12 Angry Men Essay

Legal dramas have long been effective in commanding the public's attention and popularity. A classic example of such a legal drama is the play Twelve Angry Men, which follows the deliberations of a jury judging a murder case. Through their discussions and passionate arguments, the audience learns the facts about the case and the defendant from the perspective of the jurors. In the play, the jurors discuss the possibility of a hung jury which occurs when the jury cannot make a unanimous decision and a mistrial is declared. The jurors, however, came to the decision that the defendant is not guilty. Despite them finally agreeing, the jurors should have concluded that they were a hung jury and declared a mistrial. Throughout most of the play, the

This is recognized by one of the jurors and causes him to remark that they “can’t even agree about whether or not the window should be open.” (Evidence)(Rose 3.1.47) The debacle with the window foreshadows the jurors’ continuing disagreement. Adjective. It exposes major differences between the members of the jury that will facilitate their arguments. This also occurs when the jurors have to decide whether they are a hung jury or not. The vote results in a tie which causes Juror 9 to lament, “We can’t even get a majority to decide whether or not we’re a hung jury.” (Rose 3.1.48) The fact that the jurors are divided on the notion that they are even able to make a decision in the first place demonstrates their inability to come to an agreement. Because the jurors had a proclivity to bicker, they were unable to reach a verdict, so a mistrial needs to be declared. Even though the jurors did eventually reach a verdict of not guilty, Juror Three did not actually agree with the verdict. At the end of Act III, all of the jurors except three voted not guilty. Juror Three, for a time, tries to stand his ground and declares, “It’s gonna be a hung jury!” (Rose