The Verdict

Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men brings together a group of 12 Jurors in deciding the verdict of the supposedly 18-year-old killer. As the play moves forward, Juror 8 brings up a lot of good points in explaining why the boy is not guilty. When the other Juror begins to side with Juror 8, Juror 4 stands hold on his opinion and provided some solid facts in why the boy is guilty. As the play progresses, Juror 4 has proved himself to be a calm, independent, and an intelligent thinker. Or all the

reduction of a liability. While ASC 450-30-25-1 says: A contingency that might result in a gain usually should not be reflected in the financial statements because to do so might be to recognize revenue before its realization. The overturning of the verdict means that M International will have to reduce the liability they accrued in 2009, but must wait until it is realized in 2011 because the reduction is treated like a gain contingency. Once the appellate judges declined W’s petition for a re-hearing

I am writing to tell you about my conclusion of whether justice was served on the Twelve Angry Men trial, in which the jurors presented a verdict of “not guilty”. I believe that the verdict could be wrong, and that reopening the case with a retrial would be the best course of action possible. To remind you about the case, a sixteen-year-old boy was accused of fatally stabbing his father with a switch knife. The witnesses were an old man who lived underneath the room where the murder took place, and

first degree murder based on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Uncomfortably hot and sweaty, one intent on getting to a ball game, eleven of the twelve jurors had no intention to stop and think about the life contingent on their verdict. The entire story was motivated by the reasonable doubt, communication competence, and persuasion of one man. Had they not discussed the evidence in further detail and investigated potential explanations, the boy would have been executed. The purpose

deliberation in the murder case, Mr. Davis, Juror 8, refused to base his vote on just hard-core facts. His decision to rule not guilty spurred a rise out of the remaining 11 jurors, who strongly believe the defendant is guilty. Mr. Davis’s initial verdict formed a cooperative community within the jury waiting room that allowed for each of the jurors to present the basis of their decisions. His willingness to stand-alone proved to be a key decision in the film, which provided the backdrop for

Sandoval, before he realized his lustful wonderment was distracting his thought process, and then the Judge continued speaking, “Mister Foreman, did your jury does the case at hand?” “Yes, your Honor,” said the Foreman. “Have you taken a vote of this Verdict among the jurors?” “Again, yes your Honor.” “In the case of Min-jun Kim’s innocence. What did you declare?” said Judge Sandoval’s voice, which had begun to crack when he asked the question. Min-jun moved forward in his seat as his arm was held

because it reminded him of his son, who has grown up and does not get along with Some jurors are stubborn to accept the facts when obviously shown in front of them. Instead, they refuse to agree and continue to argue what they believe which causes the verdict to be prolonged and harder to solve. Especially 3rd juror ‘I’m entitled to my opinion. I can sit in this goddamn rom for a year. Somebody say something’. He is the juror who holds out for the longest. He aggressively, impatient and sarcastically rejects

Although 12 Angry Men was released over 60 years ago, the film has maintained universal acclaim among movie critics. With a rare score of 100% on the movie review website RottenTomatoes.com, it is worth investigating what makes this film so appealing. With a seemingly mundane plot, 12 Angry Men follows a jury that debates over the innocence or guilt of a young man who is accused of murder. There are no bright explosions or grandiose imagery. Instead, 12 Angry Men manages to capture audiences simply

decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak

the attitudes and perceptions of the other members of the jury? Fonda is the natural leadership of the juries. In addition, he takes advantage of the jurors' complex personalities to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate. As a result he persistently and persuasively, forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review their vote. He supported his beliefs with strong evidence. One of them refers to the claim that the case of