WEBSTER UNIVERSITY

Mid-Term Case Study:

12 Angry Men



PROC 5840 Negotiations

Erin DelleFemine
Summer 2014

Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 2
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film written by Reginald Rose which depicts a
jury of twelve men who are tasked with determining the innocence or guilt of a young man
standing trial for the murder of his father. There are many issues explored throughout the film
including justice, doubt, class and prejudice. The most prominent issue presented is the need to
determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuseds guilt and the jurys inability to make such a
determination unanimously.
Determining that an individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt requires that no other
logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime,
thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty (Free
Dictionary, n.d.). From the moment the jury enters the jury room, we witness justice from
opposite ends of the spectrum. While one side favors to send the accused to the electric chair,
the other sympathizes with his poor upbringing, barely competent counsel and the jurys hasty
decision of guilt
The jurors were all influenced by their own personal prejudices and preconceived notions
about the accused and while not necessarily for reasons that are most common in modern day
television, they are very much similar. Juror Number Eight creates enough doubt among the
remaining jurors that they are unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the young man
is guilty of the crime while leaving the viewer satisfied that justice has prevailed over the evident
prejudice and class discrepancy among the jurors. The attempt to disseminate the jurors original
views on the defendant is achieved by casting enough doubt on the evident facts of the case.
Juror Number Eight, played by Henry Fonda, voted not guilty in opposition to the other
eleven jurors. As a result, the jurors were required to negotiate a median in which they would all
agree to accept whether the accused was guilty or not. Juror Number Eight employed reason,
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 3
compassion, and common sense towards swaying eleven jurors to change their original vote
while also using the jurors own prejudices and misconceptions as an advantage. He was calm,
thoughtful, and insightful while ensuring that all aspects of the case, as well as reasoning for
which he believed the young man was not guilty of the crime of murder, were adequately
discussed and considered. He believed that the accused deserved the consideration of the jurors
conversing about the young mans life prior to them sentencing as guilty and ultimately to death.
With his calm demeanor, he attempted to question the validity of the evidence while also
displaying how each piece of evidence appeared different to each member of the jury based upon
their individual preconceptions and prejudices. Exposure to specific elements and experiences
can easily lead one to develop an opinion on an item or situation they have not yet experienced
themselves. In this case, such exposure can prove to sway in an unfavorable direction.
By refusing to accept the guilty verdict of the other jurors, Juror Number Eight opens the
discussion in hope of bringing to light more specific details involving the validity of the
evidence. Juror Number Eight approaches and forms alliances with the jurors who seem most
peripheral: the old man (Juror Nine), the immigrant (Juror Eleven), and the follower (Juror Two).
Although he always remains opaque and ambiguous, he elicits personal information from the
jurors that allows him to both guide the deliberations and encourage the other jurors to bond with
him creates enough power over the jurors to create a sliver of doubt for some (Minority Matters,
454). By striking a chord with other members of the jury, Juror number Eight is able to identify
with each one of them and appeal to their more sensitive side in order to persuade them to seek
an alternate position.
Juror Number Eight also uses the power of self-expression by asking each juror to
provide input as to why he thinks the accused is guilty. By having each juror voice his opinion,
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 4
he is placing himself out there and displaying his personal view points and prejudices. In doing
so, they are allowing Juror Number Eight to insert information in such a manner that creates the
opposing jurors to better relate to the circumstances that otherwise would cause for a guilty
verdict. As a result, they are able to put themselves in the defendants shoes and see the event
from a different perspective.
Anonymity is also a tactic employed by Juror Number Eight. The original verdicts of
each juror were displayed openly as they went from juror to juror. Once open dialogue was
created and alternate scenarios and possible reasoning behind them were displayed, Juror
Number Eight offered to take an additional vote but by documenting it on a piece of paper
anonymously and to have each verdict read aloud. Indicating that should there be no further
dissent, he would change is decision to guilty in order to coincide with the group. Juror Number
Eight may have recognized some of the other jurors discomfort with professing their own doubts
about the accuseds guilt against the majority.
Above all, Juror Number Eight uses his personality and charisma to build alliances and
offer concessions to reframe and master the factual information. As a single juror, he manages to
dominate the group of men without alienating their beliefs and thoughts but rather by
encouraging their engagement in order to use their strengths and weaknesses to his advantage.
The key to his negotiation success is that he does not have to be forceful with the information he
possesses but rather bring forth the information the other jurors possess in order to expose such
information and sway their personal beliefs.
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 5
Juror Number Eight employs several negotiation strategies throughout the movie with his
calm and rational demeanor. Most of which do not appear to be extremely evident. He attempts
to create a friendly dialect among the group in order to keep emotions at a minimum. He
frequently says nothing and when he did speak, he chose to support his original beliefs as
opposed to reacting to the high emotions of the other jurors. Some of the strategies used by Juror
Number Eight include collaborative, compromise, forbearance, silence, surprise, withdrawal,
probing, setting limits, empathy and taking a break.
The forbearance negotiation tool was practiced at the beginning of each debate. While
the other jurors began to debate the evidence, he used forbearance in order to allow the others to
voice their points prior to jumping in. Giving each juror the opportunity to voice their thoughts
openly, he assisted in the jurors feeling that they contributed thoughts based upon their own
personal beliefs and prejudices.
Using silence as a negotiation tool, Juror Number Eight waited quietly on several
occasions. This technique was used to ensure that the interests and opinions were understood.
This placed him in the position to use specific responses as a reaction to each of their arguments.
The technique of surprise was utilized several times. The most dramatic example being
when he drove a pocket knife into the table. By taking out his own pocket knife to use as
comparison, he was able to adequately compare the weapon used and one every man may have
carried in 1957.
By calling for the blind vote, Juror Number Either used the technique of apparent
withdrawal. With offering his willingness to withdraw, he drove Juror Number Nine to feel
compelled to be drawn back into the negotiation and to also declare a not guilty verdict. Casting
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 6
doubt on the presumptions of the other jurors, he was successful in enabling additional dialogue
regarding the circumstances of the case.
The use of probing technique was best used while Juror Number Four illustrated memory
recall. In his questioning, he drove for his desired response and concluded that the accuseds
alibi was indeed legitimate. Sometimes, removing an individual from their original perspective
and placing them in a situation they may have experienced in the past allows for better
understanding of the current situation.
The most evident example of limit setting occurred with the compromise to spend time
debating the facts as they were presented in the case. By establishing a timeline, Juror Number
Eight provided an anticipated end point to satisfy impatient jurors by encouraging participation
especially among those who wished to agree expeditiously.
Salami technique was used from the beginning of the movie as Juror Number Eight sliced
through piece after piece of the evidence. While drawing the jurors in a bit at a time, he avoided
information overload by leveling the playing field. Gradually, they were more accepting of an
alternate view of the evidence in the case.
Asking for empathy was one of the major influential techniques used by Juror Number
Eight throughout the film by asking questions the others could easily relate to. By taking events
from the case and generating real life situations and experiences, he was able to get the other
jurors to relate better to the circumstances that otherwise seemed less obvious. Both in dialogue
regarding one witnesss limp and another regarding the train, he was able to elicit the jurors by
discussing personal experiences. This technique caused jurors to develop more comradery and
relate easily to each other as peers as opposed to enemies. This lead to the feeling that as a team
the jury had come to the conclusion of not guilty (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2009, P. 48-51).
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 7
Juror Number Eight made several small compromises throughout the negotiation process
so as to not cause additional friction among the group. His first major compromise was
conceding to the other jurors to discuss details of the case openly for an hour in order to provide
better insight and open the forum for further discussion. Instead of proposing endless
conversation regarding the circumstances of the case, he accepted the time limit given. In doing
so, he exposed shoddy legal counsel on the behalf of the prosecution.
Another compromise made my Juror Number Eight was when he recommended taking a
second vote to see where the group stood following the introductory dialect surrounding the facts
of the case. Offering to surrender his not guilty verdict should he be the lone dissent of the group
was risky considering his valid outlook on the shoddiness of the case and evidence. The jurors
were adamant that the accused was guilty and not at all interested in the reasons for why Juror
Number Eight felt otherwise. The compromise offered by Juror Number Eight was sufficient
enough to convince at least one juror that his thoughts had some merit, demonstrating the
influence such a tactic can have on a group.
I believe that compromise is a negotiation tool many individuals use on a regular basis.
Most probably dont realize they utilize it. I feel that it is necessary to learn when and how to
use compromise successfully. Some may view compromise as a form of surrender but the
manner in which compromise is used will make such a determination. You must give a little to
get a little. While we all wish to get our own way and on the terms for which favor us over our
opponent, it is crucial to understand that not all battles have a winner and a loser. By
compromising a little of your intentions to your opponent, you are providing an incentive for
both sides to be successful. As a parent, compromise is needed daily. In order for my children
to feel that they are not being ordered around, I need to give a bit of leeway when asking for
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 8
assistance or for them do perform one of their daily tasks. Children do not, generally, want to be
told what to do. Parents, on the other hand, want their children to do as they are told. In order
for both sides to achieve the desired outcome, both must offer a little bit of their pride and meet
each other at a reasonable point.
Silence is golden. In the event of a negotiation, tempers can rise and discussions may
become heated. Practicing silence can help alleviate tension which causes one to speak out of
anger or rage and thus prevent words that would harm another. Possessing the wherewithal to
remain on an even keel is not always easy but silence is one negotiation tool that will certainly
provide positive results. Professionally, silence is used regularly when conducting team
meetings. The group in which I work in small in size but large in opinions. Often, our meetings
become heated with members speaking over one another and adamant that their concerns are of
utmost importance. With such a small group, no two employees perform the same tasks. Each
employee feels they are the one with the most crucial job and when meeting, feels they need to
speak over others. As the facilitator of most of these meetings, practicing silence in order to
alleviate any confrontation has become a key to success. Being silent while each member
stresses their concerns leaves me the opportunity to leverage what the main goal for the meeting
was intended to be while also allowing members to feel as though their thoughts are being heard.
When one feels as though they are really being listened to, they are more apt to listen to other
group member thus creating a better dialogue for discussion.
The negotiation tool of withdrawal is used daily at my home. With my husband deployed
for your six out of seven days per week, I need to choose my battles wisely with our two
children. By opting to withdraw from an argument, I have eliminated the need for a continued
argument, mostly regarding a delayed bed time. For instance, just last evening, I opted to
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 9
withdraw from my demand of my two children to sleep in their respective bedrooms and settled
for them bunking together if they would go to bed at a reasonable hour. Considering the
repercussions of tired children, I believed that the argument was best reserved for a later date
since it was best to have them asleep at a reasonable hour even when it is summer vacation. This
is a revolving negotiation in my household especially considering I take the time in the evening
after the children have got to bed to work on my graduate school work. With my husband
traveling often, it has become increasingly difficult to manage full time work, athletics for the
kids, household duties and online school work. By picking and choosing which battles are more
important, I am better equipped to leverage my point.
Probing technique is used frequently when completing homework assignments with my
children. My son suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. After arriving home
from school at 3:00pm, there exists a small window of opportunity for which he can sustain
enough focus to complete assignments sent home by his teacher. With that being said, upon my
return from work it is increasingly more difficult to reel in his thoughts about what he has
learned in the hours preceding my arrival and applying that successfully to his homework
assignments. Since I do not want to complete his homework for him, I use probing technique in
order to bring forth the information. By asking one question at a time, I can gradually have my
son answer each question successfully without bombarding him with all the questions at once.
Setting limits. Now this technique is used every waking minute of my day. As any
parent knows, boundaries must be established in order to teach our children the basic guidelines
of life. A very important limit we have established in my home is setting time limits for
electronics. This technique can be extremely beneficial through many negotiations by providing
a limit for which dialect could continue. By setting limits, a group could set the stage for
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 10
requiring a conclusion. This type of technique would help support a situation in which a
conclusion must be drawn within a small amount of time.
Empathy is a negotiation technique that is extremely important to everyday life. Having
the ability to express empathy provides many opportunities in relating to others on a regular
basis. When an individual feels that you are able to relate to their personal condition or
experiences, they are more inclined to feel comfortable and open to discussion. As middle
management as my place of employment, it is my duty to express empathy daily towards both
my superiors and subordinates. By using my ability to empathize, my team members feel
confident to discuss many different topics with me in order for us to collectively work together
and perform our tasks successfully. I believe that people are more apt to work together in unison
and perform to the best of our abilities believing that together were are successful.
The five negotiation techniques I have described above that are used in my personal and
business life include: compromise, silence, withdrawal, setting limits and empathy. By using
compromise, I would hope to achieve a result of negotiation that is agreed upon by mutual terms.
When a group of individuals can collectively and actively discuss a topic and understand that by
working together they will be able to achieve more. One must use compromise in order to
relinquish from the personal agenda and become open to the ideas of others. I feel that by
working as a team, we can achieve more.
By using silence, we can achieve a calm and reasonable discussion which can lead to
constructive conversation and outcome that can benefit all. It is difficult to understand what
another is attempting to relay when you are not silent and attentive towards that individuals
needs. Being silent provides to the other individuals that you are interested in learning what they
have to say. I would like people to know that what they are saying is important to me and that it
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 11
helps me to understand their perspective of the discussion, which may not always be the same as
my own.
Withdrawal is important but tricky tool to use. The risk exists that by withdrawing, you
are removing all possibilities of constructively coming to a conclusion. Successfully
withdrawing from a negotiation with the hope that your actions will elicit a reasonable response
from the opposing party can be very successful. I would hope to achieve the response that my
opponent understands that I am not set on winning and would accept defeat if it means benefiting
the overall cause.
By setting limits, I am allowing for dialect to transpire but within a reasonable time frame
or topic frame. Setting limits allows for me to adequately make a statement without forcing an
endless conversation over a topic. Setting limits for what is acceptable and what is not, allows
for conversation to remain within the scope of the topic. Too many detours can cause to go off
topic and divert the overall outcome of a negotiation. This is not beneficial to either party
entering into a negotiation. Whether setting limits is for an everyday topic or a specific item that
must be decided, it is important to set reasonable limits in order to successfully reach a
conclusion.
Empathy is the ability to see the world as another person, to share and understand
another persons feelings, needs, concerns and/or emotional state (Empathy, n.d). In a
negotiation, empathy is an important asset because it allows both counterparts to see the others
perspective and conduct the negotiation in a way that is beneficial to both parties. Another
benefit of empathy lies in the fact that if you properly construct your reflective response, your
counterparts natural reaction will be to provide more explanation and information. Most
inexperienced negotiators are not adept at recognizing a myriad of emotions. However, you will
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 12
find it easier to identify others emotions if you can easily identify your own (Stark, 2012). As I
mentioned earlier, I am a firm believer in displaying empathy in everyday life. It is important to
understand the perspective of another in order to fully comprehend their argument. Without
being open minded when entering into a negotiation, you will not have the ability to ensure that
all topics are fully discussed and all alternatives reviewed. Demonstrating empathy is not just
simply an act of being nice. Instead, ones expression of it should expect that others will
reciprocate and fully appreciate your concerns. This will foster mutual understanding in which
opponents will more easily consider and make concessions stemming from their concerns.
Empathy and self-control combined will provide for a more positive resolution coupled with
more self-confidence and the overall outcome of the negotiation. Empathy is a natural human
skill that can become an extremely beneficial tool. In instances such as this in 12 Angry Men, so
long as Juror Number Eight expresses some empathy, he is conveying that he understands each
jurors current position and can appeal to their positions regarding the facts of the case. With
this ability to convey empathy, he is successful at viewing the thoughts and feelings of others
very well.
Juror Number Four is a calm, cool and collected stockbroker who focused primarily on
what he believed to be the facts of the case. He possesses a logical and analytical thought
process while participating in the debate. While he originally stated the accused was guilty, his
point of view allowed him to only change his vote after each point had been fully discussed.
While several other jurors voted not guilty out of haste, his vote was decided on what he saw as
indisputable evidence indicating the defendants guilt. Some of his points were based upon his
own prejudices. Most of his statements indicated that neighborhoods like the accuseds spawned
criminals but also left an open mind. He was certain that the accuseds inability to remember the
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 13
names of the movies he viewed the night of the murder indicated guilt. Nonetheless, he willfully
participated in Juror Number Eights replay involving personal recollections and conceded that
everyone is prone to forgetfulness. The only emotional, albeit mild, response to Juror Number
Eights experiment exposed an inability to recall recent events. Otherwise, Juror Number Four
remained calm, focused and analytical. This shows how influential ones prejudices can be when
entering into a negotiation. Juror Number Four only swayed his guilty verdict after being
presented with fact-based alternatives presented by the remainder of the jury.
Juror Number Fours only basis for a guilty verdict was his conviction that there was
overwhelming evidence against the defendant, as misperceived as it may have been. He
frequently rationalized that the defendants socioeconomic class played heavily into his
examination which initially appear to drive his verdict of guilt. Specifically, he claimed that the
accused made claims while witnesses used facts. Even once these key components were
further analyzed and cast reasonable doubt, he continued to declare a verdict of guilty. Also with
the testimony of the eye witness across the street, who stated to have witnessed the entire murder
through the windows of a passing train, he believed the entire testimony indisputable. Only after
being presented with a more personal alternative did he alter his verdict.
Other jury members used additional techniques to assist in changing Juror Number Fours
mind. Juror Number Eight patiently and methodically discussed every bit of resistance in order
to display reasonable doubt. By using probing technique, Juror Number Eight cast doubt on the
reasoning for which the accused failed to recall the movies he claimed to have viewed.
Questioning his recollection of his own calendar, he caught Juror Number Four inadequately
prepared to respond. With this use of surprise, Juror Number Eight caused Juror Number Four to
divulge that there was enough reasonable doubt surrounding the questions about the movie.
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 14
With regard to the eye witness to the murder, he remained intractable. After Juror Number Four
made an adjustment to his reading glasses, Juror Number Nine pointed out that the witness had
made the same gesture while on the stand. Using hypothetical questioning, he was able to
overcome an impasse by suggesting that the witness used glasses and thus drawing an empathetic
response from Juror Number Four. Anyone that wears glasses could concede from personal
experience that no one wears prescription eyewear to bed. It was highly likely that someone
could roll over in the middle of the night, peer out the window through the windows of a moving
train to accurately witness a murder in another building without their corrective lenses. Juror
Number Four was forced to witness that there was reasonable doubt cast over the otherwise
indisputable eye witness testimony. As adamant as Juror Number Four was that the accused was
guilty, it took multiple attempts to rationalize with him regarding the facts of the case.
Considering Juror Number Fours attention to detail and calm demeanor, it was difficult for the
other jurors to sway his decision. Adamant that the information set forth throughout the trial
were facts and reported accurately, Juror Number Fours predisposed prejudices helped feed his
determination that the accused was in fact guilty.
Juror Number Three, the president of his business, adamantly refused to alter his vote or
allow his opinion to be swayed in any way. Haunted by his relationship own son, Juror Number
Three verbally berates the group with a forceful tone and attitude. Juror Number Three is an
angry, bitter man who has forcefully expressed his opinions unto others, and has most likely
succeeded in doing so his entire life. Considering his position within his own company, he
apparently is not well equipped to receive resistance from the group. He frequently places other
jurors in awkward or uncompromising positions with his use of such phrases as know what I
mean. As the movie progresses, he becomes more aggressive as speculation about the validity
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 15
of the witness testimony increases. He is completely convinced of the accuseds guilt regardless
of what the others have openly discussed. Whenever Juror Number Eight brings up the evident
flaws in the prosecution case, Juror Number Three immediately attempts to discount it.
However, unlike Juror Number Eight, his arguments are merely strong opinions without any
factual evidence. He refuses to even consider the possibility that the suspect may be innocent.
Instead of an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, Juror Number Three has a "guilty until
proven innocent" mindset. He is utterly convinced of the suspect's guilt from the start of the
case.
Stubbornness is not the only influence to his opinion. Based on his own admission, Juror
Number Three treated his son much like the accused's father treated the accused. He was heard
saying that he was "...going to make a man out of him, or bust him in half trying." As a result,
his son struck him and has not spoken to him in years. This quote delivers a possible explanation
for why Juror Number Three is so stubborn about this case. He is connecting negative memories
of his son to the young suspect. He obviously carries emotional baggage regarding his son.
Perhaps, Juror Number Three feels he failed his authoritative duty. If so, this case is
presenting the perfect opportunity for him to subconsciously reinstate his power by putting the
accused to death.
Juror Number Threes antagonistic manner calms Juror Number Eight. He is accustomed
only to opinions that are his own and is comfortable forcing his wishes and views upon others.
He is immediately vocal about how simple the case appears and the obvious guilt of the
defendant. He loses his temper rather quickly and becomes infuriated when other members
disagree with his opinions. The defendant is absolutely guilty to him, until the very end of the
Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 16
movie when his emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son created
biased views and only then does he realize this and vote not guilty.
Towards the end of the movie, Juror Number Three remains with three other jurors in
declaring guilt. Understanding that the tides must be turned in order to get the remaining jurors
to declare a not guilty verdict, Juror Number Eight changes the game by sensing that Juror
Number Three is appearing less credible to the group and makes a personal attack. Juror
Number Eight has successfully destroyed Juror Number Threes credibility while also
undermining the evidence that had previously pointed to the defendants guilt. With the
remaining jurors gathered around Juror Number Eight, the results of the next vote are tied. By
deteriorating Juror Number Threes credibility among the remaining Jurors, Juror Number Eight
gains their confidence in his ability to be rational and neutral.

Erin DelleFemine PROC5840 OC SU 2014
Page 17
Bibliography
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in (3. ed.).
New York, NY: Penguin.
Keys to Negotiation 7--Responding Not Reacting. (n.d.). Negotiation Guidance Associates.
Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://negotiationguidance.com/2011/02/26/keys-to-
negotiation-7-responding-not-reacting/
(2007). Minority Matters: 12 Angry Men as a Case Study of a Successful Negotiation against
the Odds. Negotiation Journal, ., 449-462.
Stark, P. (2012, April 23). Become A Master Negotiator. Become A Master Negotiator.
Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://everyonenegotiates.com/empathy-in-
negotiation.php
What is Empathy?. (n.d.). Skills You Need. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from
http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/empathy.html