Personal Narrative-Yes, Your Honor

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.

U.S. lawyer, Clarence Darrow, in his 1924 Plea for Mercy, explains why two boys that have committed a murder, should not be executed. Darrow’s purpose is to explain to the jury that even though these children have committed a crime, they still have families and lives to live too. He paints a direct tone of sympathy in order to remind the jury that in this time of violence, these boys didn’t truly know what was going on. He uses rhetorical appeals such as fear, intelligence, and plain folk to get his point across.

In his closing argument for OJ Simpson’s criminal trial, Johnnie Cochran successfully argues for Simpson’s innocence. Repetition, appeals to audience emotion, and the use of scenarios to appeal to logic are all rhetorical devices which Cochran skillfully uses in order to create an argument that is strong and convincing to the courtroom. These devices help him shape his argument tactically in a manner and order that successfully defends OJ Simpson in the trial.

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

1. Ladies and gentleman of the jury. First, I like to thank you for your attention and service. Now, I like to direct your attention to what this case is all about, and that is pain. Pain inflicted on two separate individual. It was that defendants financial pain, that cause Ms. Fitzgerald physical pain, mental pain, and emotional pain.

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used.

An Analytical Death Just like a detective who analyzes evidence on a crime scene, the twelve jurors in Twelve Angry men by Reginald Rose, are put to the task of analyzing the case of murder, with a young sixteen year-old boy who was accused of killing his father. Some Jurors do not accept this task and stick to their personal prejudice applying it to their decision about the case. While other jurors accept the challenge and analyze the evidence given to them, for example, Juror Eight. Juror Eight analyzes the evidence and keeps his personal prejudice separate from his decision on the case. Juror Eight is analytical.

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

For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars." (24). In his own time, Juror 8 tries to find a similar knife that has been used in the murder, and successful bought one. This shows how he is willing to sacrifice his own time to find evidence for the case, it shows that he cares about the case and take the trial seriously. By taking the trial seriously, it reveals how both of the jurors is a fair person and wanted to give a fair trial and justice to the

The jury is back, after hours of deciding a verdict. My palms begin to sweat; I didn't realize how nervous I have been. The jury won't look at me, always a bad sign. The Judge is about to read the verdict.

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

A locked room, blistering heat, and passionate yelling? Sounds like a nightmare. But, in Jenkintown High School’s performance of 12 Angry Jurors, the audience was on the edge of their seats begging for more. Written in by Reginald Rose, the story of twelve jurors’, from a murder trial, deliberation unfolds. The decision of sending a young teenager to a death sentence seems obvious to eleven jurors, but one juror, Juror #8, stands against them.

Racing at night going One-hundred and forty miles an hour on US-27 holding the lead, Shift six gear, speed topped out at two-hundred miles per hour passing by cars smoothly. I chanted I am immortal, I am a god! while I pushed my sports bike to its limit. Suddenly a black car approaches. WHAM! I get Rammed from behind and lose control of my bike slamming into a Semi-truck up ahead. Lights out. When I peeked my eyes, I saw 4 humans around me. Thump after thumb I believe I was in an ambulance rushing down the turnpike. I looked around and the first words that came to my head are “Rick this is just a dream”. This is the story of how I escaped from an illegal laboratory that clones and modifies humans.

As my partner began presenting our constructive case, my mind struggled to refute arguments that I had been successfully contesting for hours. My hand, brain, and heart were all fighting a losing battle against the sea of judgemental figures, some snickering, some shooting empathetic glances, and some avoiding eye contact altogether. The timer that laid beside me served as a ticking time bomb to only further escalate my dread. My rebuttal speech was to follow the approaching cross-examination and extensive gaps in my arguments were distinct on the folded paper.