Question about the plot to Suspect (1987).

SPOILER

I was wondering after watching the movie, why the Dennis Quaid character, a juror got so involved in the case that he was willing to risk tainting the whole case, and even risk his life and career as a result?

Why did he have such extra motivation, compared to the average juror, unless I missed something?

I am going to piggyback my own movie question that has been bugging me.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, the Harrison Ford character in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and I believe several other subsequent films, is a teacher who gets so involved in securing artifacts for his university's museum that he resorts to grave robbing, international politics, and defacto espionage, even taking up arms against the German Nazi party some five years before our country declared war against them.

The man is a tenured professor, why engage in such outrageous adventures? Unless I missed something?

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Yeah, for all of these questions, ask yourself: could the answer to my question be "so the movie exists"? If so, there's no question to ask. These aren't documentaries.

Movies are supposed to be about the unusual or exceptional thing/person/event. We don't bother to tell stories otherwise. So "wouldn't a normal person do X instead of Y?" doesn't really apply, at least when you're asking it about the founding premise of the story. Sure, ask it about situations where a character because strangely within the premise, but to question the premise of a story is to question the act of storytelling itself.

I am fairly certain I have said something to this effect in another one of these (mostly interchangeable) question threads.