When Harvey goes to see the jury foreman to ask about Mike's verdict, the foreman tells Harvey that Mike was going to be found not guilty even though he states that everyone in the room knew Mike didn't go to law school.

He then goes on to say that the reason he was going to be found not guilty is because the prosecutor, Anita Gibbs, didn't make her case.

What did he mean by this, as I felt she did a very good job making her case, and why was Mike going to be found not guilty despite the irrefutable evidence that he didn't go to law school? Was Mike's last speech that powerful that it led to the juries' sympathy?

  • 1
    I get what you're asking - the Jury knows Mike is guilty from the beginning, but there is one Jury member who inspite of knowing Mike is guilty, vouches for Mike right from the beginning - he says "That woman didn't make her case --." (anita gibbs played rotten a lot of times) That jury member believed that true justice would be to find Ross not guilty as hes excellent and true at what he does (its a lot of things right from the beginning that convinced the guy &jury) He convinces the jury - "One by one, I put that jury on my back and we did the right thing." - short space so much to write :D
    – Anu7
    Jan 10, 2019 at 5:22
  • @Anu7 so that man convinced the jury because he believed in Mike's story?
    – Steve
    Jan 10, 2019 at 18:36
  • @anu7 I've suggested an edit to this that hopefully makes it clearer. If so I suggest you post your comment as an answer. Jan 10, 2019 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Steve - No he knows very very clearly that Mike hasnt gone to law school. The Jury member didn't like how the system worked. If they look at it plainly, Mike IS GUILTY. Gibbs played dirty through out the case acting out in vendetta against Harvey and not out of love for law which was quite visible, and though according to the system Mike was wrong, to the jury member, here more than the system Mikes reasons were compelling. More like do the right thing not the easy thing.
    – Anu7
    Jan 11, 2019 at 4:32
  • 1
    Hey @Steve, I see my edits to your question have been rejected. That's a shame because I think you have a good question here and it just needs a little tweaking to make it clearer and get it taken off-hold. If you want to do the edits yourself then I'd certainly suggest going for it, getting it off-hold will mean it can be answered properly. Jan 11, 2019 at 9:27

1 Answer 1


Mike did not go to law school and there was irrefutable evidence on that. But still, Anita Gibbs had to make her case. Her case stemmed mostly from her personal vendetta against Harvey and she just used the Mike situation to get back at him. Every jury member except one found him guilty but only one managed to look beyond the veil. He believed in true justice and realised Mike did the right thing even if it was not the easy thing. Hence pronounced him innocent.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .