Juror Essay

In the movie “12 Angry Men” 12 jurors must come to a verdict on whether or not an 18-year-old boy is guilty of the murder of his father. The 12 jurors began the meeting, and every juror voted guilty except for juror #8. Juror #8 sheds light upon doubts about the evidence and the testimonies made by witnesses. As the meeting proceeded, the jurors bickered back and forth, some with preconceived notions and others with differing ideas. As the party tries to come to a unanimous decision, personal issues

Juror #3 plays the role of an antagonist in the story “Twelve Angry Men” and does quite a good job doing so. The reason why I think he plays a good antagonist is because he creates conflict among the jurors, resulting in personal insults and bringing an unrelated past situation as a strong point in his argument. My first example of Juror #3 personally attacking people, on page 33, is by calling the men who believe the kid is not guilty as crazy and that they should not let a boy who grew up in a

Juror No3, portrayed by Lee J. Cobb, runs his own messenger service. He is characterized as a hard-headed, opinioned antagonist, sadist who thinks that boys should treat their fathers with more respect. His strategies includes: aggression, competing, and, dominance. Throughout the movie he is constantly bullying other jurors. He entered the deliberation room with a predetermined verdict of guilty without the need to discuss the facts "…talk and talk and talk, even when it’s an open-and-shut case

In the essay, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors Demands for Visual Evidence,” by Sylvia Hsieh, elicits the symbiotic relationship between trial attorneys and the technological developments used in the court room. He illustrates, how these technical improvements impact the demands and perception of jurors. He also expresses they are reasonably priced, yet faces evidentiary challenges. He engenders the cause and ramifications of technology utilized in the court of law with its added benefits while concluding

significant sources of prejudice-fuelled conflict stems from Juror 3, the bitter and obstinate juror whose vehement insistence on a guilty verdict is gradually revealed to be rooted in resentments with his own estranged son. Personally, I have also encountered situations where parents with domestic complications get dramatic and are unable to get over their personal barriers and enable them to give judicious judgement to other people. Juror 3’s arrogant condescension towards the defendants as “just

Reginald Rose, Juror 4 highlighted the benefits and challenges of the jury system. Juror 4 is an intellectual and no-nonsense character who takes his position on the jury very seriously. He understands his duty and does his best to fulfill it. At first, he was sure that the defendant was guilty, but was later convinced otherwise. He had a doubt in his mind and voted not guilty. He showed the qualities that make the jury system look both good and bad. Juror 4 showed signs of what the jurors are expected

Juror 10- Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash. I don't want any part of them, I’m telling you. Who does juror 10 think he is, making these rude remarks, calling us liars, trash. Just look at him; he is as ignorant as they get. He needs to shut his mouth, running it like the white privilege he is, making those unnecessary comments. No way is he fit to be on this jury it’s just not right. I just cannot believe it, I should be able to feel comfortable

12 Angry Men is 1957 black and white film directed by Sidney Lunat. Among of a group of Jury -all of them men- is trying to make a decision about the case of 18 years old boy and his murdered dad. If they find the boy is guilty, the boy is going to get the death punishment by the court. All the evidence show the boy is guilty. At the beginning of voting, All of the juries vote the boy guilty expect Juri 8. Juri 8 thinks that it’s wrong the agreed the boy is guilty before not considering evidence

Twelve Angry Men had this in mind while establishing the plot. The play consists of twelve jurors whose job is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of murder or innocent. One juror, specifically Juror 12, stands out as the story plays out. He is a serious and logical man who wants to honestly decide the verdict. Juror 12 clearly illustrates the benefits and challenges of an American jury system. Juror 12 demonstrates the benefits

The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a drama about twelve jurors deciding on whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. The boy has a lengthy list of criminal changes, three witnesses testifying against him, and a weak alibi. This compels eleven of the twelve jurors to detect him as guilty. However, one juror believes that the others are not deciding fairly and are stereotyping. Juror eight, the one who names the boy not guilty, spends the entirety of the play