12 Angry Men Jury Analysis
It is a matter of life and death and it is all up to twelve people. According to Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn't make sense, you should find for the defense.” If the facts that are presented by the prosecution are not clear then the jury should vote the defendant not guilty. One may disagree with this statement because if the evidence that is presented in court is unclear, and then the jury grants the defendant not guilty and the defendant really did commit the crime then there is a criminal on the loose. For instance the OJ Simpson case when OJ tried on the glove and it did not fit. The jury saw that there was unclear evidence that proved him guilty and there was nothing that proved him not guilty but the jury still ruled not guilty even though he did kill his wife. However, the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose agrees with this quote. There is a boy on trial for the murder of his father and when the jury goes into the jury room to discuss a verdict eleven
…show more content…
jurors vote guilty and juror eight votes not guilty and you need twelve out of twelve to reach a verdict. The man that votes not guilty shows three pieces of evidence that are questionable and every time juror eight questions the evidence more and more people change their decisions. There are three instances in the play where the evidence that was presented during the trial is unclear: the old man hearing the boy yell, the old man seeing the boy run down the stairs and the woman seeing the murder.
At the beginning deliberation the jury discussed the testimony given by the old man.
The old man testified that he heard the boy on trial yell, “I am going to kill you,” at his father. However, there was an el train passing by at the same time. The jury thought this was solid evidence, but when the jury started to discuss this evidence juror eight said, “An el train takes six second to pass a given point or two seconds per car...The old man would have had to hear the boy say, “I’m going to kill you,” while the front of the el was roaring past his nose. It's not possible that he could have heard it.” (Rose 11). This statement completely crushed the testimony that was given in court. It also change the minds of many of the jurors because the evidence became questionable that at first voted guilty when the jury voted again the vote change “nine to three in favor of guilty” (Rose 12). Proving that when information is unclear or does not make sense then some of the jury members voted the defendant not
guilty.
The second piece of evidence the jury discussed that was deemed questionable was the ability for the old man to see the boy run down the stairs. The old man testified got out of bed when he heard the boy running out of the upstairs apartment, and the old man said he ran to the front door of his apartment to see the boy running down the stairs. However, juror eight believed that it was impossible for the old man to see the boy because there was not enough time. The old man had to “get up out of bed, get his canes, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty-three feet, and open the front door” (Rose 13) and see the boy in a matter of fifteen seconds. This man had two strokes and he walked with two canes meaning he did not move very fast and he couldn't go almost 55 feet in 15 seconds and he did not see the boy. There was no witness to see the boy running from the crime scene. This point changed many of the juror’s minds and persuaded more of them to vote not guilty. When the foreman took a another vote it became six guilty and six not guilty. More and more of the jurors find for the defendant as the exedence becomes more and more questionable.
The last piece of evidence that does not make sense is the woman across the street being able to see the murder. There was a woman who lived across the street from the boy and his father who claimed she saw the boy kill his father. She testified saying that “she went to bed at about eleven o’clock that night. Her bed was next to the open window, and she could look out of the window while lying down and see directly into the window across the street. She tossed and turned for over an hour, unable to fall asleep. Finally she turned toward the window at about twelve-ten and, as she looked out, she saw the boy stab his father” (Rose 19). This seemed like solid evidence to most of the jury members except for juror number eight after he remembered the woman was wearing glasses
jurors vote guilty and juror eight votes not guilty and you need twelve out of twelve to reach a verdict. The man that votes not guilty shows three pieces of evidence that are questionable and every time juror eight questions the evidence more and more people change their decisions. There are three instances in the play where the evidence that was presented during the trial is unclear: the old man hearing the boy yell, the old man seeing the boy run down the stairs and the woman seeing the murder.
At the beginning deliberation the jury discussed the testimony given by the old man.
The old man testified that he heard the boy on trial yell, “I am going to kill you,” at his father. However, there was an el train passing by at the same time. The jury thought this was solid evidence, but when the jury started to discuss this evidence juror eight said, “An el train takes six second to pass a given point or two seconds per car...The old man would have had to hear the boy say, “I’m going to kill you,” while the front of the el was roaring past his nose. It's not possible that he could have heard it.” (Rose 11). This statement completely crushed the testimony that was given in court. It also change the minds of many of the jurors because the evidence became questionable that at first voted guilty when the jury voted again the vote change “nine to three in favor of guilty” (Rose 12). Proving that when information is unclear or does not make sense then some of the jury members voted the defendant not
guilty.
The second piece of evidence the jury discussed that was deemed questionable was the ability for the old man to see the boy run down the stairs. The old man testified got out of bed when he heard the boy running out of the upstairs apartment, and the old man said he ran to the front door of his apartment to see the boy running down the stairs. However, juror eight believed that it was impossible for the old man to see the boy because there was not enough time. The old man had to “get up out of bed, get his canes, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty-three feet, and open the front door” (Rose 13) and see the boy in a matter of fifteen seconds. This man had two strokes and he walked with two canes meaning he did not move very fast and he couldn't go almost 55 feet in 15 seconds and he did not see the boy. There was no witness to see the boy running from the crime scene. This point changed many of the juror’s minds and persuaded more of them to vote not guilty. When the foreman took a another vote it became six guilty and six not guilty. More and more of the jurors find for the defendant as the exedence becomes more and more questionable.
The last piece of evidence that does not make sense is the woman across the street being able to see the murder. There was a woman who lived across the street from the boy and his father who claimed she saw the boy kill his father. She testified saying that “she went to bed at about eleven o’clock that night. Her bed was next to the open window, and she could look out of the window while lying down and see directly into the window across the street. She tossed and turned for over an hour, unable to fall asleep. Finally she turned toward the window at about twelve-ten and, as she looked out, she saw the boy stab his father” (Rose 19). This seemed like solid evidence to most of the jury members except for juror number eight after he remembered the woman was wearing glasses