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 Cuckoos 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: Othellos 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 Millers All My Sons Motivation - the reasons behind a characters 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
Prosecutorthe district attorney who tries to prove the guilt of the defendant Defense Counselthe lawyer who represents the defendant and tries to prove innocence Verdictthe final decision made by the jury Foremana juror chosen to lead a jury and deliver the verdict to the judge Convictto find the defendant guilty of the crime Acquitto find the defendant innocent Reasonable DoubtThis 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 defendants guilt or innocence, this is reasonable doubt, and they should vote to acquit. Innocent until proven guiltya fundamental principal of law that means the state must prove guilt; the suspect does not have to prove innocence The Fifth Amendmenta fundamental principle of law which states that a person cannot be forced to testify against him or herself in a court of law Double Jeopardya 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 persons guilt Cross-examineto question a witness by the opposing counsel Deliberateto consider or discuss carefully Premeditatedplanned or plotted in advance Homicidethe killing of one person by another Hung Jurylack 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" 9 5 12 10* [tie] 3 6 7 1 2 10* [tie] 4 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The Foreman The Bank Clerk The Father The Stockbroker The Kid from the Slums The Working Man The Salesman The Architect The Old Man The Bigot The Immigrant/Watchmaker The Ad Man

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.

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 defendants 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 cant 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 Foreman Personal Background Assistant Head Football coach at Andrew J. McCorkle High School in Queens 53 Other info 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 womans nose as well. Quotes Im not going to have any rules 10 You know, tell us what he thinks we could show him where hes 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. Hes right. I was the closest one to her 69 We have a verdict 73 I thought it was obvious from the word go. 14 I know they did, but I dont go along with it 60 Look out! 60 You cant send someone off to die on evidence like that. 71

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 Im going to kill you 37 Votes Not Guilty 50 Asks to see J8s knife 59 Ponders downward angle of stab wound. 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) Cant see point of them seeing knife again. Shouts And Im saying its not possible to Juror 8s theory on knife. Struggles to understand Juror 8s point about knife.

Runs a messenger service Beck and Call Company Married Employs 37 people, started with nothing 1 child who is 20 Hasnt seen son for 2 years. Fight with son. loud, heavyset J6 Quick to anger.

Did you ever hear so much talk about nothing? 7 The mans a dangerous killer. You could see it. 11 Would you like me to list them for you? 11 Look, Im 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 Dont tell me he didnt 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 its not the knife) And I want to stop wasting time. 43 Hes 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

Still thinks boy has lied (24) Accused Juror 8 of being the kids 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. Thats enough for me. Accuses J8 of making the others believe things that arent 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. Doesnt agree with J10 suggestion of hung jury 54 Demonstrate downward stab with flick knife. Only stops close to J8s 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.

injusticeWell, youre not getting through to me. Ive had enough.Hes got to burn. Were letting him slip through our fingers here. 47 Shut up, you son of a bitch! 47 Let go of me, God damn it. Ill kill him! Ill kill him! 48 END OF ACT 1 Well, what are you staring at? 49 Listen, Im a very excitable personHe was just trying to bait me. 53 Im a certain type person, I get moved by this. But let me tell you, Im sincere. 53 You took an oath in the courtroom. You cant just quit. 54 I dont anymore. There are people in here who are so goddamned stubborn that you cant even..I say were a hung jury. 67 I dont care whether Im alone or not. Its my right. 71 You lousy bunch of bleeding hearts. Youre not goin to intimidate me. Im 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 theyre like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, dont you see? How come Im the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin in. 72 Theres a long pause. All right. Not Guilty 72

Interested in stock market Is a broker Doesnt sweat; keeps tie and jacket on. 50

Suggests preliminary vote Thinks boys story flimsy; couldnt 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 cant remember film details. 57 (mops his

Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. I know it. So do youChildren from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. 18 This is the charming and imaginative little fable the boy invented. (22) Theres no reason why they cant be persuaded to do it again..Just by using logic. 54 Weve heard enough. Sit down. And dont 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 dont. 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 Didnt know jury gets locked in Speaks for first time about case on p16 Defends those who live in slums Provoked to anger by Juror 10s comments. Reminds Juror 3 he brought up issue of knife. Im 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. 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 Doesnt like supposing Asks after break who else had a motive. Painted a house next to el track. It was noisy. Starting to wonder 35 Doesnt 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 Cynical about process Ill pass it. 16 Ive lived in a slum all my life. 18 Maybe it still smells on me. 18 There is something personal. 18 I dont think he could have heard it. 35 Witnesses can make mistakes. 40 Hold it a secondDid the old man say he ran to the door? 42 You still dont think theres any room for reasonable doubt? 55 (to J7) You mean youre calling him arrogant because he wasnt born here? Well, Im 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 wasnt thinking of it. I guess you try to forget those things. 61 I mean, I was convinced from the first day. 11 What a murderous day. 29 (pun) Hes guilty for sure. Theres not a doubt in the whole world. 30 to J8 but Im bettin youve 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 yknow. 35

House painter

Chews gum

You couldnt 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 kids 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 J5s change of vote 37. Convinced of all the facts. Thinks kids lawyer knew he didnt stand a chance. 38 Wants hung jury too 55 Shows prejudice towards J11 Changes vote to Not Guilty page 62

What are ya getting out of it kicks? The boy is guilty, pal. So lets go home before we get sore throats. 29 (to J8) How do you like him? Its like talking into a dead phone 32 about J8 Ran, walked. Whats the difference? 42 How dya like this guy? Im tellin ya theyre all alike. He comes over this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath hes telling us how to run the show. 55 (about J11) Because Ill knock his goddamn Middle European head off. 56. All this yakkins getting us nowhere so Im going to break it up here. Im changing my vote to not guilty 62 You heard me. Ive had enough. I dont think hes guilty. (disgusted look from J11) I just want to talk. 12 Suppose were 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? Shes one of them too, isnt she? 16 Its 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 boys place. I would have asked for another lawyer. 20 alleged claims Supposing they were wrong? 20 Theyre only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong? 20 Thats 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 cant hear you. He never will. (about J7) 28 Its not easy to identify a shouting voice. 32 I dont know. It doesnt sound right to me. This isnt a game. 33 therefore, the el train had been roaring by the old mans window for a full ten seconds before the body fell 35. Its 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 sometimessometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are

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 10s 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 Doesnt 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, hell 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

does not know, and never will. 30 Tells J6 that they arent concerned with motive. Ponders that father not a model citizen, been in prison, gambler, fistfights, tough, cruel, primitive kind of man, couldnt hold jobs. Thinks others may have motives too. Thinks old man may have not heard boys 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 Im 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 mans walk. Feels sorry for J3s 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 womans nose as well 69 Tells J3 to give his arguments for guilty now its 11 votes to 1. 72 Helps J3 on with his jacket at the end. Notices knife still stuck in table. 9 Older Proud of 20-20 vision At first doesnt think he has much to offer. Observant Sensible Shows respect for Juror 8 This allows 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. th th The 9 JUROR looks closely at the 4 JUROR and obviously has

wrong! 38 Maybe all those things are so. But maybe theyre not. I think theres 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 youve been behaving like a self-appointed public avenger. 47 Youre a sadist 47 Id like to ask you a personal question.Where were you last night? 57 Its 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 its sure. 66 Did you ever see a woman who had to wear glasses and didnt want to because she thinks they spoil her looks? 70 I only know that the womans eyesight is in question now. 71 Its not your boy. Hes somebody else. 72

It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man. 13 Its only one night. A boy may die. 25 He didnt change his vote. I did. Would you like me to tell you why? 27 He doesnt say the boy is not guilty. He just isnt sure. 28 I think I know him better than anyone here. 36 I dont 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 isnt necessarily supposed to give him an infallible memory. 58 Do you know youre a sick man? 65 (to J10)

10

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. 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 hes a kid. Reaction to Juror 8s 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 Doesnt 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 doesnt speak up. (Foreman, 3, 7) Changes vote to Not Guilty page 71 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

Now why were you rubbing your nose? 68 (to J4) Could those marks be made by anything other than eyeglasses? 70

Hes lucky he got it. Know what I mean? 13 You cant believe a word they say. I mean, theyre born liars. 13 All right, who was it? Come on. I want to know. 26 Hes a common, ignorant slob. He dont even speak good English. 37 What you want to believe, you believe, and what you dont want to believe, you dont 40 Im telling you, some of you people in here are out of your minds. A kid like that. 51 Those six bastards in there arent going to change their minds. 54 I think we should just quit. 54 Look, lets talk facts. These people are born to lie. Now, its the way they are and no intelligent man is gonna tell me otherwise. They dont know what truth is.They are different. They think different. They act different. 64 Oh, theyre very big drinkers 64 Human life dont mean as much to them as it does to us. 64 They dont care. Family dont mean anything to them. They breed like animals 64 Oh sure, there are some good things about em. Look, Im the first one to say that. Ive known some who were OK, but thats the exception. 64 These people are multiplying..And they are wild animals. Theyre against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us. 65 This boy, this boy on trial here. Weve got him. Thats one at least. I say get him before his kind gets us. 65 Not guilty. Do whatever you want. 71 This sensitivity I understand 18 Facts may be coloured by the personalities of the people who present them. 36 He doesnt 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 dont 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 dont have to defend my decision to you. I have a reasonable doubt

11

German accent Watchmaker Polite Immigrant Admires American democracy Proud to be on jury

Wants others to take their responsibility seriously Rational Sensible He is one who raises questions about psychiatrists contribution.

knife. Says boy would have heard womans witness scream. Changes vote to NG 41. Reminds jury that all of them are capable of committing murder but few do. He doesnt think much of psychiatric testing. Wants J7 to explain why he changes his vote. 63. Forces J7 to explain why.

12

Likes doodling on notepad Works ad agency Rice Pops. Writes jingles.

Glad they scored murder trial Impressed by prosecuting attorneys 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 8s point that he needs to know so. Talks of phrases used to precede an idea (29) Still convinced of boys 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 womans eyesight.

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 mans life. This is a terrible and ugly thing to do. Dont you care 63 What makes you consider this one vote a personal triumph? 67 Nobody can know a thing like that. This isnt an exact science. 20 I dont know. 62

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. Childrens 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 doesnt speak good English. Father found with knife in chest

case (not under dispute)

Death happened around midnight Defendant went to movies and couldnt 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 couldnt back up theater alibi Leaves 9.45 Arrives home 10pm Knife wiped clean of fingerprints Elevated train had 6 carriages. 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. Cant 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 fathers dead body

Evidence