The jury members listened and accepted what he said. When one person shows the other jury members that the knife is not so unique after all, they begin to realize there might be other things to reasonably doubt in the prosecution's case as well.

This worked well in the story because the jury foreman didn't demand loyalty from the other jury members. He didn't any power over them. They wouldn't lose their status or their jobs if they displeased him. The jury was only a group for a few hours and their livelihoods did not depend on the decisions they made or the opinions they expressed. Juries are not permanent, even though the decisions they reach could have permanent consequences for the defendant. Their own "fate" is not at stake as it would be if they were members of an advisory council for the president, for example. Who would want...
[ View Full Essay]