Summary Of 12 Angry Men

855 Words4 Pages

12 Angry Men The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. We discover this is a murder case and that, if discovered blameworthy, the compulsory sentence for the charged is capital punishment. After these guidelines, the members of the jury enter. Every one of the legal hearers assume the conspicuous blame of the litigant, whom we learn has been blamed for slaughtering his dad. The twelve take a seat and a vote is taken. The greater part of the members of the jury vote "Guilty," with the exception of the Eighth Juror, who votes "Not Guilty," which, because of the prerequisite of a consistent jury, constrains them to talk about the case. The members of the jury respond brutally against this contradicting vote. At last, …show more content…

This time, fifth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh vote "not blameworthy," and the pondering proceeds. After a concise contention, eighth Juror brings into question regardless of whether the ground floor neighbor, an old man who had endured a stroke and could just walk gradually, could have gotten to the way to see the kid rundown the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had affirmed. eighth Juror reproduces the floor design of the loft, while second Juror times him, and they infer that he would not have possessed the capacity to achieve his entryway in fifteen seconds. Third Juror responds brutally to this and winds up assaulting eighth Juror, yelling, "God damn it! I'll slaughter him! I'll slaughter him." eighth Juror asks, "You don't generally mean you'll murder me, isn't that right?" demonstrating his prior point about how individuals say, "I'll execute you," when they don't generally would not joke about this. At the point when consultations continue, eighth Juror endeavors to break separated the declaration of the capturing cop that the litigant was not able name the films that he had asserted to have seen that night. He affirms that conceivably the litigant just overlooked the names of the movies and who was in them "under awesome passionate trouble.Upon further discussion about the switchblade, it becomes questionable whether or not the defendant would have made the stab wound, “down and in,” which would be contrary to his knowledge and experience with how to use such a