“Each of the four, the Big Four as they were known in financial circles, could easily trace its roots to nineteenth-century tobacco brokers in the Carolinas and Virginia.”

Grisham connects the modern tobacco companies to the older tobacco brokers who historically utilized enslaved labor and then sharecropping to obtain their crops. In making this historical connection, Grisham links the unsavory business practices of modern tobacco companies with the atrocities through which those companies established themselves in the past.

“There were a hundred million smokers out there, not all with lung cancer but certainly a sufficient number to keep him busy until retirement. Win the first one, then sit back and wait for the stampede. Every main street ham-and-egger with a grieving widow would be calling with lung cancer cases. Rohr and his group could pick and choose.”

Grisham establishes the theme of The Moral Ambiguity of Litigation by illustrating that Rohr and his team are not representing Celeste Wood out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to profit off representing the victims of lung cancer and their loved ones, just as Fitch and defense attorney Durr Cable profit from representing the tobacco companies.

“The consultants studied the jurors because, first, that was what they were being paid huge sums of money to do, and second, because they claimed to be able to thoroughly analyze a person through the telltale revelations of body language.”

Grisham’s use of the word “claimed” demonstrates that the jury consultancy business is dubious, suggesting that jury consultants manipulate their clients as much as they manipulate jurors. The consultants miss the truth of Nicholas’s motivations, illustrating that they cannot analyze people as well as they claim.

“Many of these same questions had been used in the Cimmino case last year in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Nicholas had been David then, David Lancaster, a part-time film student with a genuine dark beard and fake horn-rimmed glasses who worked in a video store.”

Grisham reveals the truth about Nicholas’s past identities early in the novel. The suspense still builds because of the tension surrounding Marlee’s past and the question of why Nicholas desperately seeks to infiltrate a tobacco trial.

“Every jury has a leader, and that’s where you find your verdict. Will he emerge quickly? Or will she lie back and take charge during deliberations? Not even the jurors knew at this point.”

Grisham foreshadows Nicholas’s role as leader of the jury. The jurors do not know that Nicholas will deliver the verdict himself, but as he builds influence, that outcome becomes clear.

“Watching a dead man talk was quite compelling at first, but the jurors soon learned that his life had been just as boring as theirs.”

The jury’s entertainment plays an important role in the trial. What entertains the jury is what they listen most to, and Jacob’s testimony only holds their attention until the novelty of his death wears off.

“The woman’s name was Marlee, at least that was the alias she’d chosen to use for this period of her life. She was thirty, short brown hair, brown eyes, medium height, slim build with simple clothing carefully selected to avoid attention.”

Grisham’s description of Marlee illustrates her diligence early in the narrative. She makes choices “carefully” to avoid detection by Fitch and his operatives, and unlike Nicholas, her past and her reason for using an alias are unclear.

“Between each question in this script, the Judge would stop, look hopefully at each juror, then seemingly with disappointment, return to his list.”

Judge Harkin seems to want someone to attempt to bribe his jury. This desire for excitement makes him easy to manipulate, which benefits Nicholas in his plot to create a jury that will rule for the plaintiff.

“The last image the jurors had, the one they’d think about for the next two days and the one that would prove to be unshakable, was of the charred lungs, removed from the body and posed on a white sheet.”

Grisham ends Chapter 7 with a grisly image, demonstrating the violence that the tobacco industry leaves in its wake. This image also points to the central question of the trial, one rooted in The Tension Between Influence and Free Will. It’s clear that cigarettes killed Jacob, but the question is whether the blame for this death should lie with the smoker or with the company that knowingly sold a dangerous and addictive product.

“The surprise quickly gave way to excitement. The girl Marlee was working the outside while someone on the jury was working the inside. Maybe there were two or three or four on the jury who were conspiring with her. Didn’t matter to Fitch. The more the better. These people were setting the table, and Fitch was ready to deal.”

Fitch frequently refers to his dealings with Marlee as a game, which excites him. He views himself as the “dealer,” or “the house” in casino terms. A truism in gambling is that the house always wins, so Fitch clearly anticipates winning the trial.

“The fact that Herrera felt so strongly probably meant only one thing: He wanted to be on the jury. He was retired military, probably bored with golf, tired of his wife, looking for something to do, and obviously carrying a grudge about something.”

Nicholas analyzes Frank like the jury consultants analyze all of them, illustrating his role as a mirror for the ethically questionable behavior exhibited by both sides of the trial. Nicholas views Frank’s desire to serve on the jury as a threat, which is why he has him removed from the jury.

“As with most large civil cases, the subplot of sanctions often consumed as much time as the real issues.”

Grisham, as a former lawyer himself, personally understands the mindless minutiae of court proceedings. He criticizes the slowness of the legal process through his third-person omniscient narration.

“Why give millions to the heirs of a dead man who smoked for thirty-five years? One should know better.”

Grisham’s third-person omniscient narration allows him to drop into the consciousness of various characters, including, in this case, the consciousness of the group of smokers on the jury. They smoke themselves and view their fellow smoker as undeserving of money for keeping up a bad habit.

“Stella certainly believed it, but if Nicholas, the ex-law student, planned to keep it from the Judge, then so did she.”

Stella’s trust in Nicholas illustrates his growing influence over the entirety of the jury. His revelation of his past law-school experience successfully builds his credibility.

“Only Nicholas Easter was delighted with sequestration, but he managed to look as dispirited as the rest.”

Nicholas’s plans work perfectly as the jury becomes sequestered. He manages to hide his joy from others as he hid his true motivations from the various jury consultants.

“Occasionally she would scissor out an unrelated story, just for the fun of it, just to make them wonder what they were missing. How could they ever know?”

Lou Dell’s removal of random stories from the jurors’ newspapers demonstrates how even minor court officials can have influence over the jury. She arbitrarily decides what information the jurors have access to, and she enjoys the limited power she wields.

“Marlee was a Midwesterner, from eastern Kansas or western Missouri, probably from somewhere within a hundred miles of Kansas City.”

Fitch’s men are able to identify Marlee’s accent as from Kansas, which allows Grisham to use the mystery trope of misdirection to make her alias of Claire Clement seem like her real identity, causing the revelation of Gabrielle Brant to feel more significant.

“These tobacco people are bright, intelligent, educated, ruthless, and they’ll look you in the face and tell you with all sincerity that cigarettes are not addictive. And they know it’s a lie.”

Robilio’s contempt for the tobacco industry is palpable in his testimony. His emotion, however, makes him more convincing to the jury, who see his anger as righteous indignation.

“He could grill her for hours, maybe days, about the specifics, but he knew there would be no answers. He also knew she’d deliver.”

Fitch wants to know the truth about Marlee and her motivations desperately, but he admires her ability to maintain her secrets. His trust in her ability to give him the verdict is also strong, a trust that will later shatter when the verdict comes.

“The defense was now speaking, and it was critical for Lonnie to understand that he should listen and believe every word now being said from the witness stand. No problem with Lonnie.”

Fitch’s attempts to buy Lonnie work perfectly. In order to keep his new job, Lonnie allows the company to dictate not only his actions but also his beliefs, illustrating the tension between influence and free will.

“He had never felt worse at this point in a trial. The defense had lost one of its most sympathetic jurors with the exit of Herrera.”

Despite Marlee’s assurances, Fitch feels intense anxiety about the outcome of the trial. The loss of Frank is a blow to the defense, which hints at Marlee’s true intentions, as she and Nicholas were the ones to dismiss Frank.

“So Millie bit her lip and found new resolve. Her friend Nicholas made everything easier.”

Nicholas’s influence over the jury grows so strong that Millie genuinely considers Nicholas to be her friend. This false friendship, along with his false friendships with Jerry, Poodle, and Henry, allow him to influence the jury to vote for the plaintiff.

“They’ll say it was a runaway verdict from a runaway jury, and they’ll fix it. The system works most of the time.”

Grisham references the title of the novel in Nicholas’s dialogue as he attempts to convince the other jurors to award $1 billion in punitive damages. Nicholas does not believe that Pynex will pay $1 billion, but the symbolic act of setting that number is important to the future of the tobacco industry.