The Verdict

by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room. 12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-building

Twelve Angry Men This play is about twelve jurors who are to decide the verdict of a 19 year old boy who is accused of killing his father. The jurors go into a room with the foreman to talk about the case and decide on a verdict. The vote has to be unanimous either guilty or not guilty for the case to end. To start the deciding, the jurors decide to take a preliminary vote to see where they stand. After counting the ballots the vote is 11 to 1, guilty. Juror number eight is the one who votes not

Twelve Angry Men In the text Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury began as uncooperative and evolved into a more agreeable jury by the end. The jury started in a state of contradiction and an inability to cooperate. Most jurors only cared to listen to themselves and just wanted to bully other jurors into agreeing with them. They were in a hurry to get out of the deliberation room and just wanted to be done with this case as we can see when Seven said to Ten that “this better be fast” (Rose

12 Angry Men come together to decide on a verdict on a young boy that is accused of murdering his father. This decision is a life changing game, and one of the men voted against the child being guilty. At the beginning, nobody among the conference type group even discussed the matter, rather just went straight into a decision, but later one while arguing it can be seen various point of views when it comes to the decision. Among the essay, the leadership roles and how it was used, the characteristics

Twelve men and women appointed to a case are known as the "Jury" of that case. This jury must take care in rendering a decision, their own experiences and emotions may play a role in their decision and they also must take their time and consider all options before agreeing if the defendant is innocent or guilty. The men and women on the jury must take so much care in rendering a decision because, depending on the crime, the rest of someone's life may be on the line. If the roles were reversed

As the all-knowing Buddha once said, “The mind is everything. What you think you become.” The influence of the mind on one’s character and actions is not an undocumented concept, and the effect of one’s inner workings is evident in all aspects of life, especially in communication. In the art of communication, there are many things that can lead a conversation astray, one of those being interference. Interference is anything that impedes the communication of a message, and this may be in the form

conclusion that the 12 jurors let a guilty man go free. The play begins with the 12 jurors in a murder case being very divided over what the verdict of the case should be. Even though there were more jurors who believed the man was guilty, with a combined effort of convincing and describing the evidence in different ways, they ultimately come to a not guilty verdict. When deciding if a man is guilty or not you should look at the suspect's background and evidence and avoid your own biases. They came to

very complex personalities. These personalities range from the wise, bright and empathetic to the arrogant or prejudiced and even merciless. This provides the immediate backdrop to Mr. Davis' attempts to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate

Angry Men, justice takes a great importance in deciding the fate of the defendant. In act two, Juror Eleven includes a remarkable statement about strength and fairness in decision-making. Eleven states, “…we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons in why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 333). Since Juror Eleven was a refugee from Europe, he shows that since he finally is able to disagree or share his opinion, that it should not affect

this film, twelve jurors debate about the verdict of a teenager who is convicted of murder. Each juror has a different background, perspective, and set of values about justice and the boy’s part in this case. The boy has a dysfunctional socioeconomic background and is part of a minority ethnic group. Therefore, many jurors initially feel that the boy has a violent mindset and is capable of murder which is why the jurors are on the side of a guilty verdict. However, slowly once they continue to examine