Character Work
Uta Hagen’s Questions
For my character analysis, I will be employing Uta Hagen’s Nine Questions, going into as much specificity as possible. As my character does not reveal much about himself in the text, a lot of this will revolve around historical context, inspiration from costume, and speculation based on his behaviors.
Who Am I?
My name is Harold Pricker, but I often go by Hal. I am 30 years old and I live in Queens, New York in a single family home. I am originally from Ohio and moved to New York for college. After college, I opted to stay in New York because I enjoy the hustle and bustle of the city environment and the busy feel of the city.
Growing up in Ohio was entirely too boring, and I knew that I wanted to move to a city for college. I yearn for excitement and a busy schedule. New York is the most exciting place on the east coast. It has opportunities for me to become successful in my field and I’m still close enough to home that my parents didn’t gripe too much when I moved here.
I went to college for business at the New York University Stern College of Business and got a job as an insurance broker at Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York which was growing and beginning to become more active in the stock exchange. This provides me with a solid source of income with which I am able to support myself without wanting for much.
I moved to Queens after college to have more space than an apartment in the city would provide. I prefer to have more room because I grew up in a family house. My house is modest but provides more room than an apartment and provides a place for friends and family to visit me. Despite living in a single family home, I have no family living with me and no aspiration to marry.
I am very work-centric and this seriousness for my work is something I carry with me. I am very matter-of-fact and logical and I do not consider myself a humorous person. I don’t consider myself someone who is inclined to settle down or appreciate married life or children. I grew up with a sister but I am no longer very close with her as she stayed in Ohio and we drifted when I moved to New York. My parents are married but unhappily so, and this has definitely had an impact on my desire to marry. I am closer with my father than my mother because he is also in the business sector and I have a lot in common with him. I find my mother and sister too emotional to spend too much time around.
I am happy with my life and circumstances. I have a job that pays well in the field that I wanted to go into, a nice house that provides me with a respite from the hustle and bustle while still being close to the action, and a settled lifestyle that is what I pictured for myself from a young age.
What Time is It?
It is early August in 1957. We are in New York, which is hot and humid around this time of year. It’s currently about 20 minutes after 4:00 PM and we’ve just gotten dismissed from the courtroom to begin our deliberation. The courtroom was not air conditioned and neither is this deliberation, but there’s at least a window which provides some small breeze.
I don’t expect this deliberation to take long. We’ve been in court for six days and the verdict seems pretty obvious to me, and I’m guessing it will to everyone else. Because of how fast I think this will be, I do not even bother taking off my jacket when we walk into the room, I’ll just have to get it again in five minutes when this is over anyway. The deliberation takes longer than I expect and soon we’re an hour in and completely split. The workday is over and, although sunset will come soon, it has not gotten any cooler in the room. I’ve resigned myself to being here for a while and removed some garments.
When we finally get out of the room, it has been an hour and a half and I’m beginning to get hungry–I normally eat dinner around 6:30 and I now won’t get home until closer to 7. We’ve been deliberating the whole time and this has taken us past the end of the workday. It might be easier to get home because rush hour has passed, but I’m still relying on public transit, so there’s no guarantee. It’s 6:00 in the evening after a six day trial and I’m thankful to be going home and relax in quiet for the rest of the night
Where Am I?
I am in New York City. I am serving jury duty in the New York Supreme Court. The courthouse is located at the Civic Centre in Manhattan. It’s close to where I work, but requires a commute from where I live in Queens. We’ve just gotten released from the courtroom to deliberate.
We will get locked in this room that is stuffy and has stale air. The air is hot and I can feel it move around me because of the humidity. The room has one window, which provides a slight breeze, but does not create much of a cooler environment. We have a lukewarm water cooler that provides a momentary relief from the heat, but doesn’t last; I’m sweating faster than I can drink. The room itself is decorated very plainly. It serves the purpose it needs to serve, but isn’t overly extravagant.
Once in the room, I claim a spot at the table, towards the end. I strike up a conversation with the Juror sitting next to me–she is an immigrant and we share the same distaste of some of the other juror’s attitudes. She ends up moving because of the breeze from the window (which I actually think is quite nice) and I end up sitting next to a very quiet juror, but we get along and share many of the same opinions. On my other side is one of my least favorite jurors. All she does is talk about her job and complain about being here. No one wants to be here, but it’s our duty and it’s an important thing to do.
What Surrounds Me?
The most pressing thing that surrounds me is the heat. I can feel it in the air because of the humidity. I am sweaty and uncomfortable because of it and I want to do whatever I can to get rid of this feeling. There is a large window at the back that lets in a bit of a breeze but doesn’t provide much respite from the sweltering heat. There is also a water cooler that provides water, but with twelve people using it, if this takes longer than a few minutes we may run out.
The room is decorated sparsely to serve the purpose it needs to. The decoration is not lavish or ornate and everything there is relevant to the task at hand. There are two portraits of judges. I don’t know who they are or anything about them other than the fact that they served as judges. They seem to have been placed there above the jury table to remind us what we are doing and to impose the gravity of a life in our hands. There’s a framed map of the city which I don’t find too interesting. It doesn’t seem to serve a purpose here. On another wall is a framed print of the constitutional convention. I find this an interesting break from the situation at hand and a reminder that what we are doing is important and constitutionally guaranteed. Finally, there is a cork board with some documents about procedure and serving on a jury as well as a bill of rights, which comes up in conversation. There is a clock on the wall reminding us of how late it is and how long this trial has taken.
In terms of furniture, there is not much other than what is strictly necessary. There are exactly twelve chairs and a table. On the table are some notepads and pencils available for our use. There are some hooks and a coat tree to shed layers should we need to and in one corner is a small table with some documents, legal books, and a pencil sharpener. Everything serves a purpose and the room, while small, does not feel crowded with stuff.
I am also surrounded by eleven other jurors. We are all locked in this room and with twelve people, it feels much smaller than it did when I first walked in. The jury is mostly composed of women, which is not ideal. Men tend to be more logically minded and thus better fit to serve on a jury. Still, some of the women are smart and make good arguments. So long as their verdict is amenable, it shouldn’t prove much of an issue.I talk to some of the people next to me, but find it better to focus on the task at hand. Any conversation that I do strike up is related to the case or the jury room.
What are the Given Circumstances?
We have been in court for the past six days listening to this trial. The boy being tried is accused of murdering his father with a switch knife. He has a history of violence and gang participation and even admitted buying a switch knife the night of the murder. He is facing the death penalty and the verdict is up to us.
We know a lot about the night of the killing: the boy and his father were in a fight earlier in the night. The boy bought a switch knife that night that matched the murder weapon, but there were no fingerprints. The man living downstairs heard the boy scream that he was going to kill his father, heard a body fall, saw the boy run past his window and called the police, they found the dead body after the old man’s report. The woman across the street watched the murder happen through the windows of an elevated train.
The trial has lasted a long time and we are not getting compensated for our time here. The defense council has been incredibly bad and there doesn’t seem to be any doubt about the guilt of the boy. The timelines all match up and we even conducted a jury view to see the apartments and to see through the windows of an elevated train. Everything is there.
We’re finally released from the courtroom and head down the hallway for the deliberation to begin. The room is just as hot as the courtroom except the doors haven’t been opened as often, so the air is stale and musty. I have been given a folder of documents I might need as the foreman and I spent the walk over reviewing these. I have a question about the verdict form that I need clarified before we can begin the deliberation process.
What are my relationships?
The Guard: I do not have a close relationship with the guard, though I do interact with him a few times to get items in and out of the room. He seems friendly enough and good at what he does. I wonder what he thinks of the trial. What would he do if he were in our shoes?
Juror 2: I sit next to Juror 2 for a large chunk of the show and we tend to share a lot of opinions about the case and the deliberation room. He is much quieter than I, but we are able to strike up good banter and share our opinions about the discussion at hand.
Juror 3: Juror 3 is entirely too spirited for my sake. She overshared about her past and I am hesitant to believe that she is really incapable of remaining impartial about this whole process. She is very adamant that the boy is guilty, but never actually makes a lot of arguments as to why. I think she is too violent and high strung and there is no place for behavior like hers in a jury room where we are meant to be civilized.
Juror 4: Juror 4 is one of the most eloquent people in the room. We share an opinion on the guilt of the boy and we have chatted a few times on the breaks in the courtroom. We share a love for the finer things in life and I admire her ability to remain organized and logical about the proceedings at hand. She has a number of good arguments supporting her vote and is not interested in coming at it in an emotional fashion.
Juror 7: I had a few conversations with JUror 7 in the courtroom during breaks with Juror 4. She also seems to enjoy the finer things in life and we had some things in common. Once we get into the courtroom, though, I find her annoying, constantly urging me along and trying to rush the process. I want to get out of there as much as anyone, but she doesn;t have to call it a waste of time.
Juror 8: Juror 8 is our odd one out. She’s the reason we can’t go home. SHe voted not guilty but doesn’t even seem to know why. It’s a very hard thing to convince someone they’re wrong when they have no reason to believe what they do. I find this incredibly frustrating and it forces us to stay in the room longer than anyone would have liked, except her, apparently.
Juror 10: Similar to Juror 3, I think Juror 10 is entirely too high strung to be productive in this jury room. She seems to hold strong opinions about people who come from where the boy lives and is unable to set this aside. She is one of the angriest people in the room and I have to stop her from being violent with Juror 8 once or twice. She also seems to have a disrespect for everyone else in the room and thinks her opinion is the most important.
Juror 11: I only get to know Juror 11 for a brief time, but she seems very logical about this. She understands the importance of the work we are doing, which I appreciate and she is very interested in the facts of the case. She doesn’t understand why feelings or emotions should come into play and I find this admirable, especially because so many of the arguments being made are about something feeling wrong.
Juror 12: I don’t have much to say about Juror 12. I find her incredibly annoying. The only thing she talks about is her job and she complains about our duty to be here constantly. She holds no strong opinions on the case and related everything being said back to her. I interact with her as little as possible.
What do I want?
I want to get out of this jury room as fast as possible. I am tired from the events of the trial and I do not want to spend more time than is absolutely necessary in this jury room. Therefore, I want everyone to come to a consensus on the guilt of the boy so we can all get out of here and move on with our lives.
What is in my way?
Juror 8’s not guilty vote is the most immediate thing that is in the way. Throughout the show this expands to include Jurors 9, 5, 11, 2, and 6. Then, the thing in my way becomes Jurors 3, 4, and 10. Finally, the last obstacle is Juror 3 maintaining a guilty vote for the boy.
What do I do to get my way?
Approach the case coming from the facts. Try to maintain order amongst the jurors and promote a civil, organized deliberation process. Once this falls apart, I primarily want to reduce violence and dissuade emotionally charged or prejudicial arguments. Try to ensure everyone is heard and go through the facts of the case from all sides to come to a clear verdict.