Interviewer: Hello, and welcome to ninety point nine (90.9) radio, I’m your host and today we have a special interview with a juror from a recent, famous case.
#9: Thank you for allowing me to be here, it’s much obliged.
(Shake hands and sit down.)
Interviewer: Yes, well I guess it would be an unforgettable experience. Now can you tell me, what was it like to be on the jury? I’m sure it was quite a heated conversation as far as I’ve heard.
#9: (shakes head) It was completely unforgettable, a boy’s life was on the line, and I had to make the decision whether that poor boy was innocent or not. And, well… I wasn’t totally sure if he was actually guilty or not.
Interviewer: Then at first, did you assume that the boy was guilty? It seemed pretty
…show more content…
So yes, at first I assumed the accused was guilty.
Interviewer: When did you decide to change your mind to not guilty and why? (inquisitive look)
#9: I decided that the boy wasn’t guilty around the time that the eighth juror opted out of the second private vote. I felt that he was asking for someone’s support, and so, I gave him my support. (chuckles knowingly) I had respect for #8 and his decision, and that opened my eyes to see that he wasn’t guilty.
Interviewer: How did the other jurors react to the change of
…show more content…
#9: With things like this, I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. However, if the boy really hadn’t murdered his father, could we have sent him to death? (gestures with hands, shrug like)
Interviewer: Could the other jurors tell that you were going to change your opinion in the secret ballot? I certainly wouldn’t be able to tell… (questioning look, hand to chin)
#9: I don’t think they were able to tell, well, most of them. I didn’t speak at the beginning very often however, there was someone that yelled out “I knew it!” … I was a bit surprised, in truth.
Interviewer: I would’ve had a shock too if someone was aware of my opinion even though I had barely said anything! (smiles) Well, that’s all we have for today, I’d like to thank you for agreeing to come on to this radio, juror #9. I’ve received new insight about what exactly happened in that room.
(both stand up, shake hands)
#9: It was my pleasure. In all the years I’ve lived, I have never been interviewed before. You seem as though you would have been a good choice to belong on a
1. “I’ll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy.”
Sheepishly, the jurors one-by-one were seated in the courtroom by a grinning ear-to-ear Bailiff as their escort. Judge Ricardo Sandoval had concluded his interrogation with the Defendant; both were positioned back in their appointed chairs, where each smiled coyly at each other.
4) “[on the phone] it was so amazing, Daff! I was like, so my mom’s gonna be out of town, and he was like, yeah?...”
Juror No. 8 wasn’t trying to defend the boy he was just doing his job, because of that he slowly became a hero without knowing it. Juror No. 8 could of went and decide to choose guilty but he didn’t because he knows it wouldn’t be right not even sharing a thought about it. He continued to convince all eleven jurors that their was reasonable doubt and that the boy was
People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that
Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.
Twelve members of a jury entered a room to deliberate a verdict involving an accused teen’s death. Although the trial contained a strong set of testimonies, one of the jurors believed that there was a reasonable doubt in the case. Despite the other eleven members of the jury’s wish, jurors ended up having to discuss about the matter and try to come to an agreement whether or not the accused was actually guilty of the murder or not. This paper will analyze the members’ interpersonal communications displayed in the film.
Jury 3: “It’s these kids- the way they are nowadays. When I was a kid I use to call my father, “sir”. That’s right “sir”, you never hear a kid call his father that anymore”.
According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”
Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid-sentence and attacks their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an animal-like ferocity. "You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three.
In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said "It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy
Juror 10: What figures? It’s those people I’m tellin you they let their kids run wild up there. Well maybe it serves em right, know what I mean?”
Now No.8 tells No.9 he can say what he wants to say about the old man for the reason he lied. No.9 say, “ This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition - his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy-five years. That’s a very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted just once. This is very important” ( page.16 ). Juror 8 tells juror 9 it is okay to say your own opinion. All the other jurors feel comfortable saying their own opinions because juror 8 voiced his own. “Look this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine years old. That’s not a very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock’em on the head once a day everyday. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” ( page. 5 ). No.8 is trying to make people feel bad for the boy. He’s trying to say that they shouldn’t convict him because he hasn't had the best life so he needs to have the opportunity to live the rest of his life doing something that makes him happy. Juror 8 is so powerful he can make all the other jurors say their own opinions. Because of his pathos and his strong ethos the other jurors will listen to his logical appeal about the case.
* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where
The days came and went, the big show continued, and every time the jury entered the courtroom - the smirks and sneers on their faces told me I didn’t stand a chance.