Ayn Rand's play "Night of January 16th" is a courtroom drama. A young woman, secretary and mistress of a famous, wealthy businessman, is accused of the murder of her employer, whilst trying to make it look like suicide. Although the question wether or not she is guilty is what is to be decided by the trial, the focus of the play is on the souls of the main characters: the businessman, his mistress, his wife, the wife's father and a few others.
The conclusion of the play is the verdict by the jury. The main gimmick of the play is that the members of the jury are drawn from the audience, and so the play can end in either a guilty or a not guilty verdict.
Like all of Ayn Rand's works, the play opposes individualists and originators against second-handers. As the preface states, the idea was that the jury should not decide on the grounds of the evidence, since that could go either way, but wether they would feel more drawn towards the character of the mistress (the individualist) than of the wife (the second-hander), or vice versa.
As it stands, I don't think Rand succeeded. If this would happen in a real court, the story presented in defense of the mistress would be considered preposterous, and she should be either pronounced guilty on the basis of the facts, or not guilty because there is not enough evidence. Wether or not her character appeals to the jury shouldn't matter for the verdict, and I don't think it matters in the play.
The conclusion of one of Ayn Rand's masterpieces, "The Fountainhead", is also a courtroom scene. In this scene, the jury is effectively asked to choose in favor of or against the soul of the protagonist, since the nature of his soul and the way society treats such a soul is his only defense. Something like that is what Ayn Rand probably meant but failed to do with "The Night of January 16th".
However, it is certainly a captivating story with a few surprises, and I would very much like to see it performed. Of Ayn Rand's works it is probably the least interesting.
