Juror 3 Is Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge. Throughout the play, Juror 3 is stubborn and unwilling to listen to any other opinions. Juror 3 continually does or says whatever best suits his needs to convince the rest of the jurors that the teen boy murdered his father. When he first interjects, he describes his thoughts about the case being

As the story unfolds, he tries to rush the case and continues to call for votes. He then becomes more frantic when he sees that the other jurors are starting to become less convinced of the defendants guilt. When any of the other jurors contradict Juror 3, he becomes aggressive and insults them commenting, "you're crazy" (241) or "We don't need a sermon" (224). Similarly, if another juror states something trying to prove the minor is innocent, Juror 3 immediately negates their claim and tries make it seem as if they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. In another situation where the jurors are disputing whether to believe a witness account made by an old man, Juror 9, who is also an elderly man, describes why the evidence may be skewed. Juror 9 explains that he believes the witness may have accidentally