ipl-logo

12 Angry Men Case Study

858 Words4 Pages

In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him
After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not
The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial

The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty”

Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements. …show more content…

The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad

Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself
Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too
One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second …show more content…

Juror 11 switched to “Not Guilty”

Juror 8 questioned the second point: The elderly man claim that he heard the father falling down the floor, and he ran to the door of his apartment and the elderly man saw the boy(Defendant) running away from the the crime scene apartment to his apartment in 15 seconds

Jurors 5,6,8 also think that that the elderly man second claim is not possible physical because they all know that the witness has stroke diseases, so 15 seconds is not possible for his ability to walk around the apartment

Juror 8 conclude that the elderly witness assume that the person was the defendant and the witness is not actually 100% sure that that male is the boy/defendants
Juror 3” He’s got to burn! He’s slipping through our fingers!”
Juror 8 told Juror 3 that he wants the boy to die because of his own desire rather than the actual

Show More
Related
457 Words | 2 Pages

Ladies and gentlemen, of the jury we are here today to find justice for the deceased, Chris Pavano who was shot and killed by the defendant, Jordan Abrams. Today I and the state of New Jersey ask you to ask yourself, if your child or your friend’s child suddenly never came home would you want their to be justice for their murderer? Would you want their murderer walking free while you or your friend mourned for the person they murdered. If you, the jury allow Jordan Abrams to walk free than that will just show other murderers that they can get away with such a heinous crime. Jordan Abrams stands accused of murder in the 1st degree, aggravated manslaughter in the 2nd degree, reckless manslaughter in the 2nd degree, possession of a weapon for an

Read More
726 Words | 3 Pages

When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

A juror that was very vulnerable to the pressure was Juror 2. He lacks diction, and seems weak in his beliefs. When the men are asked to share their opinions he says, “Well, it’s hard to put into words. I just-think he’s guilty” (Rose 14). Contrary to the second juror, the third jurors resents being pressured by his peers.

Read More
704 Words | 3 Pages

In each vote the jury held, Juror #8, since the beginning, had a different view than everyone else because he was “not certain that the evidence was sufficiently clear” to make a final decision on the first vote (Cunningham 112). Even though everyone stood against him, he was “devoted to justice and act[ed] with integrity” no matter what the rest of the jury said to him (Aubrey). As Juror #8 continued making points and having the other jurors look deeper into the facts, the “wiser and more emotionally stable jurors” altered their verdict (Cunningham 112). For example, Jurors #4 and #11 changed their ruling when Juror #8 presented not-so-obvious facts, like the lady’s glasses markings. However, jurors with less empathy, like Jurors #7 and #10, never opened their minds to the possibility that the facts presented in court were false or altered.

Read More
333 Words | 2 Pages

“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

“The boy is five feet eight inches tall. His father was six feet two inches tall. That’s a difference of six inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s half a foot taller than you are. ”-(Juror two, 54)

Read More
1133 Words | 5 Pages

While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

Read More
980 Words | 4 Pages

Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.

Read More
1458 Words | 6 Pages

This movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have

Read More

More about 12 Angry Men Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document