12 Angry Men

1. 12 Angry Men EN 255 Mr. David Rude

2. Plot Summary A jury must decide whether or not to reach a guilty verdict and sentence the 19 year old defendant to death. At the beginning of the play, eleven jurors vote “guilty.” Only one man, Juror #8, believes that the young man might be innocent. He must convince the others that “reasonable doubt” exists. One by one, the jury is persuaded to agree with Juror #8.

3. What Is “Reasonable Doubt”? “Reasonable Doubt” is explained thusly: “That state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.”

4. The Prosecution’s Case • At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial: • A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by. • An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you!” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away.

5. Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder. • Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films.

6. Finding Reasonable Doubt • Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others. Here are some of the observations: • The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by. • Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood.

7. Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen. • The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness.

8. Questions to discuss and debate • Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? • Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination”? • Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why / why not? • What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? Or the prosecution? • Describe the communication style of each juror. Who comes closest to your own style of communication? • How would you have voted if you were on the jury?