Jorge has worked for a shipping company for thirty years, receiving great reviews throughout his tenure. He is sixty-years-old when the company terminates him, replacing him with Martin, a twenty-nine-year-old. A few months before Jorge was fired, his boss commented that the company needed an infusion of young blood. Believing that the company discriminated against him on the basis of his age, Jorge brings a lawsuit. In its defense, the company files for “summary judgment.” It requests that the judge throw out Jorge's claim, asserting that it hired Martin to replace Jorge only to reduce labor costs, not because of Jorge's age. The judge dismisses the case, depriving Jorge of the chance to present his case to a jury.

Mary is accused of selling an ounce of crack cocaine. She wants a jury to hear her case. But her lawyer has advised her that if a jury convicts her, the statutory sentencing guidelines dictate a severe mandatory minimum sentence. Mary's sole chance of serving less time lies with the prosecutor. He can modify the charge to an offense that has a lower mandatory minimum, but will do so, only if Mary agrees to forgo a jury trial by taking a plea. Mary pleads guilty.

David is charged with insider trading after a grand jury indicts him. The judge gives the prosecutor and David, through his lawyer, the opportunity to select a fair jury, eliminating jurors who may be biased and excluding a certain number of jurors without giving any reasons. During the trial, the prosecutor presents evidence of insider trading, and David's lawyer sets forth proof that he did not commit the crime. The jury unanimously convicts David of insider trading, subjecting him to a prison sentence of ten years. Deciding there is insufficient evidence of insider trading, the judge acquits David, resulting in David going free.