The Guilty In Twelve Angry Men

In the play Twelve Angry Men, a teenaged boy is indicted of committing premeditated murder, the most serious felony tried in the United States justice system. While initially it appears the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, after careful deliberation from the jury, additional evidence surfaces, showing the boy may not be guilty. Additional evidence found led the jurors to impeach the witness’s accounts, due to inconstancies in their testimonies. For these reasons and others I believe the boy was not guilty. For example, one of the most convincing pieces of evidence from the prosecution is an eyewitness account from a woman who saw the boy murder his father from the windows of a passing el train. However, the jurors discover the women’s
A final piece of evidence comes from the murder weapon, which the boy admits he bought; the prosecution states that the switch knife is incredibly unique and is not sold in any of the nearby areas. However, a juror is able to find an identical knife sold in the same area, which once again proves there is a reasonable doubt in the case. Throughout the play it is made apparent that the defense for the boy was lacking, and they did not strike many of the necessary possible jurors during voir dire. For instance, Juror 10 is a complete bigot who believes anyone who comes from a poor area, like the boy, is not trustworthy. In the play the jurors unanimously decide on a not guilty verdict based on the untrustworthy evidence. After their hours of careful discussion, it is clear that their decision was not made hastily, which once again shows that the lacking defense led to the appearance of guilt. In this fictional case, many jurors pushed for a hung jury, however, ultimately it was decided that evidence made possibility for reasonable doubt, and delivered a not guilty