12 Angry Men
X155 Writing Assignment 3
Angie Vargas
3-10-14
“12 Angry Men”
In 12 Angry Men directed by Reginal Rose, a jury determines the guilt or innocence of a young man who is accused of murder. The jury room is very intense, they have little time and their tempers all together tend to click at one time which causes them to argue a lot. Out of the twelve, ten jurors have voted to convict. In the film the character that is uncertain is Henry Fondas character. Henry first views the testimony as a pair of witnesses, putting what ever is said together. By Henry thinking critically, he tries to figure out their conflicting testimony. He questions how the old man could have heard all the yelling going on while the train was passing by with the open window. From everything put together there was no possible way that the old man could not have been telling the truth. The question now is how to take in the expression “I’m going to kill you!” that the accused is alleged to have shouted. One of the jurors wants to take the statement seriously and not as an expression. Another juror goes against the content and explains how everything cannot always be taken seriously. It is brought up that why was this not mentioned in the cross- examination of the witness, since they did say they viewed everything.
Evaluating everything the jury does seem to agree on the defense lead to poor. One juror comes to the conclusion that he thought his client was guilty. But there is second-guessing such as, other explanations and interpretations for the half- hearted defense. The jury has the power to question the evidence, to show the competing theories of the case that are presented by the prosecution and the defense, to find what is wrong and to question any doubts or second guessing that anyone might have had and to take into consideration evidence and context that may be relevant. In conclusion, a good jury is basically a group of people put together to really in-depth with their thinking
Angie Vargas
3-10-14
“12 Angry Men”
In 12 Angry Men directed by Reginal Rose, a jury determines the guilt or innocence of a young man who is accused of murder. The jury room is very intense, they have little time and their tempers all together tend to click at one time which causes them to argue a lot. Out of the twelve, ten jurors have voted to convict. In the film the character that is uncertain is Henry Fondas character. Henry first views the testimony as a pair of witnesses, putting what ever is said together. By Henry thinking critically, he tries to figure out their conflicting testimony. He questions how the old man could have heard all the yelling going on while the train was passing by with the open window. From everything put together there was no possible way that the old man could not have been telling the truth. The question now is how to take in the expression “I’m going to kill you!” that the accused is alleged to have shouted. One of the jurors wants to take the statement seriously and not as an expression. Another juror goes against the content and explains how everything cannot always be taken seriously. It is brought up that why was this not mentioned in the cross- examination of the witness, since they did say they viewed everything.
Evaluating everything the jury does seem to agree on the defense lead to poor. One juror comes to the conclusion that he thought his client was guilty. But there is second-guessing such as, other explanations and interpretations for the half- hearted defense. The jury has the power to question the evidence, to show the competing theories of the case that are presented by the prosecution and the defense, to find what is wrong and to question any doubts or second guessing that anyone might have had and to take into consideration evidence and context that may be relevant. In conclusion, a good jury is basically a group of people put together to really in-depth with their thinking