Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jubilee Conference6-7 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 DECIDES TO VOTE "NOT GUILTY"
REASONS/OTHER INFORMATION
1 The Foreman 92 The Bank Clerk 53 The Father 124 The Stockbroker 10* [tie]5 The Kid from the Slums 36 The Working Man 67 The Salesman 78 The Architect 19 The Old Man 210 The Bigot 10* [tie]11 The
Immigrant/Watchmaker4
12 The Ad Man 8
JUROR "IDENTITY" ORDER HE DECIDES TO VOTE "NOT GUILTY"
REASONS/OTHER INFORMATION
123456789101112
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 Arguments in favour of“Guilty” “Not Guilty”
MOTIVE
KNIFE
WITNESS: WOMAN ACROSS THE STREET
WITNESS: MAN WHO LIVED ON THE SECOND FLOOR
ALIBI
STAB WOUND
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.
ActivityFor 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
Other info Quotes
Foreman Assistant Head Football coach at Andrew J. McCorkle High School in Queens 53
Tries to do the right thingTries to keep calm.Gets angry at Juror 10 (page 19) tells him to be foreman.Brings up psychiatrist 58Changes vote to Not Guilty page 63“Slowly, almost embarrassed, he raises his own hand.” 63Finally 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 baseballCoughdropsNervousSon has mumps 50
Nervous of Juror 3(He looks around helplessly) 14Wants everyone to have their say in order (20) Shut down by Juror 3Finds “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” 37Votes Not Guilty 50Asks to see J8’s knife 59Ponders 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’MarriedEmploys 37 people, started with nothing1 child who is 20Hasn’t seen son for 2 years. Fight with son.“loud, heavyset” J6Quick to anger.
Believes case obvious;Harsh views on tough kidsMakes assumptions on appearanceCan be patronizingLikes 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 9Embarrassed when talks about son.Pats Juror 5 on shoulder when he gets angry at Juror 10Raises 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
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. 29Raises 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” 37Anger 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 54Demonstrate downward stab with flick knife. Only stops close to J8’s chest 60 (tension)Calls for another vote 67Wants a hung jury 67. J5 reminds him of his earlier words. “You thought it was immoral to – “ 67Fury at change by Juror 4Tries 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!” 48END 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 marketIs a brokerDoesn’t sweat; keeps tie and jacket on. 50
Suggests preliminary voteThinks boy’s story flimsy; couldn’t remember film he sawThinks beatings a motiveSays kids background not part of case.Defends right of Juror 8 to see knifeGoes 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 knifeKnows 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. 31Tells J3 and J10 that can make others change minds back by using logic. 54Discomfort when he can’t remember film details. 57 (mops his sweating forehead)
“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
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 68He 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. 68Juror 9 notices him doing this.Remember marks on woman 70Changes to Not Guilty 71 after eyesight issue
5 Nurses at Harlem hospitalLives in ‘slum’
Didn’t know jury gets locked inSpeaks for first time about case on p16Defends those who live in slumsProvoked 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. NervousAngry with Juror 3 for accusing him of voting NG in secret ballot.Ignores J3 attempt at apologyStarting to wonder 35Changes vote to Not Guilty 37Questions way knife is used 61. Has seen them used in fights.Shows them correct way to use knife. 61Slams 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 windowSeeks motive. Believes testimony from neighbours powerful about argument. Juror gets time wrong.Tells J8 that J3 embarrassing way talking about kid. 29Trying to lobby J8Doesn’t like “supposing”Asks after break who else had a motive.Painted a house next to el track. It was noisy.Starting to wonder 35Doesn’t like way J3 talks to J9Threatens him, touches him.Wants to what J9 thinks about old man witness 36Asks for another vote 50Changes 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 gumComplains about
Cynical about processFrustration at Juror 8
“You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” 12What are ya getting out of it – kicks? The boy is guilty, pal. So let’s go
weatherHas tickets to ball gameMarmalade salesman
Agrees with Juror 3Thinks kid’s record enough.Refuses to change mind on basis of knife bought by juror 8.Makes joke that irritates Juror 2Slams 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. 38Wants hung jury too 55Shows prejudice towards J11Changes vote to Not Guilty page 62
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)
8 Has 2 childrenArchitect
Only one to initially vote NGWants to know the truthWants to present all the facts to the other jurorsBelieves in humanity, reason and justice
Gazes out windowVotes not guilty in first voteSees 16yo as youngSays 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 10Reminds others that burden of proof on prosecution.Questions prejudices of Juror 10Doesn’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 does not know, and never will.” 30
“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 wrong!” 38
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” 32Snatches tic-tac-toe from J3 & J12Wants to know speed of el train. 33Asks whether any of them has lived next to el tracks.Says he did once. Unbearable noise when window open. 34Sets up scenario of the 2 witnesses and the el train.Questions the way the phrase “I’m going to kill you” is used. 37Questions 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. 47Brings them all back to issue of boy at theater 56Asks J4 what he saw at movies on Monday night 57Asks for another vote 63He 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. 67Remembers marks on woman’s nose as well 69Tells J3 to give his arguments for guilty now it’s 11 votes to 1. 72Helps J3 on with his jacket at the end. Notices knife still stuck in table.
“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
9 OlderProud of 20-20 vision
At first doesn’t think he has much to offer.ObservantSensibleShows respect for Juror 8This allows deliberations to
Slower to put hand up for first vote (guilty)Calls Juror 10 ignorantStarting 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. 28Notices torn jacket of old man and hypothesizes that he may have just wanted attention. 35Brings up argument that someone could make themselves believe what they wanted to. The 9th JUROR looks closely at the 4th JUROR and obviously has thought of something tremendously exciting. 68
“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)“Now why were you rubbing your nose?” 68 (to J4)
continue.He is the one who raises issues with old man witness.
Notices deep impressions left by eyeglassesRemembers woman had made effort to look younger – heavy makeup, dyed hair, new clothes, no eyeglasses.
“Could those marks be made by anything other than eyeglasses?” 70
10 Has a cold Laughs at own jokesSides with Juror 7 at firstTries to tell joke about womanAppeals to others for help when Juror 9 calls him ignorantBelieves woman across street who remembers time of murder and knows boyBecomes 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 enoughDoesn’t want to listen to Juror 9s reasons for changing vote.Thinks J8 account of father “load of crap” 31Frustration at J8 40Thinks witness evidence is irrefutable.Wants to tell judge a hung jury. 54Still believes boy guilty 58Assumption that all psychiatrists are “crazy” 58Contradicts himself on page 59Angry at J12 and Foreman who change votes 64His 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
11 German accentWatchmakerPolite
ImmigrantAdmires American democracyProud to be on juryWants others to
Sympathizes with Juror 5 being offended by Juror 10, probably because of his German backgroundStill thinks an incredible coincidence for another person to stab with same kind of knife.Remembers knife very important to district attorney. 25Reminds 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 knife.
“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 in my mind.” 41
take their responsibility seriouslyRationalSensibleHe is one who raises questions about psychiatrist’s contribution.
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.
“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
12 Likes doodling on notepadWorks ad agency – Rice Pops. Writes jingles.
Glad they scored murder trialImpressed by prosecuting attorney’s logicLikes analyzing. Doodling but is listening and thinkingTries to keep the peace between foreman and Juror 10Assumes witnesses are telling truth as they take oath.Takes Juror 8’s point that he needs to “know so”.
Talks of phrases used to precede an idea (29)Still convinced of boy’s guilt 36Thinks boy would go back for the knife 39.Confused after J5 demonstrates use of knife 62Changes vote to Not Guilty page 63Changes vote back to Guilty page 67Annoyed at J3 for saying he “bounces backward and forward like a tennis ball…” 68Changes vote back to Not Guilty 71After discussion about woman’s eyesight.
“Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.” 20“I don’t know.” 62
Defendant
16 years oldLives 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 teacher14 in reform schoolStole carArrest for mugging. Assault with knife.Beaten by father since he was fiveAdmits leaving home at 8pm after being hit by fatherMet 3 friends outside diner. Home 9.45. Left to movies at 11.30. Home 3.15amClaims bought knife for friend as had broken his.Clue that from ethnic background. He doesn’t speak good English.
Facts of case (not
Father found with knife in chestDeath happened around midnight
under dispute)
Defendant went to movies and couldn’t remember film he sawElevator train passing at time with no passenger, lights out8pm 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 alibiLeaves 9.45Arrives home 10pmKnife wiped clean of fingerprintsElevated 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 windowNo one saw defendant at theaterThe knife with unusual carved handleThe 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
