72 pages • 2 hours read
A Time For Mercy
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Truth Versus Justice
One of the novel’s core themes is the relationship between truth and justice. One element of this relationship is the idea of fairness regarding criminal prosecution and its subsequent trial. For example, fairness is at the heart of Jake’s internal conflict over defending Drew. Jake knows his peers will judge him for defending a cop killer, yet he believes everyone deserves a fair trial and that his “job was to fight for his client, regardless of how unpopular the cause” (590). Jake believes this more firmly as the trial progresses and knows it’s his responsibility to fight for Drew’s rights. Another example stems from Drew being unquestionably responsible for Stuart’s death. Despite his guilt, some characters and jurors feel the death penalty is unfair and that a lighter sentence is more fitting. Fighting for a lesser punishment is an uphill battle in the eye-for-an-eye culture typically portrayed of rural Mississippi, but it shows how difficult defining justice can be in the face of a complex situation. Lastly, Portia questions Jake several times, wondering if what Jake’s doing is fair for maintaining objectivity. For example, Portia challenges keeping Kiera’s pregnancy secret to gain sympathy from the jury. She also questions when jurors aren’t entirely transparent about their experience, which might make them biased and impartial. These issues again demonstrate the struggle between truth and justice, making clear that justice is made up of the individuals who decide it.
Another element of this theme is manipulating the truth to pursue a favorable verdict. For example, Jake consciously scripts and guides Josie’s and Kiera’s testimonies before being questioned at the trial. He coaches them on what to say, what to wear, how to act, and how to answer Jake’s questions and any questions Lowell might ask on cross-examination. He even plants a trap by having Kiera hold onto her written notes about each time Stuart raped her, hoping that Lowell would look at it and allow Jake to sneak it into evidence for the jury to see. This action feels unethical, however, but doesn’t affect the truth behind Kiera’s statements. Instead, it helps the jury see the truth in a way that favors Jake’s side. Some readers might feel that Jake’s preparing and scripting Josie’s and Kiera’s testimonies is deceptive, despite the truth in everything the two witnesses say. However, as Jake tells a friend, “It was a fair fight, Dell. Lowell Dyer got out-lawyered and the facts fell [his] way. And the boy’s still in jail. […] I didn’t change a single fact” (590). Moral dilemmas like this force readers to put themselves in the jury box and question what they would do if they had to deliver a verdict.
Another example of manipulating truth is when Judge Atlee suggests that Jake move the Smallwood case to chancery court, where Atlee will ensure a favorable settlement for Jake. This situation feels more unethical and calls into question whether the crossing lights were working on the night the Smallwood family died. By Atlee moving the case into a more favorable courtroom where he can rule based on his friendship with Jake, Atlee can potentially manipulate the truth to get the desired verdict. Judge Noose does something similar regarding Jake’s pay from the county. The county statute dictates that Jake can only earn $1000 from the county for defending Drew on a case he was assigned to and didn’t want. Noose understands Jake’s dire financial situation, made worse by his work on Drew’s defense. Thus, Noose advises Jake to keep track of his hours, submit them to the county, sue the county when it refuses to compensate Jake, and then Noose will intentionally rule in Jake’s favor. While this situation is like what Atlee does for the Smallwood case, there’s no denying that Jake deserves proper compensation for his time. Thus, Noose doesn’t manipulate the truth, he simply favors Jake’s situation over the law that limits his income despite his best efforts to defend his client.
Finally, this theme forces readers to question the relationship between a character’s actions and the context of those actions. Neither side of the Gamble case argues against the fact that Drew pulled the trigger and killed Stuart Kofer. However, Jake proves Drew did so out of self-defense and protection of his sister. Jake makes this case by having Josie and Kiera testify using the vivid description of Stuart’s violence and sexual assault. By doing so, Jake convinces the jury that Drew’s circumstances supersede his crime; if Drew weren’t in such a dangerous and violent situation, he wouldn’t have killed Stuart. However, despite Jake’s best efforts to prove that Drew was justified, the jurors and other characters still struggle to sympathize with Drew and feel he murdered a police officer. Just as some members of this rural community are teetotalers regarding alcohol, others are adamant that once Drew pulled the trigger, he was guilty of murder regardless of circumstances. Readers must likewise decide if Drew was justified based on his living situation. Like the characters, some readers might feel Drew is innocent of capital murder because of his violent homelife, whereas others will view Drew as a killer, regardless of circumstances. In this way, John Grisham connects his readers to the characters and forces both to question the role truth and justice play in the novel.
Influence of Small-Town Culture
Another theme is the Influence of Small-Town Culture, and gossip plays one of the most significant roles in how this culture affects Jake’s work. When the novel begins, Jake is strongly influenced by what the town says and thinks about him defending Drew. Image matters to him a great deal, but in addition to that, the townsfolk won’t hire a lawyer they don’t believe in, which could cost his family their livelihood. Jake’s preoccupation with what his peers think causes him to be timid in his defense. The townspeople also think they know what Jake will do in Drew’s defense based on his previous work with Carl Lee Hailey, whom the jury acquitted in A Time to Kill through an insanity defense. Deputy Tatum tells Jake, “Folks think you’ll get him off like you did Carl Lee, by sayin’ he’s insane” (147). Because the townspeople think they know what Jake will do, they become more insistent about stopping Jake from getting Drew out of prison, which puts Jake and his family not only in financial peril but also in bodily peril.
Likewise, Carla becomes concerned with her family’s safety after their experience with the Hailey trial and the threatening phone calls about Drew’s case. Unfortunately, this family is becoming familiar with the downside of living in a small town where everyone knows—or thinks they know—what’s happening in other people’s lives. The gossip continues as Drew’s indictment becomes official. When Jake is at the Clanton courthouse on other business, numerous people crowd the courthouse because “half the county knew for a fact that the kid who killed Stuart Kofer would appear in court for the first time, and for good measure the rumor was soon amended to include the irresistible fact that he would probably be released!” (124). Drew will not appear in court, but this example shows that the citizens believe in the gossip enough to try and catch a glimpse of the killer. The gossip grows wilder and livelier with each retelling, and Jake manipulates the town’s assumptions: He makes it look like he will plead insanity and then doesn’t, and he hides Kiera’s pregnancy, only to reveal it at the most opportune moment.
Small-town culture also affects the characters’ behavior and loyalty. For example, Jake is friends with many of Ozzie’s deputies and often helps them with small legal matters. The officers respect him and value his advice and opinion. As Jake progresses in Drew’s defense, their attitude changes. When he goes into the jail to visit Drew, he notices a marked difference in the officers’ behavior toward him. Likewise, when Jake and Carla drive home from a dinner party, one of Ozzie’s deputies pulls Jake over for a vague reason. Readers might question if the officer pulled him over to flex his authority and remind Jake of his loyalty to his department and fallen comrade. Another example of a character changing his behavior is Jake moving his money out of the bank in Clanton. Lucien tells Jake:
You settle a nice case, rake in a nice fee, and someone will see a big deposit at the bank. People talk, especially around here. You have a few bad months and your accounts get low, and too many people know it. I’ve advised you to bank out of town (413).
The fact that people know enough about others to make judgments but not enough to give others the benefit of the doubt makes justice difficult, as most people have made up their minds about a person’s guilt or innocence based on all of the outlying factors they’ve already heard, rather than the facts of the case. Jake banks in Clanton because that’s where he gets his loans approved, showing that Jake is just as much part of the town fabric as everyone else, dependent on the kindness and whims of his brethren. In time, however, Jake takes Lucien’s advice and moves his money into a bank outside Clanton. He no longer wants people in town to know his financial situation on top of the other gossip circulating about him.
A final way small-town culture influences the characters in the novel stems from how community members support their friends and associates. For example, when Jake returns home from the hospital after his attack, many citizens check on him, hoping to get the latest news on his condition and the attackers. Although these people support him, they mostly do so to get more gossip and appear caring. For this reason, Jake doesn’t want to see or talk to anyone except his closest associates. Likewise, many people attend Stuart Kofer’s funeral. Some are there because they care about the family, but others attend because “funerals were open to the public, and tragic deaths always attracted the curious who had little else to do and wanted to get close to the story” (165). The funeral’s also popular because Stuart was a police officer, which is more publicized in a small town. Lastly, spectators crowd Drew’s trial for reasons like Jake’s recovery and Stuart’s funeral. Some attendees—such as the Kofer family—attend to watch the process and ensure Drew is brought to justice. Others simply want to see a murderer and watch the drama play out in the courtroom.
Loyalty and Justice
A final theme in the novel is whether loyalty brings one closer to or further from justice. Some of the strongest examples of loyalty relate to Stuart Kofer’s friends, coworkers, and family members. His father, Earl, never allows what he hears about his son to affect his opinion or his belief that the jury should find Drew guilty and sentence him to death. Even when Earl sees Kiera’s pregnant belly and hears her say under oath that Stuart is the father, Earl adamantly insists Kiera is lying, as is everyone else who says a negative word against his son. Likewise, Stuart’s brother Cecil is so loyal to his family that he’s willing to risk prison by assaulting Jake in retribution for defending Drew. He and Earl deny involvement in the attack, illustrating that they’ll go to any lengths to protect each other and stand up for their deceased loved one. Several of Stuart’s coworkers also remain loyal to him, even though they know he was drinking heavily and engaging in violent, aggressive behavior. For example, a cousin of Carl Lee’s wife knows Stuart was going to bars and intentionally starting fights, but he refuses to say anything out of loyalty to a fellow officer. What’s worse, several deputies know Stuart was hitting Josie, yet they didn’t respond or say anything to Ozzie out of loyalty to Stuart. They hid behind the fact that Josie never pressed charges against Stuart and the missing incident reports documenting Josie’s 911 calls. Readers are left wondering whether those loyal to Stuart are just as culpable for his murder as Drew because they didn’t intervene earlier.
The characters’ loyalty to Jake is more complicated and divided. For example, the deputies who are friends with Jake stop talking to him when he visits Drew in jail. Jake quickly notices this change in attitude but isn’t bothered by it. Likewise, Jake and the deputies used to enjoy breakfast together throughout the week, but this changes, too:
[The deputies] were boycotting him now. When it became apparent that Jake had no plans to alter his ritual, they went elsewhere, which was fine with Jake. He did not enjoy the forced pleasantries, the strained looks, the feeling that things were not the same. They had lost a comrade, and Jake was now on the other side (198).
By doing his job and defending Drew to the best of his ability, he lost the loyalty of his former friends. Jake does not blame the deputies for remaining loyal to Stuart, but he doesn’t allow this loyalty to affect Drew’s defense. Jake’s defense team is staunchly loyal to him, never doubting his ability to prove Drew’s innocence. Some community members admire Jake for his work and how he refuses to press charges against Cecil after the attack. These characters are unnamed, and Jake only hears about them from Dell when he goes to the coffee shop for updates on the town gossip. Still, Jake knows he has friends on his side, despite being charged with the difficult task of Drew’s defense. Loyalty is challenged in tough times like those depicted in the novel, but truth and justice prevail despite the townsfolk choosing sides.
Unlock all 72 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By John Grisham
