12 Angry Men Editorial

On August 14, 1957, eighteen year old Travis Johnson allegedly stabbed his father to
death with a switchblade. This boy grew up in the slums, with an abusive father in and out of
prison. Unfortunately, this affected how others viewed him and his morals. He is now on trial for
this heinous crime, and his life lies in the hands of twelve angry men.
Twelve men sat in a sweltering jury room, where they argued about this crime until the
moon began to shine. The initial vote of 11-1 lead to the belief that Johnson was guilty of
stabbing and murdering his father. The eleven jurors who voted guilty had numerous reasons to
support their decision. Assumptions were raised when many of jurors began to argue he was
guilty due to the fact he was a minority, and because of his violent family background. On top of
that, the area in which Johnson lived was considered a rough area, so they believed it was
therefore more likely to relate to similar crimes. The boys father has been in and out of prison
and has been known to be abusive. It was argued that it is normal for a child to neglect and
disrespect their parents. This lead to the belief that the boy might have gotten angry with his
father, and took out his anger in a rash second.
Another witness in the case, 89-year-old Eugene Jenkins, had his story further inspected
by the jury to assure the solidity of the so-called facts. According to the story already in place, it
took Jenkins no less than fifteen seconds to get up, walk to the door, walk down the hall and
watch the boy run down the staircase. When one of the jurors insisted they test the scenario for
themselves, the results were questionable. It turns out it wouldve taken around 40 to 50 seconds

to realistically do all of the things Jenkins supposedly did. This added more reasonable doubt and
some of the jurors then changed their vote from guilty to not guilty.
It was initially understood that Johnson had purchased a one-of-a-kind knife at a local
pawn shop, but in the jurors room it was proven that there were more knives that looked and
worked exactly the same. From the evidence of how the knife was used at the boy's height, it was
also proven impossible to plunge the knife the way he did. One of the witnesses who claimed she
saw the scene occur through a passing train seconds after getting up from bed, was a middleaged woman named Lorraine Patterson. The indents on her nose, as observed by the jury,
indicated that she wore eyeglasses for her vision. The jury came to conclusion that Lorraines
vision was most definitely impaired when she allegedly witnessed the incident, since she would
not have had enough time to put on her eyeglasses. This created even more reasonable doubt
within an already controversial case. After reviewing their facts once more, the popular vote was
not guilty as it outnumbered guilty by 11-1.
As the case came neared its end, it came down to only one juror still left with his vote as
guilty. The final decision finally changed when he had realized that he was only accusing the boy
of being guilty because his own son had abandoned him in the past. Clearly this was a touchy
subject for him, but he was able to break free eventually. This was a very powerful and emotional
moment that expressed his character, something he lacked during the whole of the case. At that
point in time, it was agreed that the final verdict would be not guilty.