Davis  is respectful of his fellow jurors, but doesn’t allow their opinions to sway him from his insistence that a young man on trial for murdering his father is innocent. He doesn’t believe in sending a boy to his death when there is reasonable doubt, and argues that they did not prove the case against him. He ignores the “facts” (much to the annoyance of an ESTJ 8 on the panel) and poses logical alternate possibilities that call into question the judgment of the witnesses. He asks them to bring up the facts and then, in each instance, refutes it with a combination of logical evidence and poses an opposite perspective. The woman across the street “saw” the boy murder his father? Can you see through the windows of an L-train as it is passing? The old man downstairs “heard” shouting and then a thump, and then saw the boy downstairs? Have you ever lived by an L-train? Do you know how loud it is? How could he “hear” anything? He had a limp. Let’s test out how long it would take for him to get from his bedroom to the door, open it, and see someone. Did he merely hear footsteps run past and assume it was the boy instead? Why would the boy snap? His dad has hit him a thousand times. Think about where he comes from, the life he’s had, why would he do this? Doesn’t he deserve a fair trial? David continues asking questions, picking apart the other people’s facts and observations, and convincing them to switch their votes through analysis. He insists throughout that he has no agenda here except justice, that he could be wrong (but also that “I stood alone… and now five of you agree with me”), there is no way to know the truth about something like this, but no boy should go to the electric chair unless they are positive of his guilt. He meticulously combs through the evidence and refutes it all, going over the minor details of the case and only becoming angry when others refuse to take the matter as seriously as he deems it to be (“a boy is on trial here for his life!”). Davis is aware of the various prejudices driving others to cling to their opinions in the face of evidence that proves them wrong, and points them out to them (he wonders aloud what “personal reason” a man has to hold to his views, and then calls him a “sadist” because he wants to see the boy die). He remains pleasant and emotionally detached throughout, even when other people get upset with him, but at one point offers to change his vote if people really want to go home (and winds up persuading them to his point of view regardless).

Enneagram: 1w9 sp/so

Davis is determined to do the right thing and give this man fair trial. He becomes angry when others ignore the harsh consequences of their process—it offends him that they care more about playing games than about a boy’s life. He accuses another man of being a bigot, and says that’s no way to run a murder trial, that personal biases can get in the way of being objective. He calls one man a sadist, because he seems to have a “personal crusade” against this boy, but is surprisingly tolerant and forgiving toward his fellow jurors, even when a few of them insult him to his face. At the end of the day, he goes pleasantly about his business once more, satisfied that he did the right thing. He is a pleasant man and often unruffled, who doesn’t want to cause trouble but stubbornly sticks to his guns, because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. He has no real opinion other than a notion of the boy being innocent, and even that he isn’t sure of, because he could be arguing the wrong side of the case. He is never fully present to his own arguments and somewhat undercuts them by insisting there is no truth here, and it’s possible he’s wrong, but keeps at it until satisfied that he has given the boy a fair trial. For the most part, he doesn’t push anyone else to join his crusade, just allows the evidence to speak for him.