Search Jump: Comments
    Chapter Index
    Back to Story

    Small Great Things

    by

    Picoult, Jodi

    Jodi Picoult’s Small Great Things (2016) explores themes of race, privilege, and justice through the story of Ruth Jefferson, an African American labor and delivery nurse accused of causing the death of a white supremacist couple’s newborn. The novel alternates perspectives between Ruth, the infant’s father Turk Bauer, and Ruth’s public defender Kennedy McQuarrie, revealing systemic racism and personal biases. Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote about doing “small things in a great way,” the narrative examines moral dilemmas and societal structures. The book has been praised for its thought-provoking examination of contemporary racial tensions and is being adapted into a film.

    PreviousNext
    Small Great Things

    Stage Two: Pushing — Kennedy 2

    by

    Picoult, Jodi

    Kennedy McQuar­rie suc­cess­ful­ly argues for the dis­missal of the mur­der charge against Ruth Jef­fer­son in Judge Thunder’s court­room. She empha­sizes the lack of evi­dence prov­ing Ruth’s will­ful or reck­less con­duct, coun­ter­ing Odette’s weak argu­ment about Ruth’s past com­ment as insuf­fi­cient proof of mal­ice. The judge agrees, dis­miss­ing the mur­der charge and grant­i­ng Kennedy’s motion for acquit­tal on that count. Elat­ed by this legal vic­to­ry, Kennedy envi­sions career advance­ment and shares the good news with Ruth and Howard, who react with relief and cau­tious opti­mism.

    Ruth, how­ev­er, express­es con­cern about the remain­ing neg­li­gent homi­cide charge and her desire to tes­ti­fy. Kennedy reas­sures her that the case is lean­ing strong­ly in their favor, with a high like­li­hood of acquit­tal, and advis­es against tes­ti­fy­ing to avoid jeop­ar­diz­ing their momen­tum. Ruth insists on her right to speak, argu­ing that her voice mat­ters beyond the legal out­come. She chal­lenges Kennedy’s reluc­tance, hint­ing at deep­er issues of racial injus­tice that Kennedy has avoid­ed address­ing in court.

    The ten­sion between Kennedy and Ruth esca­lates as Ruth reveals she lied about not touch­ing the baby dur­ing resuscitation—a crit­i­cal detail she with­held. Kennedy is stunned, real­iz­ing this could under­mine their defense. Ruth’s insis­tence on tes­ti­fy­ing stems from her need to reclaim her dig­ni­ty and con­front the racial prej­u­dice she faces, even if it risks the case. Kennedy, focused on the legal strat­e­gy, strug­gles to rec­on­cile Ruth’s moral imper­a­tive with the prag­mat­ic need to secure an acquit­tal.

    The chap­ter cul­mi­nates in a clash of per­spec­tives: Kennedy pri­or­i­tizes win­ning the case with­in the con­fines of the legal sys­tem, while Ruth seeks jus­tice and val­i­da­tion for her lived expe­ri­ences. Their con­fronta­tion high­lights the broad­er themes of race, truth, and the lim­i­ta­tions of the law. Ruth’s defi­ance forces Kennedy to con­front her own bias­es and the eth­i­cal dilem­mas of rep­re­sent­ing a client whose needs extend beyond a court­room vic­to­ry.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • Answer:
      Kennedy successfully gets the murder charge against Ruth Jefferson dismissed by Judge Thunder. This is significant because it drastically reduces Ruth’s potential legal consequences—the remaining charge of negligent homicide carries minimal jail time compared to murder. The judge agrees with Kennedy’s argument that there was no evidence of premeditation or malice, only Ruth’s emotional comment about sterilization which was a reaction to discrimination rather than proof of murderous intent. This turning point demonstrates Kennedy’s legal skill in her first murder trial and substantially improves Ruth’s outlook for acquittal.

      2. How does Ruth’s perspective on testifying differ from Kennedy’s strategy, and what does this reveal about their priorities?

      Answer:
      Kennedy believes Ruth should not testify, as the current evidence has already created reasonable doubt and testifying about racial issues might alienate the jury. Ruth, however, insists on speaking to share her truth about systemic racism and personal integrity, emphasizing that silence would betray her son and herself. This clash reveals Kennedy’s focus on legal victory through strategic avoidance of racial discourse, while Ruth prioritizes moral vindication and representation—wanting the jury to understand the full context of her experience as a Black woman facing injustice.

      3. Analyze the ethical dilemma Kennedy faces when Ruth reveals she initially lied about not touching the baby. How does this complicate the case?

      Answer:
      Ruth’s admission that she did attempt to resuscitate the baby (contrary to her earlier claim) creates an ethical crisis for Kennedy. Legally, this new information could undermine the defense’s credibility and reopen questions about Ruth’s actions, potentially swaying the jury. Ethically, Kennedy must balance her duty to defend Ruth zealously with the obligation to avoid presenting false testimony. This complication forces Kennedy to reconsider whether Ruth’s testimony—now including a confession of dishonesty—would help or harm the case, highlighting the tension between legal tactics and truth.

      Answer:
      The chapter underscores this through Kennedy’s reluctance to let Ruth discuss race in court, fearing it would “alienate” the jury. Her strategy reflects how the legal system often treats racial bias as irrelevant or inflammatory, forcing marginalized defendants to conform to white norms to secure fairness. Ruth’s frustration—”You think I can pretend this never happened?“—exposes the system’s failure to acknowledge systemic racism as a factor in her ordeal. The prioritization of a “colorblind” acquittal over racial truth reveals how the law can perpetuate injustice by silencing marginalized voices.

      5. Evaluate Ruth’s statement: “I’m thinking of what [Edison]’ll make of a mother who didn’t speak for herself.” Why is this a pivotal moment in the chapter?

      Answer:
      This statement marks Ruth’s refusal to reduce her struggle to legal technicalities. For her, testifying isn’t just about winning the case but modeling resilience and self-advocacy for her son. The moment is pivotal because it shifts the conflict from legal strategy to personal integrity, challenging Kennedy to recognize Ruth’s humanity beyond the courtroom. It also critiques the expectation that Black individuals should silently endure injustice to appease white systems—Ruth insists her voice matters, regardless of the jury’s reaction.

    Quotes

    • 1. “I leave Howard sitting with Ruth in a conference room. There is an excellent chance I can get this entire case tossed out. I’ve filed my motion for judgment of acquittal, and I can tell, as soon as I get into the judge’s office, that Odette already knows she’s sunk.”

      This quote marks a pivotal legal victory where Kennedy senses the prosecution’s weakness. It showcases her strategic thinking and sets the stage for the dismissal of the murder charge.

      2. “‘Your Honor, that was the bitter response of a woman who’d been subject to discrimination,’ I argue. ‘It became uncomfortably relevant in light of later events. But it still doesn’t point to a plan for murder.’”

      Kennedy’s deft reframing of Ruth’s controversial statement demonstrates her legal skill in separating emotion from criminal intent. This argument proves crucial in getting the murder charge dismissed.

      3. “‘You think I can pretend this never happened?’ she asks. ‘I see this every day, everywhere I go. You think I’m going to just walk in and get my job back? You think I’m not always going to be that black nurse who caused trouble?’”

      Ruth’s powerful rebuttal highlights the enduring impact of racial prejudice beyond legal outcomes. This challenges Kennedy’s colorblind approach to the case and reveals the deeper stakes for Ruth.

      4. “‘I know how the law works, Kennedy. I know the State has the burden of proof. I also know that you have to put me on the stand if I ask you to. So I suppose the question is: Are you going to do your job? Or are you going to be just one more white person who lied to me?’”

      This confrontation crystallizes the tension between legal strategy and racial justice. Ruth demands agency in her own defense, forcing Kennedy to confront her own biases and broken promises.

      5. “‘Except the truth,’ Ruth says… ‘I tried to resuscitate that baby. I told you I didn’t touch him at first. I told everyone that. But I did.’”

      This shocking revelation undermines the defense’s entire strategy and sets up a moral crisis. Ruth’s confession prioritizes honesty over legal victory, fundamentally changing the case’s trajectory.

    Quotes

    1. “I leave Howard sitting with Ruth in a conference room. There is an excellent chance I can get this entire case tossed out. I’ve filed my motion for judgment of acquittal, and I can tell, as soon as I get into the judge’s office, that Odette already knows she’s sunk.”

    This quote marks a pivotal legal victory where Kennedy senses the prosecution’s weakness. It showcases her strategic thinking and sets the stage for the dismissal of the murder charge.

    2. “‘Your Honor, that was the bitter response of a woman who’d been subject to discrimination,’ I argue. ‘It became uncomfortably relevant in light of later events. But it still doesn’t point to a plan for murder.’”

    Kennedy’s deft reframing of Ruth’s controversial statement demonstrates her legal skill in separating emotion from criminal intent. This argument proves crucial in getting the murder charge dismissed.

    3. “‘You think I can pretend this never happened?’ she asks. ‘I see this every day, everywhere I go. You think I’m going to just walk in and get my job back? You think I’m not always going to be that black nurse who caused trouble?’”

    Ruth’s powerful rebuttal highlights the enduring impact of racial prejudice beyond legal outcomes. This challenges Kennedy’s colorblind approach to the case and reveals the deeper stakes for Ruth.

    4. “‘I know how the law works, Kennedy. I know the State has the burden of proof. I also know that you have to put me on the stand if I ask you to. So I suppose the question is: Are you going to do your job? Or are you going to be just one more white person who lied to me?’”

    This confrontation crystallizes the tension between legal strategy and racial justice. Ruth demands agency in her own defense, forcing Kennedy to confront her own biases and broken promises.

    5. “‘Except the truth,’ Ruth says… ‘I tried to resuscitate that baby. I told you I didn’t touch him at first. I told everyone that. But I did.’”

    This shocking revelation undermines the defense’s entire strategy and sets up a moral crisis. Ruth’s confession prioritizes honesty over legal victory, fundamentally changing the case’s trajectory.

    FAQs

    Answer:
    Kennedy successfully gets the murder charge against Ruth Jefferson dismissed by Judge Thunder. This is significant because it drastically reduces Ruth’s potential legal consequences—the remaining charge of negligent homicide carries minimal jail time compared to murder. The judge agrees with Kennedy’s argument that there was no evidence of premeditation or malice, only Ruth’s emotional comment about sterilization which was a reaction to discrimination rather than proof of murderous intent. This turning point demonstrates Kennedy’s legal skill in her first murder trial and substantially improves Ruth’s outlook for acquittal.

    2. How does Ruth’s perspective on testifying differ from Kennedy’s strategy, and what does this reveal about their priorities?

    Answer:
    Kennedy believes Ruth should not testify, as the current evidence has already created reasonable doubt and testifying about racial issues might alienate the jury. Ruth, however, insists on speaking to share her truth about systemic racism and personal integrity, emphasizing that silence would betray her son and herself. This clash reveals Kennedy’s focus on legal victory through strategic avoidance of racial discourse, while Ruth prioritizes moral vindication and representation—wanting the jury to understand the full context of her experience as a Black woman facing injustice.

    3. Analyze the ethical dilemma Kennedy faces when Ruth reveals she initially lied about not touching the baby. How does this complicate the case?

    Answer:
    Ruth’s admission that she did attempt to resuscitate the baby (contrary to her earlier claim) creates an ethical crisis for Kennedy. Legally, this new information could undermine the defense’s credibility and reopen questions about Ruth’s actions, potentially swaying the jury. Ethically, Kennedy must balance her duty to defend Ruth zealously with the obligation to avoid presenting false testimony. This complication forces Kennedy to reconsider whether Ruth’s testimony—now including a confession of dishonesty—would help or harm the case, highlighting the tension between legal tactics and truth.

    Answer:
    The chapter underscores this through Kennedy’s reluctance to let Ruth discuss race in court, fearing it would “alienate” the jury. Her strategy reflects how the legal system often treats racial bias as irrelevant or inflammatory, forcing marginalized defendants to conform to white norms to secure fairness. Ruth’s frustration—”You think I can pretend this never happened?“—exposes the system’s failure to acknowledge systemic racism as a factor in her ordeal. The prioritization of a “colorblind” acquittal over racial truth reveals how the law can perpetuate injustice by silencing marginalized voices.

    5. Evaluate Ruth’s statement: “I’m thinking of what [Edison]’ll make of a mother who didn’t speak for herself.” Why is this a pivotal moment in the chapter?

    Answer:
    This statement marks Ruth’s refusal to reduce her struggle to legal technicalities. For her, testifying isn’t just about winning the case but modeling resilience and self-advocacy for her son. The moment is pivotal because it shifts the conflict from legal strategy to personal integrity, challenging Kennedy to recognize Ruth’s humanity beyond the courtroom. It also critiques the expectation that Black individuals should silently endure injustice to appease white systems—Ruth insists her voice matters, regardless of the jury’s reaction.

    Note