Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992

Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992

by

Anna Deavere Smith

Teachers and parents! Our Teacher Edition on Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 makes teaching easy.

Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992: Indelible Substance Summary & Analysis

Summary
Analysis
Smith interviews Josie Morales, a clerk-typist and uncalled witness in Rodney King’s first trial, which was held in Simi Valley. At the time of the Rodney King beating, Morales lived in Apartment A6, next door to George Holliday, the man who recorded the incident. She remembers watching as around a dozen officers surrounded King, hitting him with sticks and kicking him. Morales’s husband tried to get her to go inside, but she insisted and staying and watching, because what the officers were doing was wrong and there needed to be witnesses. Morales was scheduled to testify and was disappointed when she wasn’t called, since she had a lot to say about the incident.
Due to publicity generated by Holliday’s video recording, King’s trial was moved to Simi Valley in neighboring Ventura County. Morales’s insistence on watching King’s beating fulfills practical and ethical purposes. On the practical side, she could be called to court as a witness and needs to be prepared. From an ethical perspective, Morales believes she has a moral obligation to bear witness to the injustice of King’s assault. Essentially, Morales watches King’s beating because she believes it will validate his experience and avoid dehumanizing him further. 
Themes
Police Brutality, Corruption, and Systemic Racism  Theme Icon
Healing, Progress, and Collective Consciousness  Theme Icon
Justice, Perspective, and Ambiguity  Theme Icon
Individuals vs. Institutions Theme Icon
Quotes
During the trial, Morales kept in touch with Terry White, the prosecutor, who told her he’d call her when he needed her to testify. However, White eventually informed Morales that he no longer needed her, since her account contradicted that of Melanie Singer, another witness. Afterward, Morales sent White a letter to warn him that if he didn’t call residents to testify, the officers would be acquitted. Morales believes White firmly believed Holliday’s video would be enough to convict the officers. 
It's unclear how the other witness’s account contradicted Morales’s, or why Morales’s account was deemed the weaker testimony. After the jury announced their verdicts, prosecution posited that the defense’s strategy of presenting the jury with continuous exposure to the video desensitized jurors to the violence and adversely affected their decision. Whatever the case, no officers were convicted of assault or excessive use-of-force. 
Themes
Police Brutality, Corruption, and Systemic Racism  Theme Icon
Justice, Perspective, and Ambiguity  Theme Icon
Individuals vs. Institutions Theme Icon
Morales remembers telling a coworker about a dream she had where the officers were acquitted. The coworker told her not to worry—there was no way the men wouldn’t be convicted. She describes dreams as “made of some kind of indelible substance” as she considers how the events of her dream “came to pass.”
Morales’s observation about dreams being “made of some kind of indelible substance” reflects her guilt for how her absence may have contributed to the jury’s failure to convict the officers. She feels obligated to advocate on King’s behalf as a fellow person and witness to his traumatic attack. The term “indelible” refers to something that cannot be removed or destroyed. For Morales to describe her dream that came true as “indelible” reflects her remorse and regret at the way her absence from the trial led to the not guilty verdicts, which, in turn, incited the deadly riots.  
Themes
Police Brutality, Corruption, and Systemic Racism  Theme Icon
Healing, Progress, and Collective Consciousness  Theme Icon
Justice, Perspective, and Ambiguity  Theme Icon
Individuals vs. Institutions Theme Icon