Search Jump: Comments
    Chapter Index
    Back to Story
    Cover of The Pact
    DramaFictionPsychological

    The Pact

    by Picoult, Jodi
    “The Pact” by Jodi Picoult explores themes of love, loyalty, and moral dilemmas through the story of two families bound by a tragic suicide pact. When teenagers Chris and Emily are found shot in a car, the aftermath reveals complex layers of friendship, parental expectations, and adolescent despair. Picoult’s narrative delves into legal and ethical questions surrounding assisted suicide, grief, and the boundaries of relationships. The novel’s courtroom drama and emotional depth make it a compelling read for fans of contemporary fiction.
    PreviousNext
    The Pact

    Chapter 15: NOW: February 1998

    by Picoult, Jodi

    The chap­ter opens with an intro­duc­tion to Judge Leslie F. Puck­ett, a no-non­sense fig­ure known for his sharp cri­tiques and pecu­liar habit of crack­ing almonds with his teeth dur­ing pro­ceed­ings. Defense attor­ney Jor­dan and pros­e­cu­tor Bar­rie Delaney meet in Puckett’s cham­bers for a pre­tri­al hear­ing in the high-pro­file case of Chris Harte. The ten­sion between Jor­dan and Delaney is imme­di­ate, with Jor­dan mock­ing her coer­cive tac­tics in obtain­ing Chris’s hos­pi­tal inter­view, while Delaney defends its legal­i­ty. Puck­ett inter­venes to main­tain order, set­ting dead­lines for motions and sched­ul­ing jury selec­tion for May 7th, high­light­ing the adver­sar­i­al dynam­ic between the attor­neys.

    The con­flict esca­lates as Jor­dan files a motion to sup­press Chris’s hos­pi­tal inter­view, argu­ing it vio­lat­ed Miran­da rights due to his com­pro­mised state. Delaney vehe­ment­ly oppos­es this, insist­ing the inter­view was law­ful. Puck­ett warns both attor­neys to refrain from bick­er­ing, empha­siz­ing the need for pro­fes­sion­al­ism. The chap­ter under­scores Jordan’s strate­gic expe­ri­ence as a for­mer pros­e­cu­tor, allow­ing him to antic­i­pate Delaney’s tac­tics, while Delaney’s aggres­sive demeanor reveals her per­son­al invest­ment in secur­ing a con­vic­tion. The judge’s impa­tience with their squab­bling adds a lay­er of ten­sion to the legal maneu­ver­ing.

    Out­side the cham­bers, Delaney offers Chris a plea bar­gain of 30 years to life for manslaugh­ter, con­fi­dent in her evi­dence, includ­ing fin­ger­prints and bal­lis­tic analy­sis. Jor­dan dis­miss­es her con­fi­dence as a bluff, recall­ing his own days as a pros­e­cu­tor and rec­og­niz­ing her uncer­tain­ty. He agrees to present the offer to Chris but makes it clear they intend to fight the case in court. The exchange high­lights Jordan’s tac­ti­cal acu­men and Delaney’s deter­mi­na­tion to win, set­ting the stage for a con­tentious tri­al.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with Jor­dan dis­cussing the plea bar­gain with Chris, who is vis­i­bly shak­en by the prospect of a 30-year sen­tence. Jor­dan refus­es to advise Chris direct­ly but hints at the pos­si­bil­i­ty of win­ning at tri­al, leav­ing the deci­sion in his hands. Chris’s reaction—laughter at the absur­di­ty of the situation—reveals his emo­tion­al tur­moil. The scene ends on an ambigu­ous note, with Chris con­tem­plat­ing his options as the tri­al date looms, empha­siz­ing the high stakes and per­son­al toll of the legal bat­tle.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • Answer:
      Judge Puckett is portrayed as a severe but fair judge whose insecurity about his name (Leslie) may contribute to his razor-sharp critiques of attorneys. His habit of loudly cracking almonds with his teeth adds an unusual quirk to his demeanor, creating tension in otherwise formal settings. The chapter shows that while he maintains professionalism, his no-nonsense approach keeps both prosecution and defense on their toes. His handling of the pretrial hearing—balancing Jordan and Barrie’s arguments while setting clear deadlines—demonstrates his control over the courtroom despite the informal setting of his chambers.

      Answer:
      Jordan and Barrie have a contentious relationship rooted in professional rivalry and personal animosity. Barrie, a aggressive prosecutor, takes Jordan’s switch from prosecution to defense as a betrayal, while Jordan sees her tactics as overzealous. Their sparring over the hospital interview (Jordan alleging coercion, Barrie defending its legality) highlights their differing approaches: Jordan focuses on procedural fairness for his client, while Barrie prioritizes securing a conviction. Their clash also reveals Jordan’s strategic advantage—his experience as a prosecutor helps him anticipate Barrie’s moves, as seen when he calls her bluff about her confidence in the case.

      3. Why does Jordan advise Chris Harte to carefully consider the plea bargain offer, and what does this reveal about Jordan’s philosophy as a defense attorney?

      Answer:
      Jordan refuses to outright recommend the plea bargain (30 years for manslaughter) because he believes Chris should make an informed choice about risking trial versus accepting a guaranteed sentence. He acknowledges the uncertainty of trial outcomes but emphasizes the psychological toll of living with “what-ifs” if Chris pleads guilty. This reflects Jordan’s commitment to client autonomy and his belief in fighting winnable cases. His personal take—that he’d risk trial with a “kick-ass lawyer”—shows his confidence in his abilities while underscoring the gravity of the decision for Chris’s future.

      4. How does the chapter use sensory details (e.g., sound, appearance) to enhance the tension in key scenes?

      Answer:
      Sensory details amplify the story’s tension. Judge Puckett’s almond-cracking is described as a “hideous crunch,” a grating sound that punctuates the legal arguments. Barrie’s convent-schoolgirl posture (“hands folded, black skirt tucked”) contrasts with her aggressive demeanor, creating visual irony. The “cold glass” Chris touches while staring at the snow mirrors his emotional isolation. These details ground the high-stakes legal maneuvering in physical reality, making the confrontations feel more visceral—whether it’s the awkwardness of chambers or the rawness of Chris’s jail-cell despair.

      Answer:
      The May 7th date creates urgency: Barrie uses the time to prepare forensic evidence (blood spatter, DNA), while Jordan must file motions to suppress evidence. For Chris, the three-month wait amplifies his dread, as seen when he laughs hysterically at the timeline—a reaction Jordan mistakes for breakdown. The delay is a double-edged sword: it allows both sides to build their cases but prolongs Chris’s uncertainty. The date also symbolizes the looming confrontation, with Jordan’s “see you in court” remark signaling his rejection of the plea and commitment to trial.

    Quotes

    • 1. “Rumor had it that his severe approach and razor-sharp critiques of trial attorneys were grounded in his own insecurity about his given name-Leslie not being as masculine as he would have liked-but he dispensed barbs to both prosecution and defense with equanimity.”

      This quote introduces Judge Puckett’s character, revealing how personal insecurities shape his judicial demeanor while maintaining fairness—a key insight into the courtroom dynamics.

      2. “If it’s totally aboveboard, how’d you know I was talking about that interview?”

      Jordan’s sharp retort to Barrie Delaney highlights the adversarial tension between defense and prosecution, showcasing his strategic mind and the chapter’s central conflict over legal ethics.

      3. “I’ve been around a lot longer than you have… I used to play the game the same exact way you are, now. Which means that I also know you aren’t nearly as convinced of a conviction as you say you are.”

      Jordan’s confrontation with Barrie reveals his experience and psychological insight, undermining her confidence in the case—a pivotal moment that foreshadows the trial’s unpredictability.

      4. “I can tell you, though, that if you take the plea bargain, you’re going to spend thirty years wondering whether or not we could have beaten them.”

      Jordan’s advice to Chris encapsulates the chapter’s theme of risk versus regret, framing the existential dilemma of accepting a plea deal versus gambling on justice.

      5. “When is the trial supposed to start?… May seventh… Jury selection. Chris’s shoulders began to shake… Jordan realized Chris was laughing.”

      Chris’s unexpected laughter at the trial date—a moment of dark irony—signals his emotional unraveling and the psychological toll of the legal process, closing the chapter with haunting ambiguity.

    Quotes

    1. “Rumor had it that his severe approach and razor-sharp critiques of trial attorneys were grounded in his own insecurity about his given name-Leslie not being as masculine as he would have liked-but he dispensed barbs to both prosecution and defense with equanimity.”

    This quote introduces Judge Puckett’s character, revealing how personal insecurities shape his judicial demeanor while maintaining fairness—a key insight into the courtroom dynamics.

    2. “If it’s totally aboveboard, how’d you know I was talking about that interview?”

    Jordan’s sharp retort to Barrie Delaney highlights the adversarial tension between defense and prosecution, showcasing his strategic mind and the chapter’s central conflict over legal ethics.

    3. “I’ve been around a lot longer than you have… I used to play the game the same exact way you are, now. Which means that I also know you aren’t nearly as convinced of a conviction as you say you are.”

    Jordan’s confrontation with Barrie reveals his experience and psychological insight, undermining her confidence in the case—a pivotal moment that foreshadows the trial’s unpredictability.

    4. “I can tell you, though, that if you take the plea bargain, you’re going to spend thirty years wondering whether or not we could have beaten them.”

    Jordan’s advice to Chris encapsulates the chapter’s theme of risk versus regret, framing the existential dilemma of accepting a plea deal versus gambling on justice.

    5. “When is the trial supposed to start?… May seventh… Jury selection. Chris’s shoulders began to shake… Jordan realized Chris was laughing.”

    Chris’s unexpected laughter at the trial date—a moment of dark irony—signals his emotional unraveling and the psychological toll of the legal process, closing the chapter with haunting ambiguity.

    FAQs

    Answer:
    Judge Puckett is portrayed as a severe but fair judge whose insecurity about his name (Leslie) may contribute to his razor-sharp critiques of attorneys. His habit of loudly cracking almonds with his teeth adds an unusual quirk to his demeanor, creating tension in otherwise formal settings. The chapter shows that while he maintains professionalism, his no-nonsense approach keeps both prosecution and defense on their toes. His handling of the pretrial hearing—balancing Jordan and Barrie’s arguments while setting clear deadlines—demonstrates his control over the courtroom despite the informal setting of his chambers.

    Answer:
    Jordan and Barrie have a contentious relationship rooted in professional rivalry and personal animosity. Barrie, a aggressive prosecutor, takes Jordan’s switch from prosecution to defense as a betrayal, while Jordan sees her tactics as overzealous. Their sparring over the hospital interview (Jordan alleging coercion, Barrie defending its legality) highlights their differing approaches: Jordan focuses on procedural fairness for his client, while Barrie prioritizes securing a conviction. Their clash also reveals Jordan’s strategic advantage—his experience as a prosecutor helps him anticipate Barrie’s moves, as seen when he calls her bluff about her confidence in the case.

    3. Why does Jordan advise Chris Harte to carefully consider the plea bargain offer, and what does this reveal about Jordan’s philosophy as a defense attorney?

    Answer:
    Jordan refuses to outright recommend the plea bargain (30 years for manslaughter) because he believes Chris should make an informed choice about risking trial versus accepting a guaranteed sentence. He acknowledges the uncertainty of trial outcomes but emphasizes the psychological toll of living with “what-ifs” if Chris pleads guilty. This reflects Jordan’s commitment to client autonomy and his belief in fighting winnable cases. His personal take—that he’d risk trial with a “kick-ass lawyer”—shows his confidence in his abilities while underscoring the gravity of the decision for Chris’s future.

    4. How does the chapter use sensory details (e.g., sound, appearance) to enhance the tension in key scenes?

    Answer:
    Sensory details amplify the story’s tension. Judge Puckett’s almond-cracking is described as a “hideous crunch,” a grating sound that punctuates the legal arguments. Barrie’s convent-schoolgirl posture (“hands folded, black skirt tucked”) contrasts with her aggressive demeanor, creating visual irony. The “cold glass” Chris touches while staring at the snow mirrors his emotional isolation. These details ground the high-stakes legal maneuvering in physical reality, making the confrontations feel more visceral—whether it’s the awkwardness of chambers or the rawness of Chris’s jail-cell despair.

    Answer:
    The May 7th date creates urgency: Barrie uses the time to prepare forensic evidence (blood spatter, DNA), while Jordan must file motions to suppress evidence. For Chris, the three-month wait amplifies his dread, as seen when he laughs hysterically at the timeline—a reaction Jordan mistakes for breakdown. The delay is a double-edged sword: it allows both sides to build their cases but prolongs Chris’s uncertainty. The date also symbolizes the looming confrontation, with Jordan’s “see you in court” remark signaling his rejection of the plea and commitment to trial.

    Note