The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Week 12 - Part Four, Book XII

1) This week, we are spectators at Dmitri's trial. What did you think of the various witnesses' testimony? Did anything jump out at you?

2) Did you think the prosecution was effective? What about the defense?

3) In the end, Dmitri was found guilty. Was this a surprise to you?

1) I thought all the witnesses gave weak testimonies, but of course, this is fiction after all!

2) I didn’t think much of the prosecutors speech either. Conversely, I thought the defence was much better, but the jury are supposed to reach a verdict based on the evidence, so I was at a loss to understand why the defence were appealing for clemency as this would be obviously predjudioial to the verdict. Either this is pure fiction or at that time the Russian legal process must’ve been so much different from ours in the west

3) to be honest, I still don’t believe that Dimitri killed his father. I haven’t read the epilogue yet so I’ve still got an open mind.

1) The witnesses were not very effective either way, except for the startling change of testimony by Katerina Ivanova. Certainly Ivan's indisposition, which kept him from testifying about Smerdyakov's admisstion of guilt, kept the jury from hearing full evidence (not they would have probably believed it, coming from a brother of the accused). The opinions of the doctors made me realize how little was really understood about medicine at that time and glad to live in a modern world.
2) I thought the summations of both the prosecutor and the defense were quite good, although lengthy. In fact, the defense attorney's summation gave me a little hope that Mitya would be found not guilty.
3) As noted, I had some hope, but there was too much evidence against him, especially the letter revealed by Katya. Also, Mitya didn't help himself with his frequent outbursts which made him seem like a madman. In the end, it may have come down to the vote of the peasants who did not like him. They may have rendered a verdict against his reputation and rudeness rather than against the murder of his father.

I think we all want to think a trial is a straightforward account of an event in which the witnesses forthrightly testify about the true facts. I think most of them are what we see here: we think some people are more credible than others, a good reputation is the most valuable thing you can bring into the courtroom. None of it was really surprising.