Analyzing Reginald Rose's 'Twelve Angry Men'

12. Angry Men Digging deep is an important part of solving a murder mystery, which is the reason some jury cases end in faulty results. Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a son allegedly killing his father. The jury had a great deal of evidence to sort through before reaching a verdict. After lots of discussion, the jury comes to the final ruling of not guilty which sets the boy free from his potential punishment which is the death penalty. The kid is not guilty because of the old man's faulty witness testimony. Throughout the play, the jury discusses the witnesses' testimonies and can determine that there are flaws in many of them. For example, when Jurors 8, 3, and 2 are wrapping up discussing the testimony, Juror 8 states.

This proves the boy is not guilty. The old man would not have been able to hear the kid yell over the passing of the El train. If this aspect of his testimony is inaccurate, it is certainly possible and very probable that other parts of his testimony are not true as well. In addition to this testimony, the woman across the El train also had a say in this case. For example, when the murder of the father took place, the woman claims to have been tossing and turning all night, as she rolled to the side of her room that had a window about ten minutes after twelve she observed the boy stabbing his father at that exact moment. Later on, when the jury is discussing his case, juror 9 mentions that she saw the woman across the el had imprints on her nose as if she was just wearing glasses, which potentially means she is visually impaired. As the churros discuss this topic, Juror 9 states, Your eyeglasses make those deep impressions on the sides of your nose, (Rose 69). The woman who testified that she saw the killing had these same deep marks on the sides of her nose, (Rose 69). I'm also guessing that she didn't put on her glasses as she turned and looked casually out the