It's a frustrating movie because all in all it is competently made, but the fact that the main character keeps acting like a complete moron who seems to want to get caught most of the time definitely brings it down.

Unfortunately I can't start a new thread for Juror 2 so if it's okay I'll post here.

Juror 2 has a big plot hole.

During the trial it's established Kendall Carter was killed by a blunt instrument. The head injury was consistent with that of a blunt instrument. The prosecution claim James Michael Sythe deliberately drove his car along the road, found and killed Carter with a blunt instrument and then threw her off the road into the stream below.

The plot continues and jury consider the possibility it was a hit and run.

But......

The autopsy (when Carter arrived at the morgue) and forensic examination at the scene of the murder would have revealed particles of the car on Carter's body and/or clothes. That would have proven a car hit her. That means the cause of death was by a car or the alternative scenario would be a blunt instrument used then she was hit by a car. But the cause of death report had to have mentioned residue from the car - be it metal or plastic or fibreglass etc - was on Carter's body or clothes. But it wasn't and that's a big ish plot hole.

It's impossible to be hit by a solid and not have that solid leave some trace on you. For example: if you were hit over the head by a wine bottle, fragments of the glass would rest in your hair (if you're not bald), on your scalp, in your scalp and very likely on your clothes. The same is true if hit by a car. The bodywork of the car, the iron/plastic/fibreglass particles would be on Kendall Carter's clothes and body. The autopsy should have concluded: cause of death - fatal collision with a vehicle.

@fan_of_films said:

Unfortunately I can't start a new thread for Juror 2 so if it's okay I'll post here.

Juror 2 has a big plot hole.

During the trial it's established Kendall Carter was killed by a blunt instrument. The head injury was consistent with that of a blunt instrument. The prosecution claim James Michael Sythe deliberately drove his car along the road, found and killed Carter with a blunt instrument and then threw her off the road into the stream below.

The plot continues and jury consider the possibility it was a hit and run.

But......

The autopsy (when Carter arrived at the morgue) and forensic examination at the scene of the murder would have revealed particles of the car on Carter's body and/or clothes. That would have proven a car hit her. That means the cause of death was by a car or the alternative scenario would be a blunt instrument used then she was hit by a car. But the cause of death report had to have mentioned residue from the car - be it metal or plastic or fibreglass etc - was on Carter's body or clothes. But it wasn't and that's a big ish plot hole.

It's impossible to be hit by a solid and not have that solid leave some trace on you. For example: if you were hit over the head by a wine bottle, fragments of the glass would rest in your hair (if you're not bald), on your scalp, in your scalp and very likely on your clothes. The same is true if hit by a car. The bodywork of the car, the iron/plastic/fibreglass particles would be on Kendall Carter's clothes and body. The autopsy should have concluded: cause of death - fatal collision with a vehicle.

they said pathologist was overworked and probably didn't pay much attention to autopsy with five autopsies that day (if I remember correctly), so I wouldn't call this exactly a plot hole that autopsy result is contradicting the reality

I can't remember the information regarding the pathologist overworked, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention! Anyway, given the impact/high speed of ths car hitting Carter, it's reasonable to assume particles of the car's bodywork would have been on her head, body and clothing. It's impossible for no car debris to be on the victim's body. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

If the pathologist failed to see such particles on the victim then the pathologist was incompetent or overworked so I guess that is a plot contrivance to explain why the evidence presented in court didn't state probable cause of death was collision with a vehicle.