The Lemonade Crime

The Lemonade Crime is the sequel to Jacqueline Davies’s elementary school reader novel The Lemonade War. Published in 2011, this follow-up continues the story of entrepreneurial siblings Evan and Jessie, solving the mystery of the theft that ended the first novel. The key question of the novel is about the best way to right a wrongdoing: Is it through vengeance or justice? By setting the climax of The Lemonade Crime at a mock trial organized according to the US legal system, Davies explores the differences between evidence and intuition, fact and rumor, and the benefits and drawbacks of adversarial judicial processes.

Plot Summary

At the end of The Lemonade War, Evan and his sister, Jessie, had earned $208 from their competitive lemonade stand enterprise. However, the money disappeared after Evan went to a friend’s birthday swimming party and left the money in his shorts. The Lemonade Crime picks up a few days later as Evan and Jessie try to piece together what happened to the missing $208.

Their immediate suspect is Scott, the neighborhood bully. Not only was Scott acting suspiciously at the same birthday party where the money went missing, but he also shows up in school bragging about his brand new Xbox 20/20 video game system. Both Evan and Jessie have the same gut feeling about Scott’s guilt. Jessie decides to indict Scott, putting him on trial to determine his guilt or innocence via a jury of his peers—their fourth-grade classmates.

After serving Scott with an arrest warrant at recess, Jessie, explaining that the trial will take place after school on Friday, assigns roles to some of her classmates. David will be the judge, a few of the other party guests will be witnesses, and Jessie will be the prosecutor representing the plaintiff, Evan. With her level of preparation, it seems that Scott won’t fare well in the trial until Jessie’s best friend, Megan, steps in to be his defense lawyer.

As the trial proceeds, the novel explains the meanings of legal terms such as “due diligence,” “circumstantial evidence,” and so on. Witnesses from the party each give testimony about what they saw. The story the prosecution pieces together goes like this: On the day of the party, most of the boys had taken off their shorts upstairs in Jack’s house to put on swim trunks and were hanging out in the pool. In the middle of the party, Scott went upstairs to the bathroom and then came downstairs fully dressed and in a huge hurry to leave. This odd behavior appeared suspicious. Later, Evan discovered that the $208 was gone.

Although all of this seems to point to Scott as the perpetrator, no one actually saw him take the money. Instead, as Megan argues, the evidence is circumstantial and doesn’t prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Scott is found innocent, which is the correct legal result but one that leaves Jessie unhappy.

After the trial, Evan challenges Scott to a one-on-one basketball game. Fueled by anger and resentment, Evan wants to show up Scott on the court as a way of making him feel bad for the theft. Although Evan wins the game by a landslide, it is a hollow victory. Scott is hurt from being hit and elbowed by Evan and runs home.

Evan decides to go to Scott’s house the next day to apologize. Scott and Evan end up patching up some of their friendship and playing with Scott’s Xbox together. Scott’s father’s new TV is accidentally damaged when the boys are playing with a baseball, and Scott accidentally throws it into the TV, breaking it. Scott’s father is furious, and Evan reflects that Scott’s life isn’t as perfect as Evan had imagined. Evan sticks up for Scott when his father yells at him. Then, just as Evan is getting ready to leave, a shame-faced Scott retrieves the $208 and apologizes. Evan forgives Scott on the spot. Davies suggests that compassionate and open communication is a more successful way of resolving disagreements than adversarial accusations.