The Verdict

the 11 other jury members would have sent him off to his death in less than two minutes. By speaking against his peers, Juror 8 planted seeds of doubt in more than a few of the other jurors. In a court of law, doubt is the strongest factor in a verdict. By sticking the knife into the table in the center of the room, it is impossible to miss. The boy’s knife represents the

Reaction The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this

Men’, written by Reginald Rose, juror three sees his son as the alleged and cannot wait to punish him, however, the prejudice he has against the alleged criminal urges juror three to take action as quickly as possible and votes a persistent ‘guilty’ verdict. Throughout the play, juror three is seen as an old, bitter man who makes his decisions based on his son and not his own conscience. When he is a part of the jury, he has the chance to be fair and reasonable, which he passes up the opportunity. He

contrast in mean verdict between types of evidence, F (2, 94) = 8.68, p = .00, n = .16 (see Figure 1). No difference was disclosed in the Tukey post hoc test including jury verdict with circumstantial evidence (M = 5.06, SD = 1.08) comparing to the jury verdict with circumstantial evidence, an eyewitness and a discredited eyewitness (M = 4.50, SD = 1.41), p = .17. Nonetheless, jury verdict with circumstantial evidence had a mean verdict that was less guilty from the jury verdict with circumstantial

court is seen as unjust. Characters, such as Atticus who wish for a fair trial never have their wishes heard. The ideologies that the court holds on justice are not capable of being changed; the court is the one that holds the power to make the final verdict. ‘Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country, our courts are the great levellers...’ (Atticus Finch). While it appears that in a courtroom, all people are the same, both To kill a Mockingbird, and 12 Angry Men

members arise when the initial vote was taken and only one member of the jury voted that the verdict was not guilty (Juror 8). Because Juror 8 did not agree with the other jury members, Juror 12 suggested that the group should try and convince Juror 8, why they think defendant is indeed guilty. Conflict also increases when it was decided that each Juror should give a reason for why he initially voted that verdict is guilty or not guilty. In the process of discussing the reasoning behind each members

Imagine this, you're being taken to jail for a crime you supposedly did, although you actually had nothing to do with it. The next day you have a trial, but The jurors that are there care less of who you are. The trial goes up to three days, finally the jurors discuss the case and come up to a decision, however it isn't what you had expected. You're accused guilty for a crime you didn't commit and now you have to deal with the consequences, what perhaps could have gone wrong in this case? Could it

a whole life ahead of him? The jurors deliberated on the trial of a first-degree murder case of this young boy who was accused of stabbing and killing his father. Their opinions are expressed and all evidence is presented in order to conclude the verdict of the boy.

this is important to me because the company filed false case report on me and I spent time in a black site and I’m happy if it’s just 1 SAR. He start reading the verdict and I was awarded 76,266 USD. The court cannot grant my demand for an apology letter for wrongful termination from the company. I only needed to hear once it. The verdict would be final if no party appealed within a month. I was happy and full of joy. For me, it is not real until it’s in my bank account. First, I

collaborate and determine the fate of the defendant. With seemingly substantial evidence, viewers are taken into the jury room, where all but one juror are quick to return a guilty verdict. Although a unanimous finding is required, juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, questions the evidence, unable to return a verdict without further examination of the documentation and testimonies. Insisting the jury take additional time to analyze reasonable doubt within the evidence, Henry Fonda utilizes critical