12 Angry Men Case Study

The act of being untruthful in a society may arise when most people present false statements. Although Juror 8 has convinced nine other jurors to see reasonable doubt they further discuss a witness in her forties “making a tremendous effort to look thirty-five for her first public appearance” and states that she lived in the opposite apartment from the accused and his father. Juror 9 who points out that “the woman who testified that she saw the killing had these same deep marks on the side of her nose” indicating that she wears eyeglasses and the statement in her testimony was inaccurate. This alters the three other jurors verdict of voting guilty as one witnesses testimony could of made

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

Juror 9 was also smart. He made a reasonable doubt by saying that the old man might of lied to

If I we on the jury, I would have voted guilty at first. But as time went on, and the events happened as they did, I would have changed my vote sometime after seeing that it would have taken the old man a total of 41 seconds to get to the door.

“The boy took the knife home and a few hours later stabbed his father with it and even remembered to wipe off the fingerprints.” Without even knowing the reality, Juror 3 says that the boy wiped off the fingerprints from the knife after stabbing his father. Irrelevant reasoning.

This is very significant in swaying the jurors vote to not guilty because with the old man having had a stroke and using two canes, the jurors prove that the old man lied about how long it took for him to get to the door. This situation persuades the jurors decision even more because now they know that the old man lied and just assumed he saw the accussed young man, but could have been anyone.

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

Finally, the old man who saw the boy running down. He said he heard someone yell “I’m going to kill you” and a body falling to the ground. He hurried to the door and saw the boy running down the stairs. All of this occurred in 15 seconds from when the yelling occurred to when the boy ran down the stairs, but when the jurors tested it out it took about 31 seconds to happen. Also the old man uses a cane and also is an old person already so he would take more time instead of being quicker.

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

Whilst the rest of the play is rather static, the scene re-enacting the old man’s testimony is the only instance of thorough physicality throughout. Though the man stated it took him 15 seconds to reach the hall way, juror proves otherwise, portraying the man’s movements and covering the same distance in 42 seconds. Juror 9, being an elder himself, understood this false testimony to be a result of his self-worth, as “[it’s] a very sad thing, to be nothing”. “Nobody knows him” and “nobody quotes him”; “a man like this needs to be recognised”. This, along with the female eye witness who “honestly thought [she] saw the boy kill his father”, though is assumed to have “saw only a blur”, since she was not wearing her glasses, is just two examples of how various factors can influence an eye witness’s testimony and invalidate

presents a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based