giving reasons to acquit Tom Robinson, this was based mostly on ethos. Put quite simply, the facts were not all there and the state’s witnesses were untrustworthy. The author even went so far as to point the town’s shared sense of values in paragraph six. However in stead of using them to relate herself, the lawyer, to the jury, she used is uniquely by associating Tom Robinson with the community and those same values.
Next the author takes her statement to a close by appealing to the empathic side of the jurors. Rather than continue to show the bare facts and illegitimacy of the case, she humanized Tom Robinson and related him to the masses. Rather than separate him from the jurors due to the color of his skin, she tore down that racial wall and aimed to parallel his life with the lives of the men on the jury. She discuss his family, his struggle to provide amidst the harsh depression, and the devastation his family would suffer as a result of him being wrongly accused.
If I was a juror at this trial, I would have sat in the back room deciding this case for just as long as those in the film, if not longer. With the weight of the town’s ugly ideologies on my shoulder’s I would feel compelled to declare Tom guilty. However, by humanizing Tom and making him an equal to the jurors, I would be able to analyze the case with a mind free of racial barriers. In addition to elevating Tom’s character, the author was able to diminish the characters in the Ewell family. So, in an effort to due what is right, as well as separate myself from the caliber of the people who accused him. I would have declared Tom Robinson NOT GUILTY.