Have you read The Shack? I haven't, though it obviously has powerful themes of redemption and forgiveness. What if your jurors have read The Shack, and you can't speak to them?
From Malcom Gladwell's Outliers is this:
Those three things—autonomy, complexity, and a connection between effort and reward—are, most people agree, the three qualities that work has to have if it is to be satisfying. It is not how much money we make that ultimately makes us happy between nine and five. It’s whether our work fulfills us.
Clearly people are looking for fulfilling work: Why else would anyone highlight this?
Does a juror have autonomy, complexity, and a connection between effort and reward? Could you give those three things to a jury? If so, how? What is the jury's reward for siding with your client? "Doing the right thing" has as much visceral appeal as a low-sodium saltines. What, then, is their reward?
Amazon.com lists the most-highlighted passages (via Tyler Cowen) on Kindle. Not everyone reads; and not everyone reads from a Kindle; and not everyone who reads from a Kindle highlights packages. It'd seem strange, though, if what people highlighted doesn't contain themes that resonate with the mass of men and women.
Long before this book was published, Clarence Darrow and Gerry Spence used this theme:
“The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time you take tea, you are an honored guest. The third time you share a cup of tea, you become family, and for our family, we are prepared to do anything, even die,” he said .... “Doctor Greg, you must make time to share three cups of tea."
In Darrow's closing argument in his own prosecution for bribery, he told the Los Angeles jurors, "I came into this city a stranger, but you've welcomed me as one of your own." Gerry Spence, in the Karen Silkwood case, declared that he had become an Oklahoman.
Have you had three cups of tea with your jury?