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 One: Transition — Kennedy 5

    by

    Picoult, Jodi

    The chap­ter opens with Kennedy, the pro­tag­o­nist, falling ill with the stom­ach flu on her sixth wed­ding anniver­sary, humor­ous­ly blam­ing her hus­band Mic­ah for trans­mit­ting it. Despite her deter­mi­na­tion to work, her phys­i­cal con­di­tion forces her to stay in bed, where Mic­ah cares for her with gin­ger ale and light­heart­ed ban­ter. Their play­ful dynam­ic is evi­dent as Kennedy reluc­tant­ly admits defeat and agrees to rest, though she still insists on hav­ing her brief­case near­by. This domes­tic scene under­scores their affec­tion­ate rela­tion­ship and Kennedy’s worka­holic ten­den­cies.

    While retriev­ing Kennedy’s brief­case, Mic­ah dis­cov­ers a lab report she had sub­poe­naed for a case involv­ing new­born screen­ing results. The report indi­cates an abnor­mal­i­ty in the blood work, which Mic­ah, an eye doc­tor, can­not inter­pret. Kennedy, intrigued by the poten­tial sig­nif­i­cance of this find­ing, asks Mic­ah to take her to a neona­tol­o­gist instead of cel­e­brat­ing their anniver­sary as planned. This moment hints at a piv­otal devel­op­ment in her legal case, shift­ing the focus from per­son­al life to pro­fes­sion­al stakes.

    The nar­ra­tive then tran­si­tions to Kennedy’s reflec­tions on the jury selec­tion process, empha­siz­ing the strate­gic elim­i­na­tion of biased jurors to ensure a fair tri­al. She acknowl­edges the inher­ent prej­u­dices peo­ple hold and her role in shap­ing the jury to favor her client, Ruth. Kennedy’s prag­mat­ic approach to the legal sys­tem is high­light­ed as she decides to enlist Howard, a junior lawyer, as cochair for the tri­al, despite his lack of expe­ri­ence, to strength­en her posi­tion dur­ing jury selec­tion.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with Kennedy secur­ing Howard’s involve­ment in the case, demon­strat­ing her strate­gic think­ing and will­ing­ness to adapt her plans for the tri­al. Her actions reveal a cal­cu­lat­ed effort to bal­ance the odds in her clien­t’s favor, even if it means rely­ing on less expe­ri­enced col­leagues. This sets the stage for the upcom­ing legal bat­tle, blend­ing per­son­al vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty with pro­fes­sion­al deter­mi­na­tion.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. How does Kennedy’s illness on her anniversary reveal key aspects of her relationship with Micah?

      Answer:
      The chapter reveals Kennedy and Micah’s relationship as both supportive and playful. Despite Kennedy’s frustration at getting sick, Micah cares for her with humor and practicality—bringing ginger ale instead of breakfast and carrying her to bed. Their banter (“You’re a prince”/“I’m trying really hard not to vomit on you”) shows mutual affection and inside jokes. Notably, Micah respects Kennedy’s work ethic by retrieving her briefcase, even as he insists she stay home. This dynamic underscores their balance of professional respect and personal tenderness, with Micah adapting their anniversary plans (dinner → consulting a neonatologist) to support her case.

      2. What strategic significance does the newborn screening report hold for Ruth Jefferson’s case?

      Answer:
      The lab report, initially overlooked by Kennedy, reveals abnormal blood work in Davis Bauer’s medical records. Micah’s observation of this detail (despite being an ophthalmologist) highlights its potential importance. The abnormality could challenge the prosecution’s narrative of negligence by suggesting an underlying medical cause for the infant’s death. Kennedy’s immediate pivot to consult a neonatologist—even on her anniversary—signals this evidence may become a linchpin in reframing the case. The document’s presence also critiques Kennedy’s earlier oversight, emphasizing how thoroughness in reviewing medical data could alter legal outcomes.

      Answer:
      Kennedy openly admits that jury selection is less about “peers” and more about manipulating biases to favor her client. She describes eliminating extremes (e.g., those who “see dead people” or distrust the legal system) and tailoring selections based on case specifics (e.g., avoiding veterans for draft dodgers). This reveals the systemic contradiction between idealized “impartial justice” and the reality of calculated prejudice management. Her plan to add Howard—a Black junior attorney—as cochair further shows her leveraging racial dynamics pre-trial while avoiding explicit “race cards.” The passage critiques how legal outcomes hinge on strategic exclusion rather than pure objectivity.

      4. Why does Kennedy choose Howard as cochair, and what does this decision reveal about her professional judgment?

      Answer:
      Kennedy selects Howard precisely because he’s a novice (Harry calls him “the kid who still brings his lunchbox”) and Black—qualities she downplays to Harry by framing him as mere “extra hands.” Her choice is tactical: Howard’s presence may subtly influence jury perceptions during voir dire without overtly racializing the defense. This demonstrates Kennedy’s shrewdness in navigating systemic biases while maintaining plausible deniability. By advocating for Howard’s involvement under the guise of mentorship, she also reveals her ability to manipulate office politics to serve her case, balancing ethical lines between opportunism and advocacy.

    Quotes

    • 1. “When we say, in America, that you have a right to be tried by a jury of your peers, we’re not exactly telling the truth.”

      This quote introduces a critical examination of the American jury selection process, revealing how systemic biases and strategic exclusions shape trials. It sets up the chapter’s exploration of legal manipulation in the defense’s favor.

      2. “Everyone has prejudices. It’s my job to make sure that they work in favor of the person I’m representing.”

      A candid admission from the protagonist about leveraging juror biases, this highlights the ethical tightrope walked by defense attorneys. It underscores the chapter’s theme of strategic jury selection overriding idealized notions of impartial justice.

      3. “So although I would never play the race card once the trial starts—as I’ve spent months explaining to Ruth—I’m damn well going to stack the odds before it begins.”

      This reveals the protagonist’s contradictory approach to racial dynamics in the legal system, advocating for covert racial strategy while maintaining surface-level colorblindness. It marks a pivotal moment in the chapter’s examination of systemic racism in courtrooms.

      4. “I march into my boss’s office and tell him I was wrong. ‘I’m feeling a little overwhelmed after all… I was thinking I might need a cochair.’”

      This strategic retreat shows the protagonist’s calculated maneuvering to strengthen her defense team, specifically by adding a Black co-counsel. The quote demonstrates how professional decisions become legal tactics in high-stakes cases.

    Quotes

    1. “When we say, in America, that you have a right to be tried by a jury of your peers, we’re not exactly telling the truth.”

    This quote introduces a critical examination of the American jury selection process, revealing how systemic biases and strategic exclusions shape trials. It sets up the chapter’s exploration of legal manipulation in the defense’s favor.

    2. “Everyone has prejudices. It’s my job to make sure that they work in favor of the person I’m representing.”

    A candid admission from the protagonist about leveraging juror biases, this highlights the ethical tightrope walked by defense attorneys. It underscores the chapter’s theme of strategic jury selection overriding idealized notions of impartial justice.

    3. “So although I would never play the race card once the trial starts—as I’ve spent months explaining to Ruth—I’m damn well going to stack the odds before it begins.”

    This reveals the protagonist’s contradictory approach to racial dynamics in the legal system, advocating for covert racial strategy while maintaining surface-level colorblindness. It marks a pivotal moment in the chapter’s examination of systemic racism in courtrooms.

    4. “I march into my boss’s office and tell him I was wrong. ‘I’m feeling a little overwhelmed after all… I was thinking I might need a cochair.’”

    This strategic retreat shows the protagonist’s calculated maneuvering to strengthen her defense team, specifically by adding a Black co-counsel. The quote demonstrates how professional decisions become legal tactics in high-stakes cases.

    FAQs

    1. How does Kennedy’s illness on her anniversary reveal key aspects of her relationship with Micah?

    Answer:
    The chapter reveals Kennedy and Micah’s relationship as both supportive and playful. Despite Kennedy’s frustration at getting sick, Micah cares for her with humor and practicality—bringing ginger ale instead of breakfast and carrying her to bed. Their banter (“You’re a prince”/“I’m trying really hard not to vomit on you”) shows mutual affection and inside jokes. Notably, Micah respects Kennedy’s work ethic by retrieving her briefcase, even as he insists she stay home. This dynamic underscores their balance of professional respect and personal tenderness, with Micah adapting their anniversary plans (dinner → consulting a neonatologist) to support her case.

    2. What strategic significance does the newborn screening report hold for Ruth Jefferson’s case?

    Answer:
    The lab report, initially overlooked by Kennedy, reveals abnormal blood work in Davis Bauer’s medical records. Micah’s observation of this detail (despite being an ophthalmologist) highlights its potential importance. The abnormality could challenge the prosecution’s narrative of negligence by suggesting an underlying medical cause for the infant’s death. Kennedy’s immediate pivot to consult a neonatologist—even on her anniversary—signals this evidence may become a linchpin in reframing the case. The document’s presence also critiques Kennedy’s earlier oversight, emphasizing how thoroughness in reviewing medical data could alter legal outcomes.

    Answer:
    Kennedy openly admits that jury selection is less about “peers” and more about manipulating biases to favor her client. She describes eliminating extremes (e.g., those who “see dead people” or distrust the legal system) and tailoring selections based on case specifics (e.g., avoiding veterans for draft dodgers). This reveals the systemic contradiction between idealized “impartial justice” and the reality of calculated prejudice management. Her plan to add Howard—a Black junior attorney—as cochair further shows her leveraging racial dynamics pre-trial while avoiding explicit “race cards.” The passage critiques how legal outcomes hinge on strategic exclusion rather than pure objectivity.

    4. Why does Kennedy choose Howard as cochair, and what does this decision reveal about her professional judgment?

    Answer:
    Kennedy selects Howard precisely because he’s a novice (Harry calls him “the kid who still brings his lunchbox”) and Black—qualities she downplays to Harry by framing him as mere “extra hands.” Her choice is tactical: Howard’s presence may subtly influence jury perceptions during voir dire without overtly racializing the defense. This demonstrates Kennedy’s shrewdness in navigating systemic biases while maintaining plausible deniability. By advocating for Howard’s involvement under the guise of mentorship, she also reveals her ability to manipulate office politics to serve her case, balancing ethical lines between opportunism and advocacy.

    Note