Runaway Jury Film Analysis

1158 Words5 Pages
The motion picture Runaway Jury touched on several aspects of moral rights and duties. There is probably not a better topic than guns in which an individual would be forced to make a decision between what is morally right and what is legally right. When the question was first introduced as to whether a gun company can be held liable in some form for the death of a person, I knew then that the plaintiff would be in for a fight of their life against the gun companies. The movie got my attention during the voir dire. It pitted the big company with unlimited funds against the “common man,” almost like David versus Goliath. I began to play close attention to the jurors that were being picked, and I attempted to figure out their motives before the…show more content…
This calculated move removed Frank who was the gun advocate out of a leadership role and more of an adversarial position. The Wendell Rohr played by Dustin Hoffman also played a major part in the moral and ethical battle fought against the Fitch and the gun company. When Marlee introduced the note about the purchase of a jury Rohr objected furiously, expressing to Lawrence Green played by Jeremy Piven that justice ceases if justice can be bought for a price (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). Rohr wanted to represent for his clients and the worth and dignity of all human beings and also because it was the right thing to do. On the other hand, Fitch made it known to the gun companies while at their meeting that a verdict important as this one can not be left up to a jury, they must make the decision for them. Fitch’s total disrespect for people showed to be his downfall in the end. In the conversation that he had with Rohr in the restroom solidified his character's feelings about people in general. His treatment of individuals or victims as a means to an end, and his thoughts about manipulating a jury was where his character's arrogance was becoming

More about Runaway Jury Film Analysis

Open Document