Twelve Angry Men depicts different types of leadership‚ communication‚ and group dynamics. The film revolves around the jurisdiction of a homicide trial with a jury that almost unanimously votes the defendant guilty‚ with only one opposing voter. This man‚ Juror #8‚ presents his decision through ideas of reasonable doubt that spiral into a majority vote of not-guilty. So‚ how does a group of twelve men completely shift their point of view from guilty to not-guilty? The power of effective leadership
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
uneasy towards each other once they enter the room. 2. The Twelve jurors are given the job‚ by the judge‚ of deciding whether a teenage boy is innocent or guilty of killing his father. They must separate the facts from the fancy and provide a verdict of guilty if there is no reasonable doubt to the claims‚ or non-guilty if there is reasonable doubt. The decision must be unanimous. The charge against the defendant is Murder in the first degree – premeditated homicide (death sentence). 3. Foreman:
Premium Jury Verdict Not proven
Small groups refer to interactions among three or more people who are connected through a shared identity‚ a common purpose‚ and a mutual influence. A jury is a good example of a small group because it has at least 12 people in it deliberating a verdict. The movie “12 Angry Men” focuses on a jury’s reflections in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is directed to begin discussions in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man accused in the stabbing death of his father. How would you
Premium Jury Verdict Not proven
defendant. At the beginning of the play‚ when every other juror has voted guilty he is the only one to vote: “not guilty.” Juror #8 spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience‚ and to contemplate the details of the case. A guilty verdict will result in the electric chair; therefore‚ Juror #8 wants to discuss the relevance of the witness testimony. He is convinced that there is
Premium Jury Verdict Not proven
PAGE ONE Adelphia Founder And One Son Are Found Guilty Jury Remains Deadlocked On Second Son‚ Acquits Former Assistant Treasurer By PETER GRANT and CHRISTINE NUZUM Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 9‚ 2004; Page A1 Notching another victory against the corporate excesses of the 1990s‚ prosecutors won criminal convictions against the father-and-son team of John and Timothy Rigas‚ former top executives at cable company Adelphia Communications Corp. However‚ they failed
Premium Jury Fraud Not proven
how it¡¯s going to get done. After the men take their seats Juror 1 explains their task. He explains that a consensus‚ or a unanimous vote‚ is necessary stating that it will take a full 12 votes for an acquittal or a guilty verdict. He further explains that a guilty verdict demands the punishment be ¡°the chair.¡± Still in the feedforward stage‚ the jurors agree to take a preliminary vote which reveals an eleven to one split and thus their ¡°problem¡± is identified. ¡°Well at least we know where
Premium Not proven Verdict Jury
displays the key strength in the American justice system when dealing with serious crimes‚ a unanimous vote must be accomplished through the consideration of reasonable doubt. The question remains throughout if Juror 8 had not been present would the verdict of been the same? Would reasonable doubt of been taken into consideration? And was the American justice system strong enough to uphold their value of innocent until proven guilty. Throughout the play there are many references to the judicial concept
Premium Jury Verdict Not proven
experiences made it a difficult task for a calm‚ fair‚ and rationalized discussion. Fonda who held the only vote for not guilty‚ remained calm‚ he did not waver‚ and held his conviction while the entire room attempted to convince him of their guilty verdict. Fonda used reason when he pulled out a knife that was identical to the one used in the murder‚ which at the time been thought of as one of a kind. The knife was the first cue that forced the other jurors to think more rationally. Fonda used the
Premium Jury Verdict Persuasion
Jury Nullification Jury Nullification Natalie Popoff CJA/344 Torria Richardson Jury Nullification “It is not only the juror’s right‚ but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding‚ judgment‚ and conscience‚ though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” This is what John Adams said of jury nullification. John Jay‚ who was the first justice of the Supreme Court said‚ “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy
Premium Jury Law Supreme Court of the United States
debate regarding a capital murder case. The majority of the movie is a 12-man jury debating the murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused with stabbing his father to death‚ if a guilty verdict is reached it will mean an automatic death sentence for the buy. This case seems to be a clear cut guilty verdict; The alibi of the defendant is weak‚ the knife found at the scene of the crime is the same as the one he says he had lost‚ there is multiple witnesses claiming to have either saw the murder
Premium 12 Angry Men Leadership Jury