The Book "The Juror" was based around the 1970's, in a small Mississippian town called Clanton, (Now even though it was the 70's segregation was still pretty big in Mississippi) The book starts off by telling about the main character, Willie Traynor. Willie went to collage and during his last year he dropped out. So he went to his grandmother who gave him the money to buy the newspaper in a small town call Clanton, Mississippi, that he had always wanted to buy. So after getting the money Willie
12 Angry Men - Juror#3 In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still haunted by his
a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. Yet of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all change their vote except one. A precise example of this would be a comparison between Juror 3 and Juror 6. Both jurors have heard the same case and have studied the same evidence. Yet of the two, Juror 3 does not understand why anyone would consider the defendant not guilty. By taking a closer
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. Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case
their votes. In the 1957 film, viewers learn the most about how jurors' votes are shifted mostly by their, past experiences, unfamiliar knowledge, and their open minds. One of the most influential traits to change the jurors views is their past experiences with “slum boys.’’(Film) The jurors who had been influenced by the trait were jurors all but juror eight. As the movie went on, all
various group learning and social psychology theories. Released in 1957, the movie is about a team of 12 jurors who are totally strangers to each other, and are called upon by the judge to reach a consensus on whether to pronounce guilty or not, an 18 year old person accused of murdering his own father. A guilty verdict would lead to a death sentence and hence the onus was on the team of jurors to take a responsible call after examining all the evidences. BRIEF SUMMARY: In the trial of an 18 year
the judge addressing to the jurors that they must keep their oath and make the best decision for the victim with all of the knowledge that they have received from listening to the case. The jurors are then directed into a small room. Tables have been pushed together in the middle to make one big meeting-like table, surrounding with enough chairs to seat the twelve male jurors. After all twelve jurors are settled into the room, the bailiff/officer locks the door. The jurors shuffle throughout the room
describes the scene of a New York jury room, where twelve men have to decide between life and death for a inner-city teen, charged with killing his father. These jurors have to sift through the facts and the fiction to uncover the truth about the case and some truths about themselves. Reginald Rose outlines through the actions of juror number three, that no matter the consequences,
but one juror is convinced that he his guilty of killing his father. Luckily for the young man in the case, one juror has reasonable doubts that he is not guilty. All eleven other jurors did not take a hard look at the case or question anything. The one juror who disagrees simply does not want to send the boy off to his death without talking about anything, he valued human life. “Juror #8 is dramatic, just, kind, and smart. But none of these things would get him anywhere with the other jurors if he
evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury
by twelve jurors in a New York jury room. Twelve Angry Men displays the effects that one person can have on a group, it teaches the value of being part of a jury, and it explores how stereotypes and prejudices can have an effect on someone’s decision or beliefs. Juror Eight stood up for what he believed in against eleven other jurors, and eventually influenced them all to reach the verdict of not-guilty. At the end of the case, when the jury is about to come to a final decision, Juror Eight says
the minds of an entire crowd. In this group of a dozen jurors you have very different personalities and also you have some men that want to be leaders and some that do not. Also the movie demonstrates that actions and behaviors of the twelve jurors. This is an example of small group communications. The juror that was the Architect in the suit was probably the strongest leader in the group. (12 angry men, 1957). Before the twelve jurors started to deliberate they were all very nice to each other
On Friday, April 18, I attended the Henderson State University production of Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose wrote the playwright of Twelve Angry Men and Sherman L. Sergel had it adapted. The performance took place in the Arkansas Hall Studio Theatre on Henderson State campus. Fortunately, I had the opportunity of watching the Good Friday performance of this play and it did everything but disappoint. I didn’t know much about this playwright before entering the theater other than it took place in
groups and teams. The film tells the story of twelve jurors who must come to a conviction on a murder case. Before the jurors leave to come to a verdict, the judge reminds them that their decision must be unanimous or a hung jury will be the result. The judge also tells them that if anyone has any “reasonable doubt,” he should vote “not guilty.” When they congregate, the jury votes almost immediately. Every juror votes “guilty” except for Juror 8, Henry Fonda. The film shows
persuasion through a method of inquiry – asking questions, raising doubts and undermining the certainty of the other jurors. Fonda’s leadership style displays emotional intelligence, which includes self-awareness, discipline, persistence and empathy. It is a style that mobilizes the jurors toward a shared vision by pointing in a direction of not guilty and inviting the other jurors to participate in discovering the best way to arrive at a decision. b. Fonda’s character does a good job executing some
ask themselves this question when in the court room “ WHY DID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECT CITIZEN JURIES TO JUDGE OUR LAWS AS WELL AS THE GUILT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ?” Well the answer is really simple its Because: "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the
the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges
had to find her father in order to keep the land her family lived on. The next hero was Chris McCandles from Into the Wild who was sick of living within the boundaries of normal life and wanted to go somewhere where he could truly live. Then, we had Juror #8 from 12 Angry Men who is put up to the task of persuading a jury to save a boy’s life. Lastly, we have Abdulrahman Zeitoun from Zeitoun who has to overcome the challenges of his ethnic background to be free. When you think of a hero you probably
compared to decision- making. Decision- making is a part of planning that involves selected actions from a set of alternatives. From the text a movie named Twelve Angry Men is mention. Twelve Angry Men is a movie about “a diverse group of twelve jurors (all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status) who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the 'facts' in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case” (Driks, p,1). The jury are the people who are
It's very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.' [Juror 8, page 53] Perhaps this best sums up the basis of Twelve Angry Men' by Reginald Rose. This play is about a young delinquent on trial for the murder of his abusive father. The jury must find him guilty if there is no reasonable doubt, and in turn, sentence him to death. I don't envy your job. You are faced with a grave responsibility.' [Judge, page 1]