During
the trial, Mr. Gilmer certainly proved himself as a less skillful lawyer thanfrom an objective
standpoint. However, in terms of the case and the sensibilities of the jury, his condescending
tone and inherent bias against Tom made him far more effective. Mr. Gilmer builds his entire
case around making Mayella and the Ewells seem like unfortunate victims and making Tom seem as
though he was simply acting on his nature. He frequently refers to Tom as "Boy" and
addresses him with a derogatory tone, no doubt appealing the sense of racial superiority he
shares with the jury.
From this, we can infer that Mr. Gilmer's closing
argument would have been much of the same, simply reiterating all that he had attempted to prove
before. He would likely reiterate Tom's history with crime and violence, no matter how minor it
was. He would also try to leave an impression of Mayella as a victim who would never recover
from her shocking ordeal to ensure the harshest possible sentence for Tom. In short, Gilmer
would have had to do little other than reinforce the status quo. He would have likely
underplayed the importance of the trial, implying that the verdict should be so obvious that his
job should be unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment