Jubilee Conference
6-7 December 2010
MW24: Twelve Angry Men
Presented by Jan May
Terms and Definitions useful for studying a play
Antagonist - the person or force that is in conflict with, or opposes, the
protagonist. Example: Nurse Ratched opposes McMurphy throughout One
Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Characterization - the methods, incidents, speech, etc., an author uses to reveal
the people in the book. Characterization is depicted by what the person says,
what others say, and by his or her actions.
Climax - the point of greatest dramatic tension or excitement in a story.
Examples: Othello’s murder of Desdemona. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the
person chasing Scout is killed.
Dialogue - conversation between two or more characters
Drama – plays intended to be acted; performances of plays - Example: Arthur
Miller’s All My Sons
Motivation - the reasons behind a character’s actions - Example: Huckleberry
Finn travels down the Mississippi River in order to escape the Widow Douglas,
who wants to “sivililize” him.
Plot - the pattern of events in a literary work; what happens
Protagonist - the central or main character in a story around whom the plot
centers. Examples: Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter; David Copperfield in
David Copperfield
Stage Directions - the information given for the reader to visualize the setting,
position of props, etc., in a play Stage directions may give additional impressions
of the characters through short descriptions and through what they do.
Examples: “Exit”; “She reads from the newspaper.”
Stereotyping - the act of putting people into groups based on race, religion,
nationality, physical appearance, social class, or some other easily identifiable
characteristic Example: In The Last of the Mohicans, Magua and Uncas are
the stereotypical ideals of evil and good Indians, respectively.
Legal Terms
Prosecutor—the district attorney who tries to prove the guilt of the defendant
Defense Counsel—the lawyer who represents the defendant and tries to prove innocence
Verdict—the final decision made by the jury
Foreman—a juror chosen to lead a jury and deliver the verdict to the judge
Convict—to find the defendant guilty of the crime
Acquit—to find the defendant innocent
Reasonable Doubt—This is the element in law that states that if some uncertainty
exists, a juror must vote to acquit. Because jurors were not there to see the crime, they cannot
be one hundred percent certain who is guilty; however, even without being certain, they may
vote to convict if they believe the defendant committed the crime. If they have a real question in
their minds as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence, this is “reasonable doubt,” and they should
vote to acquit.
Innocent until proven guilty—a fundamental principal of law that means the state must prove
guilt; the suspect does not have to prove innocence
The Fifth Amendment—a fundamental principle of law which states that a person cannot be
forced to testify against him or herself in a court of law
Double Jeopardy—a fundamental principle of law that states that a person cannot be tried twice
for the same crime; this means that if a defendant is acquitted, that person cannot be tried
again for the same crime, even if evidence arises that proves that person’s guilt
Cross-examine—to question a witness by the opposing counsel
Deliberate—to consider or discuss carefully
Premeditated—planned or plotted in advance
Homicide—the killing of one person by another
Hung Jury—lack of agreement among jurors when instructed that a unanimous decision is
required; a hung jury would require a retrial.
JUROR VOTING ORDER AND REASONS CHART: TWELVE ANGRY MEN
JUROR "IDENTITY"
ORDER HE
REASONS/OTHER
DECIDES TO VOTE INFORMATION
"NOT GUILTY"
1
The Foreman
9
2
The Bank Clerk
5
3
The Father
12
4
The Stockbroker
10* [tie]
5
The Kid from the Slums
3
6
The Working Man
6
7
The Salesman
7
8
The Architect
1
9
The Old Man
2
10
The Bigot
10* [tie]
11
The
Immigrant/Watchmaker
4
12
The Ad Man
8
JUROR "IDENTITY" ORDER HE DECIDES TO VOTE REASONS/OTHER
"NOT GUILTY"
INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Juror Chart: Twelve Angry Men
Juror 1
Juror 2
Juror 3
Juror 4
Juror 5
Juror 6
Juror 7
Juror 8
Juror 9
Juror 10
Juror 11
Juror 12
Arguments in favour of
“Guilty”
MOTIVE
KNIFE
WITNESS: WOMAN
ACROSS THE
STREET
WITNESS: MAN WHO
LIVED ON THE
SECOND FLOOR
ALIBI
STAB WOUND
Arguments in favour of
“Not Guilty”
TESTIMONY OF
PSYCHIATRIST
INDIVIDUAL JUROR ANALYSIS EXERCISE: TWELVE ANGRY MEN
Stage Directions Activity: Twelve Angry Men
Literary analysis: Layers of artifice in Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose
by Kathleen Gilligan
In the play, "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose, "Reginald Rose deliberately and carefully
peels away the layers of artifice from the men and allows a fuller picture of them and of America,
at its best and worst to form." The previous quote is quite true and in fact sums up "Twelve Angry
Men" in the perfect way.
By "layers of artifice", the speaker means the outer layers of the jury. It means they were stripped
bare of their views and prejudices, in order to see and question the truth. Every person is layered
(Even ogres!-Sorry a little Shrek humor there!), and many find it hard to show their true selves.
Whether it is because of the fear of rejection and ridicule, or for any other reason, there is often a
layer of bravado used for protection. Then there are the layers that are thrust upon us. These can
be from growing up in a certain area, and being exposed to a certain environment, person, or
group of people. In this case, "layers of artifice" can be, and is, all of these things.
The fuller picture that is formed by these jurors can be taken one of two ways. In one way you can
see that most of these men seemed to have no problem accepting what they were told and found
no reason to question it. If this is the case, then the fuller picture of these jurors is that they are a
sorry bunch of individuals. It raises the question, do you believe everything you read on the
internet, or see on television? The other way they can be seen is as a group of people who set
aside their prejudices and vices in order to question the truth and accept that what they were told
may not have been correct. In this case, the fuller picture of the jurors is that they are just and
reasonable men who may have been fooled at the beginning, but were able to overcome their
obstacles and come to a just decision.
As for the fuller picture that is formed of America in Reginald Rose's "Twelve Angry Men", in my
opinion, is that we are always ready to believe the worst in others. Most of the jury were inclined to
believe that the young man had killed his father. For that matter, America is an impatient bunch, as
demonstrated by the juror who had baseball tickets. Whether or not we'll change in the future
remains to be seen. We can only hope that one day Americans won't be in such a rush all the
time, and will have a chance to stop and smell the roses once in awhile, if you know what I mean.
And maybe, just maybe, by taking time out of our busy lives to consider all the facts, we'll end up
doing the right thing.
Act 1 Activity:
Examining Justifications
Objective: Examining character motivation
In Act 1, many of the jurors reveal their justifications for their initial belief in the
accused’s guilt. Some of these justifications are based on factual evidence stated
during the course of the trial; others are clearly the result of peer influence or a
simple apathy towards spending the time to discuss the issue.
Activity
For each of the jurors listed below, list the justification each provides in believing the
defendant to be guilty of the killing. Then, in groups, decide whether each
justification is sufficient to base a “guilty” verdict upon. One example has been done
for you.
Foreman: Shows his predisposition toward defendant’s guilt with his story about his
uncle’s friend, who served on the jury of a similar trial. INSUFFICIENT.
Juror ONE: Says that no one proved the defendant to be innocent; therefore he
must be guilty.
Juror THREE: Cites the neighbour’s testimony about hearing the son threaten the
father, calling the police, and finding the body.
Juror FOUR: Says that the boy must be guilty because he cannot remember the
name of the movie he saw.
Juror FIVE: Passes on giving his opinion, but comments that the boy did not have a
ticket stub (implies his belief in his guilt).
Juror SIX: Was convinced by the testimony of across-the-hall neighbours
.
Juror SEVEN: Was convinced by the defendant’s less-than-sterling record.
Juror TEN: Was convinced by the testimony of the woman across the street.
Juror TWELVE: Also convinced by the testimony of the woman across the street.
Note to Teacher: Some jurors’ reasons for their votes are unstated, so their numbers
have not been included.
Student beliefs in whether the pieces of evidence are, individually, “sufficient” or
“insufficient” is not the main thrust of this activity. Student responses will vary, but
there should be the understanding that these justifications are insufficient by
themselves in determining guilt. Together, they might prove guilt beyond the
“reasonable doubt” standard, but individually, none are sufficient to sustain a guilty
verdict.
CRITICISM
Bryan Aubrey
Aubrey holds a PhD in English and has published many articles on twentieth-century literature. In
this essay, he discusses the play in the context of jury behavior, the unreliability of eyewitness
testimony, and the inadequacy of defense counsel in many capital cases in the United States.
There must be many playgoers or moviegoers who come away from a performance or showing of
Twelve Angry Men filled with images of themselves acting as the heroic Juror Eight. They, too,
when their time came, would be calm and rational in the jury room and motivated only by a desire
for justice, and they would gradually, through their integrity and persistence, persuade the other
eleven jurors to adopt their viewpoint. It is, of course, natural for the audience to identify with the
hero, but people may not realize that this aspect of Twelve Angry Men, in which one juror
persuades eleven others to change their positions, is fiction, not reality. The truth is that in real life,
no one would be able to act out the admirable role of Henry Fonda (or Jack Lemmon, who played
Juror Eight in the 1997 remake of the movie).
The dynamics of group behavior simply do not work that way. In the 1950s, a study of 255 trials by
the Chicago Jury Project turned up no examples of such an occurrence. The study, in which
microphones were placed in the jury room to record deliberations, found that 30 percent of cases
were decided, either for conviction or acquittal, on the first ballot. In 95 percent of cases, the
majority on the first ballot persuaded the minority to their point of view. In other words, the way a
jury first casts its vote preferences is the best predictor of the final verdict. This conclusion has
been confirmed by much research in jury behavior over the past half-century. So if Twelve Angry
Men had been true to life, the defendant would almost certainly have been convicted. In group
situations such as jury deliberations, there is simply too much pressure on a lone individual to
conform to the view of the majority. The Chicago Jury Project showed that in the 5 percent of
cases in which the original minority prevailed, there were always three or four jurors who held their
minority views from the start of deliberations. (The results of the Chicago Jury Project are reported
in "Twelve Angry Men Presents an Idealized View of the Jury System," by David Burnell Smith.)
In cases where one juror persists in maintaining his or her view against the majority, the result will
be a hung jury, although research on juries suggests that hung juries are more common when
there is a sizable minority rather than a minority of one. There is also a body of opinion within the
legal profession that indicates that in cases where a lone juror opposes the majority, the holdout is
unlikely to resemble Juror Eight in Twelve Angry Men, who is devoted to justice and acts with
integrity. In fact, such a juror is more likely to be the opposite, a stubborn and antisocial person
who, for some reason, feels driven to oppose the majority, sticking to his or her opinion when there
is no evidence to support it. In a review of the play in the Michigan Law Review, Phoebe C.
Ellsworth summarizes this view:
The juror who opposes the majority is seen as essentially unreasonable…. The majority jurors, on
the other hand, are seen as reasonable, willing to spend time sifting through the issues and
listening carefully to the arguments of the minority even if the initial verdict is 11-1 and they have
enough votes to declare a verdict.
If this aspect of Twelve Angry Men is more fiction than truth, the play does raise other issues that
are as relevant for the criminal justice system today as they were in the 1950s. The most important
of them is the nature of eyewitness testimony. At first, the jurors in Twelve Angry Men, with one
exception, accept the eyewitness testimony at the trial at face value. This testimony is crucial to
the case for the prosecution, and the jurors do not think to question the old man's claim that he
saw the murdered man's son fleeing or the testimony of the woman across the street, who said
that she actually saw the murder being committed. The jurors repeatedly refer to this testimony as
the "facts" of the case, and near the end of the play, Juror Four even says that the woman's
account of what she saw is "unshakable testimony." Juror Three adds, "That's the whole case."
The jurors in the play are conforming to what most people, when called to jury duty, believe—that
eyewitness testimony is extremely reliable. The truth is rather different. Many studies have shown
that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, with an accuracy rate of only about 50 percent.
Some experiments have shown even lower percentages for accurate identification, such as the
41.8 percent reported in Brian Cutler and Stephen Penrod's Mistaken Identification: The
Eyewitness, Psychology, and the Law.
It seems that despite what people believe, humans do not have a good ability to identify people
they may have seen for only a few seconds. Eyewitnesses have been shown to be especially poor
at making interracial identification (in the film, a white man and a white woman identify a Hispanic
individual). Research has also shown that people in stressful situations have less reliability of
recall than those in non-stressful situations. Obviously, witnessing a murder is almost by definition
a stressful situation. In addition, people find it harder to recall information about a violent event
than about a nonviolent one.
Many experts believe that mistaken identity based on eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of
wrongful convictions in the United States. In her book Eyewitness Testimony, Elizabeth F. Loftus
discusses the issue in depth. She analyzes the famous and controversial Sacco and Vanzetti case
in the 1920s, in which two men, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were convicted and
executed for murder. It appears that eyewitnesses initially failed to identify either man as the
perpetrator of the crime but later testified that they were certain of their identifications. (Loftus
raises the possibility that they were improperly influenced by repeated questioning.) The jurors
believed the eyewitnesses, despite plausible alibis presented by both defendants establishing that
they were elsewhere at the time of the murder.
Loftus describes another case in which eyewitness testimony against the accused was accepted
by a jury, even when evidence pointing to the man's innocence far outweighed it. (The conviction
was later reversed.) Loftus also discusses an experiment in which subjects were asked to play the
role of jurors trying a criminal case. When eyewitness testimony was included in the experiment,
establishing that someone saw the murder, the percentage of the fifty jurors voting for conviction
rose from 18 percent to 72 percent. Then a variation in the case was introduced that has some
relevance for Twelve Angry Men. The defense established that the witness had not been wearing
his glasses on the day of the crime and had very poor vision. Therefore he could not have seen
the robber's face. Even with this variation, 68 percent of jurors still voted for conviction. In Twelve
Angry Men, it is a juror's realization that an eyewitness who wears glasses could not have been
wearing them at the time she witnessed the crime that is the decisive factor in swinging the final
three jurors to a vote of not guilty.
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dfs_0000_0023_0/dfs_0000_0023_0_00025.html
This website gives you a summary, character analyses and so on.
TEXT RESPONSE TOPICS
 How does Twelve Angry Men show that prejudice can obscure the truth?
 ‘Justice and fairness can prevail over intolerance and prejudice if one fair and
just person is willing to speak out.’ Do you agree?
 What does the play show us about group behaviour?
 ‘Twelve Angry Men explores the role of individual influence in group settings.’
Discuss.

‘Reginald Rose vindicates rather than destroys our belief in the jury system as
a means of securing justice.’ Do you agree?
 ‘The defendant in Twelve Angry Men is the dominant character in the play even
though he plays no active part.’ Do you agree?
 Does it matter that the audience remains ignorant of the defendant’s guilt or
innocence at the end of the play?
 ‘We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why
we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing’. Discuss.
 How does the playwright use the jurors to show the conflict between right and
wrong?
 ‘I mean, did you ever hear so much talk about nothing?’ Twelve Angry Men
shows the importance of talking and listening in the jury room. Discuss.
 Juror 11 says: ‘Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who
present them’. Is he right?
 ‘You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that’. How important is
evidence in Twelve Angry Men?
 ‘The setting of the play enhances the tension among the men.’ Do you agree?
 How does Twelve Angry Men explore the democratic process?
 ‘Twelve Angry Men shows the importance of asking questions.’ Discuss.
 The Judge tells the jurors it is their ‘duty to try and separate the facts from the
fancy’. How do the jurors separate the facts from the fancy?
TWELVE ANGRY MEN: JUROR ANALYSIS NOTES
Juror No
Personal
Background
Assistant Head
Football coach at
Andrew J.
McCorkle High
School in Queens
53
Other info
Quotes
Tries to do the right thing
Tries to keep calm.
Gets angry at Juror 10 (page 19) tells him to be foreman.
Brings up psychiatrist 58
Changes vote to Not Guilty page 63
“Slowly, almost embarrassed, he raises his own hand.” 63
Finally speaks again on 69 to say he saw marks on woman’s nose
as well.
“I’m not going to have any rules” 10
“You know, tell us what he thinks – we could show him where he’s
probably mixed up.” 14
“He described all those tests, inkblots and all that stuff, and he said
the kid is definitely a killer type.” 58
(J12 tells him it was “paranoid tendencies”
“Listen, I saw ‘em, too. He’s right. I was the closest one to her…” 69
“We have a verdict” 73
2
Not interested in
baseball
Coughdrops
Nervous
Son has mumps
50
Nervous of Juror 3
(He looks around helplessly) 14
Wants everyone to have their say in order (20) Shut down by
Juror 3
Finds “interesting” that knife the same. Shut down by Juror 3
again.
Tells Juror 3 to “take it easy” (27) after secret ballot.
Remembers he yelled at man at bank (discussion about using “I’m
going to kill you” 37
Votes Not Guilty 50
Asks to see J8’s knife 59
Ponders downward angle of stab wound.
“I thought it was obvious from the word go.” 14
“I know they did, but I don’t go along with it…” 60
“Look out!” 60
“You can’t send someone off to die on evidence like that.” 71
3
Runs a
messenger
service ‘Beck and
Call Company’
Married
Employs 37
people, started
with nothing
1 child who is 20
Hasn’t seen son
for 2 years. Fight
with son.
“loud, heavyset”
J6
Quick to anger.
Believes case obvious;
Harsh views on tough kids
Makes assumptions on appearance
Can be patronizing
Likes to talk facts. Has kept notes. Believes old man heard
murder.
Assumptions about kids nowadays. Used to call father ‘sir’
Ashamed when his son ran away from fight aged 9
Embarrassed when talks about son.
Pats Juror 5 on shoulder when he gets angry at Juror 10
Raises switch knife issue (20)
Sarcasm “that fine upright boy” (21)
Can’t see point of them seeing knife again.
Shouts “And I’m saying it’s not possible” to Juror 8’s theory on
knife.
Struggles to understand Juror 8’s point about knife.
“Did you ever hear so much talk about nothing?” 7
“The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” 11
“Would you like me to list them for you?” 11
“Look, I’m as sentimental as the next guy.” 15
“Who do you think you are to start cross-examining us?”
“You come in here and vote guilty like everybody else, and then this
golden-voiced preacher over here starts to tear your heart out with
stories….” 27
“Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the
way he said it, they mean it.” 37
“Well, look at it, Mr. Reasonable Doubt.” 42 (J9 reminds him that it’s
not the knife)
“And I want to stop wasting time.” 43
“He’s an old man….Half the time he was confused. How could he be
positive about anything?” 43.
“You come in here with your sanctimonious talk about slum kids and
Foreman
Still thinks boy has lied (24)
Accused Juror 8 of being the “kid’s lawyer”
Accuses Juror 5 of voting NG in secret ballot.
During break, tries to apologise to J5. 29
Raises issue of old man downstairs. Window open. Hot night.
Starts to play tic-tac-toe 33 with J12. J8 snatches it from them.
Refuses to believe J8 theory on train. Believes old man. “That’s
enough for me.”
Accuses J8 of making the others believe things that “aren’t so” 37
Anger at J11 changing vote 41 wants him to explain why.
Anger at J8 on page 47. Lunges at him.
Stares bitterly at J8 when realizes implications of his words.
Tries to talk to J4 in washroom about J8 baiting him.
Doesn’t agree with J10 suggestion of hung jury 54
Demonstrate downward stab with flick knife. Only stops close to
J8’s chest 60 (tension)
Calls for another vote 67
Wants a hung jury 67. J5 reminds him of his earlier words. “You
thought it was immoral to – “ 67
Fury at change by Juror 4
Tries to defend his guilty vote by posing questions, defeating his
own argument.
injustice…Well, you’re not getting through to me. I’ve had
enough….He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers
here.” 47
“Shut up, you son of a bitch!” 47
“Let go of me, God damn it. I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” 48
END OF ACT 1
“Well, what are you staring at?” 49
“Listen, I’m a very excitable person…He was just trying to bait me.”
53
“I’m a certain type person, I get moved by this. But let me tell you,
I’m sincere.” 53
“You took an oath in the courtroom. You can’t just quit.” 54
“I don’t anymore. There are people in here who are so goddamned
stubborn that you can’t even..I say we’re a hung jury.” 67
“I don’t care whether I’m alone or not. It’s my right.” 71
“You lousy bunch of bleeding hearts. You’re not goin’ to intimidate
me. I’m entitled to my opinion. I can sit in this goddamn room for a
year.” 72
“Somebody say something.” 72 The others watch silently
“It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re
like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, don’t
you see? How come I’m the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that
knife goin’ in.” 72
There’s a long pause.
“All right. “Not Guilty” 72
4
Interested in stock
market
Is a broker
Doesn’t sweat;
keeps tie and
jacket on. 50
Suggests preliminary vote
Thinks boy’s story flimsy; couldn’t remember film he saw
Thinks beatings a motive
Says kids background not part of case.
Defends right of Juror 8 to see knife
Goes through facts one at a time (21/22)
Brings in own bias where divergence in story of boy and State
(22)
Says Juror 8 asking them “to accept a pretty incredible
coincidence” that someone else stabbed father with similar knife
Knows against law to buy switchblade knife.
Thinks boy lied to Juror 8 (25)
Tries to intervene between Juror 3 and 5 (27)
Interested in motive as well. 31
Tells J3 and J10 that can make others change minds back by
using logic. 54
Discomfort when he can’t remember film details. 57 (mops his
“Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. I know it. So do
you…Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to
society.” 18
“This is the charming and imaginative little fable the boy invented.”
(22)
“There’s no reason why they can’t be persuaded to do it again…..Just
by using logic.” 54
“We’ve heard enough. Sit down. And don’t open your filthy mouth
again.” 66
“She saw him do it – the wrong way.” 66
“As far as I can see, this is unshakeable testimony.” 67
“No, I don’t. No one wears eyeglasses to bed.” 70
“I now have a reasonable doubt.” 71
“Let him live.” 72
sweating forehead)
Finds overhand stab persuasive. But believes woman across
street. So does J3. 66. Also she said boy raised plunged knife
down.
Suggests a time limit at 6.15pm 68
He closes his eyes and clasps his fingers over the marks left by
his spectacles at the sides of his nose. He rubs these areas as he
speaks. 68
Juror 9 notices him doing this.
Remember marks on woman 70
Changes to Not Guilty 71 after eyesight issue
5
Nurses at Harlem
hospital
Lives in ‘slum’
Didn’t know jury gets locked in
Speaks for first time about case on p16
Defends those who live in slums
Provoked to anger by Juror 10’s comments.
Reminds Juror 3 he brought up issue of knife.
“I’m not sure” (25) to Juror 8s question about whether boy lied.
Nervous
Angry with Juror 3 for accusing him of voting NG in secret ballot.
Ignores J3 attempt at apology
Starting to wonder 35
Changes vote to Not Guilty 37
Questions way knife is used 61. Has seen them used in fights.
Shows them correct way to use knife. 61
Slams door to washroom when J10 claims boy from a ‘different’
type of people. 64.
“I’ll pass it.” 16
“I’ve lived in a slum all my life.” 18
“Maybe it still smells on me.” 18
“There is something personal.” 18
“I don’t think he could have heard it.” 35
“Witnesses can make mistakes.” 40
“Hold it a second…Did the old man say he ran to the door?” 42
“You still don’t think there’s any room for reasonable doubt?” 55 (to
J7)
“You mean you’re calling him arrogant because he wasn’t born here?
Well, I’m calling you arrogant because you were.” 55 (to J7)
“I hate these things. I grew up with them.”
Switch knives came with the neighbourhood where I lived. Funny, I
wasn’t thinking of it. I guess you try to forget those things.” 61
6
House painter
Gazes out window
Seeks motive. Believes testimony from neighbours powerful about
argument. Juror gets time wrong.
Tells J8 that J3 embarrassing way talking about kid. 29
Trying to lobby J8
Doesn’t like “supposing”
Asks after break who else had a motive.
Painted a house next to el track. It was noisy.
Starting to wonder 35
Doesn’t like way J3 talks to J9
Threatens him, touches him.
Wants to what J9 thinks about old man witness 36
Asks for another vote 50
Changes vote to Not Guilty 51
“I mean, I was convinced from the first day.” 11
“What a murderous day.” 29 (pun)
“He’s guilty for sure. There’s not a doubt in the whole world.” 30 to J8
“…but I’m bettin’ you’ve never been wronger in your llife.” 30
“Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his
father?” 30
“Who else had the motive?” 30
“A guy who talks like that to an old man oughta really get stepped on
y’know.” 35
7
Chews gum
Cynical about process
“You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” 12
Complains about
weather
Has tickets to ball
game
Marmalade
salesman
Frustration at Juror 8
Agrees with Juror 3
Thinks kid’s record enough.
Refuses to change mind on basis of knife bought by juror 8.
Makes joke that irritates Juror 2
Slams door of washroom after J9 changes vote.
Boasts made $27000 previous year.
Angry at J5’s change of vote 37. Convinced of all the facts. Thinks
kid’s lawyer knew he didn’t stand a chance. 38
Wants hung jury too 55
Shows prejudice towards J11
Changes vote to Not Guilty page 62
8
Has 2 children
Architect
Only one to
initially vote NG
Wants to know
the truth
Wants to present
all the facts to the
other jurors
Believes in
humanity, reason
and justice
Gazes out window
Votes not guilty in first vote
Sees 16yo as young
Says reason for voting NG not easy to send boy off to die without
talking about it first.
Suggests they talk for an hour.
Irritated at Juror 10’s jokes.
Recognizes terrible life of defendant.
Gently pulls Juror 9 down when he gets angry at Juror 10
Reminds others that burden of proof on prosecution.
Questions prejudices of Juror 10
Doesn’t think there is strong motive. Boy used to violence.
Got a peculiar feeling that everything about trial sounded so
positive. Wanted to ask questions.
Felt defense counsel not doing his job.
Worried by little things.
Feels some evidence circumstantial.
Wants to see the knife.
Reminds of difference between ‘punch’ and ‘hit’
Thinks it possible someone stabbed father with similar knife.
Shows rest of jury the knife he has bought; looks the same (23)
Has raised “possibility”
Had wanted to ask question in court about why boy showed knife
to friends.
Asks Juror 10 if he thinks boy lied.
Proposes vote by written secret ballot. If still 11 men for guilty,
he’ll agree. 26 He watches as others write on paper from window.
Now 2 jurors voting NG.
Realize he is tormented by problem stated by J6 on p30. “He
What are ya getting out of it – kicks? The boy is guilty, pal. So let’s go
home before we get sore throats.” 29 (to J8)
“How do you like him? It’s like talking into a dead phone” 32 about J8
“Ran, walked. What’s the difference?” 42
“How d’ya like this guy? I’m tellin’ ya they’re all alike. He comes over
this country running for his life and before he can even take a big
breath he’s telling us how to run the show.” 55 (about J11)
“Because I’ll knock his goddamn Middle European head off.” 56.
“All this yakkin’s getting’ us nowhere so I’m going to break it up here.
I’m changing my vote to “not guilty”” 62
“You heard me. I’ve had enough.”
“I – don’t think he’s guilty.” (disgusted look from J11)
“I just want to talk.” 12
“Suppose we’re wrong.” 12
“I thing we owe him a few words” 13
“Through the windows of a passing elevated train.” 15
“How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t
she?” 16
“It’s a motive for him to be an angry kid.” 17
“I mean, nothing is that positive. I had questions I would have liked to
ask.” 19
“He let too many things go. Little things.” 20
“I kept putting myself in the boy’s place. I would have asked for
another lawyer.” 20
“alleged” “claims”
“Supposing they were wrong?” 20
“They’re only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?”
20
“That’s right. I broke the law.” 23
“If the boy bought the knife to use on his father, how come he
showed what was going to be the murder weapon to three friends of
his just a couple of hours before the killing?” 24
“He can’t hear you. He never will.” (about J7) 28
“It’s not easy to identify a shouting voice.” 32
“I don’t know. It doesn’t sound right to me.”
“This isn’t a game.” 33
“therefore, the el train had been roaring by the old man’s window for
a full ten seconds before the body fell” 35.
“It’s not possible that he could have heard it.” 35
“Well, I think that testimony that could put a human being into the
electric chair should be that accurate.” 35
“sometimes…sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are
9
Older
Proud of 20-20
vision
At first doesn’t
think he has much
to offer.
Observant
Sensible
Shows respect for
Juror 8
This allows
does not know, and never will.” 30
Tells J6 that they aren’t concerned with motive.
Ponders that father “not a model citizen”, been in prison, gambler,
fistfights, “tough, cruel, primitive kind of man”, couldn’t hold jobs.
Thinks others may have motives too.
Thinks old man may have not heard boy’s voice clearly.
“ambitious district attorney putting on a show” 32
Snatches tic-tac-toe from J3 & J12
Wants to know speed of el train. 33
Asks whether any of them has lived next to el
tracks.
Says he did once. Unbearable noise when window open. 34
Sets up scenario of the 2 witnesses and the el train.
Questions the way the phrase “I’m going to kill you” is used. 37
Questions commitment of lawyer. 38.
Calls for another vote 41.
Asks to see plans of apartments. 42 J5 does too. Realize old man
had stroke, dragged leg. Said he got to door in 15 seconds. (J3
remembers it as 20 secs)
Takes jurors through map/reenactment of man’s walk.
Feels sorry for J3’s desire to see boy executed. 47
Brings them all back to issue of boy at theater 56
Asks J4 what he saw at movies on Monday night 57
Asks for another vote 63
He reminds them all of why ‘reasonable doubt’ concept exists.
Wants three who still vote guilty to explain why 66.
Tells J3 he wants to go over it again. 67
Remembers marks on woman’s nose as well 69
Tells J3 to give his arguments for guilty now it’s 11 votes to 1. 72
Helps J3 on with his jacket at the end. Notices knife still stuck in
table.
wrong!” 38
“Maybe all those things are so. But maybe they’re not. I think there’s
enough doubt to make us wonder whether he was there at all during
the time the murder took place.” 40
“Ever since we walked into this room you’ve been behaving like a
self-appointed public avenger.” 47
“You’re a sadist” 47
“I’d like to ask you a personal question….Where were you last night?”
57
“It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And
no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.” 66
“We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty man to the
community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable
doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our
system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.” 66
“Did you ever see a woman who had to wear glasses and didn’t want
to because she thinks they spoil her looks?” 70
“I only know that the woman’s eyesight is in question now.” 71
“It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.” 72
Slower to put hand up for first vote (guilty)
Calls Juror 10 ignorant
Starting to doubt on page 25 after discussion about knife.
Admits he voted NG in secret ballot (27)
Admires J8 for “standing alone”.
Says others have ridiculed him. Will give J8 his support. Thinks
boy probably guilty but wants to hear more. 28
Notices torn jacket of old man and hypothesizes that he may have
just wanted attention. 35
Brings up argument that someone could make themselves believe
what they wanted to.
The 9th JUROR looks closely at the 4th JUROR and obviously has
“It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man.” 13
“It’s only one night. A boy may die.” 25
“He didn’t change his vote. I did. Would you like me to tell you why?”
27
“He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty. He just isn’t sure.” 28
“I think I know him better than anyone here.” 36
“I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it. The facts
are supposed to determine the case.” 51
“Being accused of murder isn’t necessarily supposed to give him an
infallible memory.” 58
“Do you know you’re a sick man?” 65 (to J10)
10
11
deliberations to
continue.
He is the one who
raises issues with
old man witness.
Has a cold
thought of something tremendously exciting. 68
Notices deep impressions left by eyeglasses
Remembers woman had made effort to look younger – heavy
makeup, dyed hair, new clothes, no eyeglasses.
“Now why were you rubbing your nose?” 68 (to J4)
“Could those marks be made by anything other than eyeglasses?” 70
Laughs at own jokes
Sides with Juror 7 at first
Tries to tell joke about woman
Appeals to others for help when Juror 9 calls him ignorant
Believes woman across street who remembers time of murder
and knows boy
Becomes angry at Juror 8; gets out of his seat.
Thinks kids from slums are “trash”
Blames Juror 8 for keeping them there. Tells Foreman he’s a ‘kid’.
Reaction to Juror 8’s knife; “Who do you think you are?” 23
Tells Juror 8 the boy lied (25)
Wants to get back to his garages; thinks evidence of woman
enough
Doesn’t want to listen to Juror 9s reasons for changing vote.
Thinks J8 account of father “load of crap” 31
Frustration at J8 40
Thinks witness evidence is irrefutable.
Wants to tell judge a hung jury. 54
Still believes boy guilty 58
Assumption that all psychiatrists are “crazy” 58
Contradicts himself on page 59
Angry at J12 and Foreman who change votes 64
His prejudice against certain groups of society obvious. Offends
J5 and J11. 64. Long speech railing against minorities.
Assumptions. Generalizations. Prejudices.
Tirade continues. Jurors 8, 11, 5, 4, 9, 12, 6, 2, move away or try
to stop him speaking.Note who doesn’t speak up. (Foreman, 3, 7)
Changes vote to Not Guilty page 71
“He’s lucky he got it. Know what I mean?” 13
“You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” 13
“All right, who was it? Come on. I want to know.” 26
“He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.”
37
“What you want to believe, you believe, and what you don’t want to
believe, you don’t” 40
“I’m telling you, some of you people in here are out of your minds. A
kid like that.” 51
“Those six bastards in there aren’t going to change their minds.” 54
“I think we should just quit.” 54
“Look, let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie. Now, it’s the way
they are and no intelligent man is gonna tell me otherwise. They don’t
know what truth is….They are different. They think different. They act
different.” 64
“Oh, they’re very big drinkers” 64
“Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us.” 64
“They don’t care. Family don’t mean anything to them. They breed
like animals…” 64
“Oh sure, there are some good things about ‘em. Look, I’m the first
one to say that. I’ve known some who were OK, but that’s the
exception.” 64
“These people are multiplying…..And they are – wild animals. They’re
against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us.” 65
“This boy, this boy on trial here. We’ve got him. That’s one at least. I
say get him before his kind gets us.” 65
“Not guilty.” Do whatever you want.” 71
German accent
Watchmaker
Polite
Sympathizes with Juror 5 being offended by Juror 10, probably
because of his German background
Still thinks an incredible coincidence for another person to stab
with same kind of knife.
Remembers knife very important to district attorney. 25
Reminds Juror 10 it was a secret ballot.
Thinks in America a man entitled to have “unpopular opinions”
Has made notes and wants a say 38. Thinks J8 making good
points. Why did boy come back to house? Why did he leave knife
there? 39 Reminds J3 and J4 fingerprints had been wiped off
“This sensitivity I understand” 18
“Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who
present them.” 36
“He doesn’t even speak good English.” 37
“My question is, if he really had killed his father, why would he come
back three hours later?” 39
“I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I am simply
asking questions.” 39
“Pardon. I vote “not guilty.” 41
“I don’t have to defend my decision to you. I have a reasonable doubt
Immigrant
Admires
American
democracy
Proud to be on
jury
12
Wants others to
take their
responsibility
seriously
Rational
Sensible
He is one who
raises questions
about
psychiatrist’s
contribution.
knife.
Says boy would have heard woman’s witness scream.
Changes vote to NG 41.
Reminds jury that all of them are capable of committing murder
but few do. He doesn’t think much of psychiatric testing.
Wants J7 to explain why he changes his vote. 63. Forces J7 to
explain why.
Likes doodling on
notepad
Works ad agency
– Rice Pops.
Writes jingles.
Glad they scored murder trial
Impressed by prosecuting attorney’s logic
Likes analyzing. Doodling but is listening and thinking
Tries to keep the peace between foreman and Juror 10
Assumes witnesses are telling truth as they take oath.
Takes Juror 8’s point that he needs to “know so”.
in my mind.” 41
“This is not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility. This, I
have always thought, is a remarkable thing about democracy.” 50
“We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the
reasons we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing.” 50
“We impose controls upon ourselves to prevent it.” 59
“Perhaps we would find that if we twelve men took the same tests,
one or two of us might be discovered to have unconscious desires to
kill….” 59
“To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has
committed murder.” 59
“You have no right to play like this with a man’s life. This is a terrible
and ugly thing to do. Don’t you care…” 63
“What makes you consider this one vote a personal triumph?” 67
“Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.” 20
“I don’t know.” 62
Talks of phrases used to precede an idea (29)
Still convinced of boy’s guilt 36
Thinks boy would go back for the knife 39.
Confused after J5 demonstrates use of knife 62
Changes vote to Not Guilty page 63
Changes vote back to Guilty page 67
Annoyed at J3 for saying he “bounces backward and forward like
a tennis ball…” 68
Changes vote back to Not Guilty 71
After discussion about woman’s eyesight.
Defendan
t
Facts of
16 years old
Lives in slum, mother dead since 9yo, spent 1&1/2 years in orphanage while father in jail forgery.
Children’s Court at 10 for throwing rock at teacher
14 in reform school
Stole car
Arrest for mugging. Assault with knife.
Beaten by father since he was five
Admits leaving home at 8pm after being hit by father
Met 3 friends outside diner. Home 9.45. Left to movies at 11.30. Home 3.15am
Claims bought knife for friend as had broken his.
Clue that from ethnic background. He doesn’t speak good English.
Father found with knife in chest
case (not
under
dispute)
Death happened around midnight
Defendant went to movies and couldn’t remember film he saw
Elevator train passing at time with no passenger, lights out
8pm argument between boy and father heard by neighbours. Saw father hit boy twice and boy leave..
8.45 boy ran into 3 friends in front a diner. Talked to them for an hour and showed knife.
Boy couldn’t back up theater alibi
Leaves 9.45
Arrives home 10pm
Knife wiped clean of fingerprints
Elevated train had 6 carriages.
Evidence
Man who lived downstairs; said heard body fall and shouting. Said he got from his bed to door in 15 seconds.
Lady across el tracks who said saw murder through her window
No one saw defendant at theater
The knife with unusual carved handle
The storekeeper identified knife in court; said only one of kind he ever had in stock. (Juror 8 able to easily buy same knife 23)
Friends identify knife boy had shown them in court.
Divergence between State and defendant after 10pm. Boy claims at home till 11.30pm then movie. Returned home 3.15am to find father dead. Boy says lost
switch knife. No-one sees him at leave or at theater. Can’t remember name of films.
Guard brings in knife on page 22.
Friend testifies boy did break his knife 3 weeks before killing.
Boy questioned in room with father’s dead body