As Mark Twain, the case was very personal. Of course, I didn't want to lose but I did want the trial to be a true representation of Twain as if he himself were on the stand. I am very happy that Mark was not found guilty. Although I feel the prosecution did a very phenomenal job at battling against the defense, the defense also had a wonderful argument.
For the beginning half of the jury's discussion I swore they would name me guilty. The things I had heard led me to believe that they thought that no one on the defense was liable. For many of the testimonies from the defense I understand their hesitation. The Duke, a known con-man, is possibly the most unreliable and most likely to lie under oath. Of course, we have to remember that this is not a real trial and he wouldn't lie in a false trial. But in a real trial, I can see why the jury would be hesitant to believe a man with such little moral character. Luckily for the defense, if the Duke is an invalid resource then any evidence the prosecution gets from him is untrustworthy.
The truth in Huck’s testimony on the other hand, was very difficult to judge. Although he swears that what he says is a true recollection of what happened, the book also said that there were some “stretchers”. This brings into question the credibility of Huck as a character and witness. This partially crippled the defense’s case considering that he was possibly the second best witness, second only to Twain himself. By questioning Huck’s credibility, this also helps raise the prosecution’s case. Between Huck and Jim, if Huck is the untrustworthy one then Jim is the most reliable. Since Jim is a witness for the prosecution, this helps the prosecution but hurts the defense.
To me, Mark Twain was the only truly reliable character. I do not just say this because I played him, but because who really knows better the thoughts of Mark Twain than Mark Twain? The jury during their discussion brought into the question of Twain’s credibility, I thought that was ridiculous. I thought that the jury was just being paranoid, and they actually trusted no one on either side. In all honesty, is a real trial questioning Twain’s views on racism a jury would most likely side with Twain after the trial we as a class just saw. Not only did Twain give a splendid performance, but this is Twain himself and only he can give a fully honest, one-hundred percent accurate portrayal of his thoughts and ideals, especially under oath.
Since I was Twain, I am obviously very happy that I was not found guilty. I do not believe for one minute that I deserved to be named guilty. However, with the prosecution’s cross examinations, witnesses, and evidence, it is not hard to believe that there was indecisiveness among the jurors. It would have been interesting to see Twain named guilty and hear the argument as to why he was voted such though.
All in all, it must have been a very difficult decision for the jury. Both the defense and the prosecution were very convincing and very on track in their arguments. The defense was very good at coaxing the jury over onto Twains side. However, the prosecutions aggressiveness and determination to convict who they believed to be a racist help them gain jury votes. The passion on both sides was very convincing and I truly believe that the jury had the hardest job, deciding whether or not they trusted the defense or the prosecution the least. The jury believed no one, but it was really a matter of who is the least untrustworthy.
