Jury Foreman #1- He is the head of the jury. He is in charge of keeping things smooth and keeping order within the jury. At the begging of the session he voted guilty. He is a football coach and he tells the story on how this really talented player lost the last game of the season and how when he lost the game he just stared into to space. Jury #1 said that broke he heart, after he told that story he had a change of heart and voted not guilty. Juror #2 - This is the first time that he has been a jury. He voted guilty the first time. At the beginning it seems that he doesn't say what is on his mind and he just lets people talk for him. He is very insightful and he notices that the boy was much shorter than his father. He said that it would have been hard for him to stab his father downward on the chest. After he has analyzed each problem he comes to a conclusion that the boy isn't guilty. Juror #3- He is a very proud man. He thinks that the boy is guilty. He has a problem with juror #8. He always tries to contradict juror#8. Every time juror #8 says something, he always as something to say to go against him. He has a lot of personal background that clouds his decisions on the boy. His personal background his that he has a kid that did a similar thing to him and that’s why is was hard for him to see the evidence clearly. At the end when he finally exploded and told everyone that the boy is guilty. Then juror #8 tells this isn't your boy and then he votes not guilty. Juror #4- He is a very prestige business man. He formed an alliance with juror #3. He likes to prove his point with facts. He voted guilty at the beginning and he was one of the last people to vote not guilty. The reason why he voted not guilty is because juror #9 ask... ... middle of paper ... ...es and that there was no way that she could of seen the boy. Juror #10- He is Islamic and he has a temper. He just wants this to get over with. He says that everyone from the projects will end of in jail. He believes everything that the witness says. He gets very frustrated and started saying things about immigrants and how we need to take them down. At the end he votes not guilty. Juror #11- He is a watchmaker. He always wondered why the boy came back to the house when he killed his dad. He votes not guilty. He gets made at juror #7 saying he is not man enough to explain his reasoning’s. He is very observant. Juror #12- He is in the advertisement business. He suggests that everyone explains what they think of the boy. He always switches back and forth with the people that have the better agreements. But at the end he votes not guilty and he doesn’t swath back.
He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
From the beginning of the film, juror number eight displayed his interest in the case, not his personal engagements. His opening part by the window foreshadowed his deep concern for the defendant, an eighteen year-old Hispanic gentleman accused of stabbing his father in a fit of rage. While most of the jurors were ready to leave so as not to further interrupt their schedules, Henry Fonda was willing to give as much time as it would take to analyze this seemingly simple decision.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
However, they are really serious about putting this kid in jail. Everyone is shouting and yelling but finally ten gave up and said innocent. Juror three is still not giving up, he is still angry, his face hasn’t changed at all, he must be really pissed at all of us for betraying him. But finally he in the end said not guilty and then walked out.
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
Juror number four being a broker and juror number seven talks about how he made twenty-seven thousand selling marmalade.
Foreman #1: He was an assistant coach for a football team outside of the of the jury room, he was in charge of keeping everybody in focused on the task at hand. At the beginning of the movie he was persistent on voting guilty, but at the end he changes his vote to not guilty after hearing all of the evidence.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Juror 1, the foreman, is a football coach. Working with a similar age group as the defendant, he may have had more insight into the mind of a troubled young man than most of the other jurors may have had, and therefore might have better understood how they think and act. Based on his past experiences with young football players, he may have held some biases based on the observed actions of his own students. The foreman primarily works toward keeping order and calm among the members of the jury, so his major issue is that the defendant must have a fair trial, regardless of the backgrounds or beliefs of any of the individual jurors. He did not contribute too much to the discussion in terms of content, but he did fulfill his duty as foreman quite
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The second juror to vote not guilty is the Fifth Juror. He voted not guilty because the eight juror presented some information about the night of the murder, and he agreed with him.
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
Seemingly juror ten exists not only for conflict, but to demonstrate to the audience that personal biases may affect the way the jury thinks. Being one in a room of twelve individuals, juror ten truly withholds the essence of an angry