
The Pact
Chapter 20: NOW: May 1998 (2)
by Picoult, JodiThe chapter opens with a tense courtroom scene where Chris, the defendant, falls silent after his testimony, leaving the room in shock. Jordan, his attorney, realizes the only way to salvage the case is to aggressively cross-examine Chris before the prosecutor, Barrie Delaney, can dismantle his credibility. Jordan takes the stand and begins questioning Chris with brutal cynicism, forcing him to admit inconsistencies in his account of the night Emily was shot. Chris struggles to recall details, growing increasingly agitated as Jordan dismantles his narrative, culminating in Chris admitting he doesn’t know for certain whether he pulled the trigger.
Jordan’s strategy shifts as he subtly guides Chris to acknowledge the possibility that Emily’s actions may have contributed to the gun firing. By the end of the cross-examination, Chris is emotionally shattered but arrives at a moment of clarity, admitting he cannot definitively say he killed Emily. This pivotal admission undermines the prosecution’s case, leaving the courtroom stunned. However, Barrie Delaney seizes the opportunity to reaffirm Chris’s confession, pressing him on the undeniable facts: his hand was on the gun, his finger on the trigger, and a shot was fired.
During redirect, Jordan methodically reconstructs the events, emphasizing Chris’s lack of intent to kill Emily and the ambiguity surrounding who ultimately caused the gun to discharge. Chris reiterates that Emily’s hands were on the gun and that she urged him to act, casting doubt on his sole responsibility. The chapter closes with Jordan leaving the courtroom without acknowledging Chris, while Barrie celebrates her perceived victory, anticipating the case’s high-profile impact on her career.
The chapter masterfully captures the psychological and legal maneuvering of a trial, highlighting the fragility of truth under adversarial scrutiny. Chris’s emotional breakdown and Jordan’s ruthless tactics reveal the complexities of justice, where perception often outweighs certainty. Barrie’s confidence contrasts with the unresolved questions, leaving the reader to ponder the blurred lines between guilt and innocence. The scene sets the stage for the trial’s climax, where the jury must weigh conflicting narratives against the elusive nature of truth.
FAQs
1. What was Jordan’s strategy in aggressively questioning his own client, Chris, during the trial?
Answer:
Jordan employed a calculated strategy of preemptive prosecution, attacking his own client before the State could do so. By aggressively questioning Chris and highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony, Jordan aimed to dismantle the prosecution’s case in advance. This approach sought to create reasonable doubt by showing Chris’s confusion about key events (e.g., whether Emily’s hands were on the gun or his, or whether he consciously pulled the trigger). Ultimately, Jordan’s goal was to demonstrate that Chris couldn’t definitively know whether he fired the shot, thereby undermining the confession (e.g., “You don’t know for sure, Chris, that you killed Emily, do you?”).2. How does the chapter portray the psychological toll of the trial on Chris? Provide specific examples.
Answer:
The chapter vividly depicts Chris’s emotional breakdown under the pressure of cross-examination. Physically, he is described as “bent over on the witness stand, arms crossed over his stomach, his breathing uneven,” and later sobbing with a “nose running, his eyes raw and red.” Psychologically, he grows increasingly agitated, rocking in his chair and shouting defensively (e.g., “Because I do!”). The interrogation forces him to confront gaps in his memory, leaving him fragmented and desperate (“I don’t know, God, I don’t know”). His eventual admission of uncertainty—”No, I don’t”—reflects both his exhaustion and a fleeting sense of peace after months of turmoil.3. Analyze the significance of Emily’s repeated phrase, “Now, Chris, now,” and its impact on the case.
Answer:
Emily’s words—”Now, Chris, now”—serve as a critical piece of evidence suggesting her possible agency in the shooting. By repeating this phrase while placing her hands on Chris’s (or the gun), the chapter implies she may have coerced him into firing. Jordan leverages this ambiguity to argue that Chris’s actions weren’t deliberate, asking, “Can you say… that your actions… were the only things that caused that shot to be fired?” The phrase thus becomes central to the defense’s strategy, casting doubt on whether Chris alone was responsible for the trigger pull or if Emily’s influence played a role.4. How do Jordan and Barrie Delaney’s interrogation styles differ, and what does this reveal about their legal strategies?
Answer:
Jordan’s questioning is confrontational and designed to destabilize Chris’s certainty, using rapid-fire, repetitive queries (e.g., “How do you know?”) to expose memory gaps. His style is performative, aimed at the jury’s perception. In contrast, Barrie’s cross-examination is methodical and linear, focusing on indisputable facts (e.g., “Was your hand on the gun?”). Her approach reinforces Chris’s confession by simplifying the narrative, while Jordan complicates it to create doubt. Their styles reflect opposing goals: Barrie seeks to convict by emphasizing accountability, while Jordan seeks acquittal by muddying causation.5. Why does Judge Puckett’s insistence on summations after lunch, combined with Jordan’s cold dismissal of Chris, suggest about the case’s likely outcome?
Answer:
These details hint at unresolved tension and potential twists. Judge Puckett’s unusual timing implies urgency or a desire to conclude swiftly, possibly due to the trial’s volatility. Jordan’s refusal to engage with Chris (“Don’t talk to me”) could signal either frustration with Chris’s performance or a strategic pivot—perhaps he believes the jury is swayed and further interaction risks undermining their case. Together, these moments leave the outcome ambiguous, but they underscore the high stakes and emotional fractures in the courtroom, setting up a climactic verdict.
Quotes
1. “The witness stand can be a very lonely place.”
This quote captures the emotional isolation Chris experiences during his intense cross-examination. It reflects both the psychological weight of testifying and Jordan’s earlier warning about the vulnerability of being a witness.
2. “‘Because she was trying to make me pull the trigger!’ he shouted.”
This pivotal moment reveals Chris’s traumatic memory of the shooting and his belief that Emily was attempting suicide-by-proxy. The raw emotion here represents the chapter’s central conflict about responsibility and intent.
3. “You don’t know for sure, Chris, that you killed Emily, do you?”
Jordan’s crucial question introduces reasonable doubt by highlighting the uncertainty in Chris’s recollection. This legal strategy moment changes the trial’s direction and gives Chris emotional relief from absolute guilt.
4. “No,” Chris whispered, accepting this gift. “I don’t.”
This quiet admission represents Chris’s psychological breakthrough and the chapter’s emotional climax. The “gift” metaphor underscores how Jordan’s aggressive defense paradoxically becomes an act of mercy.
5. “Can you say, Chris—without a doubt—that your actions, your motions, your muscles, were the only things that caused that shot to be fired?”
Jordan’s masterful summation to the jury encapsulates the chapter’s core legal argument about shared responsibility. The physical language (“actions, motions, muscles”) makes the abstract question of guilt concrete.