12 Angry Men

The story begins in a New York City courthouse, where a nineteen-year-old Hispanic boy from a slum is on trial
for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly tired judge
instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict
will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.[7]
The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin
deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they
plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussionwith the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda),
who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go
along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7
(Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley), who believes that most
people from slum backgrounds are more likely to commit crimes.
The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors
harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the
boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the
murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the
overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he
feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.
Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he
has only succeeded in hanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes
that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will
acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns intense
criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum
of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he himself
changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.
Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the
boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as
he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is
often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11
(George Voskovec) questions whether the defendant would have reasonably fled the scene before cleaning the
knife of fingerprints, then come back three hours later to retrieve the knife (which had been left in his father's
chest); then changes his vote.
Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had gone to the door
of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6
and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon
the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to
actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the
witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the
process, explodes in a rant: "He's got to burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to task, calling
him a "self-appointed public avenger" and a sadist, saying he wants the defendant to die only because he personally
wants it, not because of the facts. Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at Juror 8, but is restrained by two
others. Juror 8 calmly retorts, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?", proving his previous point.[6]
Jurors 2 (John Fiedler) and 6 (Edward Binns) also decide to vote "not guilty", tying the vote at 66. Soon after, a
rainstorm hits the city, threatening to cancel the baseball game for which Juror 7 has tickets.

Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) states that he does not believe the boy's alibi, which was being at the movies with a few
friends at the time of the murder, because the boy could not remember what movie he had seen three hours later.
Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain things, and tests how well Juror 4
can remember the events of previous days. Juror 4 remembers, with some difficulty, the events of the previous five
days, and Juror 8 points out that he had not been under emotional stress at that time, thus there was no reason to
think the boy could remember the movie that he had seen.[8]
Juror 2 calls into question the prosecution's claim that the accused, nearly a foot shorter than the victim, was able to
inflict the downward stab wound found on the body. Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see if it's possible for
a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility, but Juror 5 then
explains that he had grown up amidst knife fights in his neighborhood, and shows, through demonstrating the
correct use of a switchblade, that no one so much shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such
a way as to stab downward, as the grip would have been too awkward and the act of changing hands too timeconsuming. Rather, someone that much shorter than his opponent would stab underhanded at an upwards angle.
This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their belief that the defendant is not guilty.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him the ire of
Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of the discussion. Juror 11, an immigrant who has repeatedly displayed
strong patriotic pride, presses Juror 7 hard about using his vote frivolously, and eventually Juror 7 claims that he
now truly believes the defendant is not guilty.[9]
The next jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Robert Webber) and 1 (Martin Balsam), making the vote 93
and leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 goes
into a rage on why people from the slums cannot be trusted, of how they are little better than animals who gleefully
kill each other off for fun. His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his back to him, and one by one the rest of the
jurors start turning away from him. Confused and disturbed by this reaction to his diatribe, Juror 10 continues in a
steadily fading voice and manner, slowing to a stop with "Listen to me. Listen..." Juror 4, the only man still facing
him, tersely responds, "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." As Juror 10 moves to sit in a
corner by himself, Juror 8 speaks quietly about the evils of prejudice, and the other jurors slowly resume their
seats.
When those remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pressed as to why they still maintain that there is no reasonable
doubt, Juror 4 states his belief that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains
that the woman who saw the murder from her bedroom window across the street (through the passing train) still
stands as solid evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty", making the vote 84.
Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4,
the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose which she rubbed, indicating
that she wore glasses, but did not wear them to court out of vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his
eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits that he does not wear them nobody does. [10] Juror 8 explains that there was
thus no logical reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, and he
points out that the attack happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on. After he points this
out, Jurors 12, 10 and 4 all change their vote to "not guilty".
At this point, the only remaining juror with a guilty vote is Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured
string of arguments, ending with, "Rotten kids, you work your life out!" This builds on a more emotionally
ambivalent earlier revelation that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, and his anger over this fact is
the main reason that he wants the defendant to be guilty. Juror 3 finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of
himself and his son, then suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote
unanimous.
As the jurors leave the room, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat in a show of compassion. The film
ends when the friendly Jurors 8 (Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the
courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.[11]

12 Angry Men

When the final closing arguments have been presented to the judge, she gives her instructions to the jury, all of
whom are men. In the United States, the verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous. A non-unanimous verdict
results in a hung jury which in turn forces a mistrial. The question they are deciding is whether the defendant, a
teenage boy from a city slum, murdered his father. The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be
accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. (Under current American criminal law, a defendant must first be
found guilty, and then the jury in the sentencing phase must find an aggravating circumstance and unanimously
agree to recommend the death penalty, if the state has the death penalty.) The jury of twelve retires to the jury room
where they begin to become acquainted with each other's personalities and discuss the case.

The plot of the film revolves around their difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, mainly due to several of the
jurors' personal prejudices. An initial vote is taken and eleven of the jurors vote for conviction. Juror number 8, the
lone dissenter, states that the evidence presented is circumstantial and the boy deserves a fair deliberation, upon
which he questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the fact that the knife used
in the murder is not as unusual as testimony promotes (he produces an identical one from his pocket), and the
overall shady circumstances.

Having argued several points, Juror 8 requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposed that he would
abstain from voting, and if the other eleven jurors voted guilty unanimously, then he would acquiesce to their
decision. However, if at least one juror voted "not guilty" then they would continue deliberating. In a secret ballot
Juror 9 is the first to support Juror 8, and not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror
8's points deserve further discussion. After hearing further deliberations concerning whether one witness actually
heard the murder take place, Juror 5 (who grew up in a slum) changes his vote to "not guilty." This earns criticism
from Juror 3, who accuses him of switching only because he had sympathy for slum children. Soon afterward,
Juror 11, questioning whether the defendant would have reasonably fled the scene and come back three hours later
to retrieve his knife, also changes his vote. After Jurors 2 and 6 also decide to vote "not guilty" to tie the vote at 66, Juror 7 (who has tickets to a baseball game at 8:00 that night) becomes tired and also changes his vote just so
that the deliberation may end, which earns him nothing but shame. When pressed by Juror 11, however, Juror 7
says he believes the defendant is not guilty.

The next people to change their votes are Jurors 12 and 1 when Juror 8 demonstrates that it is unlikely that one
witness actually saw the boy flee the scene, making the vote 9-3. The only dissenters left are Jurors 3, 4, and 10.
The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror 11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case
stated that the boy had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what could
possibly happen. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 proceeds to go onto a bigoted and narrowminded rage on why people from the slums cant be trusted, and as he speaks, Juror 4 responds, "Sit down. And
don't open your filthy mouth again." When Juror 4 is pressed as to why he still maintained his vote, he states his
belief that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who
saw the murder from across the street still stands as solid evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his
vote back to "guilty" to make the vote 8-4 again.

Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which was being irritated by his glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4,
the witness who alleged to see the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore
glasses, and likely was not wearing them when she saw the murder. After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 all
change their vote to "not guilty."

Last of all to agree is the rigid Juror 3 who is forced to present his arguments again. He goes off on a tirade,
presenting the evidence in haphazard fashion, before coming to what has really been bothering him all along: the
idea that a son would kill his own father (it was established earlier in the film that Juror 3 had a bad relationship
with his son). He begins to weep and says he can feel the knife being plunged into his chest. Juror 8 points out
quietly that the boy is not his son, and Juror 4 pats his arm and says, "Let him live", and the man gives in. The final
vote is unanimous for acquittal. All jurors leave and the defendant is found not-guilty off-screen, while Juror 8
helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat in a show of compassion. In an epilogue, the friendly Jurors 8 (Davis) and
9 (McCardle) exchange names (all jurors having remained nameless throughout the movie) and part ways.
Full Synopsis
At the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, the judge gives the jury its final
instructions, reminding them that a guilty verdict will mean an automatic death sentence for the defendant, a Puerto
Rican youth accused of killing his father. Once in the stiflingly hot jury room, Juror 3, a middle-aged businessman
who is estranged from his own son, loudly proclaims that the boy is guilty and that all ghetto youths are criminals,
while Juror 7, a fast-talking salesman, wants the jury to reach a decision quickly because he wishes to attend a
baseball game that evening. Juror 1, the foreman, who is a genial high school football coach, conducts a
preliminary ballot and, without hesitation, eleven jurors vote for conviction. Juror 8, a sensitive and thoughtful
architect, casts the only dissenting vote, stating that he has doubts about the case and wishes to give the boy, who
has had a difficult life in the ghetto, a fair hearing. Juror 10, approximately sixty years old and the owner of a
garage, gruffly declares that the architect is a weak-willed "bleeding heart" before launching into a diatribe against
slum dwellers. Wishing to restore calm, Juror 12, a young advertising executive, suggests that each juror present
the reasons behind his verdict as a means of convincing Juror 8. The salesman, the garage owner and the
businessman all suggest that the boy's ethnicity and class have been enough to convince them he murdered his
father, while Juror 2, a shy and stammering bank clerk, appears to be maintaining his guilty verdict because he
feels intimidated by the more outspoken jurors. Juror 4, a middle-aged and articulate stockbroker, and Juror 6, a
young blue-collar worker, go over the evidence which determined their verdicts with much detail and thought. The
prosecution has presented two seemingly reliable eyewitnesses, and motivation for the murder was suggested by
the youth's frequent fights with his father. In addition, a shopkeeper identified the murder weapon as identical to an
unusual and ornately carved knife he had sold the boy shortly before the murder. Finishing his exposition, Juror 4
offhandedly remarks that "everyone knows slums breed criminals," leading Juror 5, who until this point has
remained silent, to declare with great dignity that he was raised in a slum. After Juror 8 points out inconsistencies
in the prosecution's case and raises a number of questions, he throws down a cheap knife he bought near the
courthouse which appears almost identical to the murder weapon. As many of the jurors begin to grow frustrated
with the discussion, Juror 8 suggests that the foreman take a secret ballot from which he will abstain, promising
that if all of them vote guilty this time, he will go along with them on the final ballot. Now, however, one juror out
of the eleven votes "not guilty." Most of the jurors believe that Juror 5 has changed his mind, but the "not guilty"
vote turns out to be that of Juror 9, an elderly and frail man to whom the jurors have, until now, paid little attention.
After tempers have cooled down, Jurors 8 and 9 point out the inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events
on the night of the murder, and Juror 9 is especially convincing when he notes problems with the testimony of a
prosecution witness who, like himself, is elderly. The two men manage to sway Jurors 5 and 11 to their side, for a
total of four "not guilty" verdicts. Juror 10 now explodes with anger over what he views as "nitpicking" and Juror 3
harasses Juror 11, an Eastern European refugee, for changing his mind. After tempers subside, the weary jury
continues its deliberations and when another ballot is taken, the tally is six to six, with Jurors 2 and 6 changing
their original verdicts. Now at a complete standstill, some of the jurors want to declare a hung jury, but know that
the judge will not accept the declaration without further deliberations. When Juror 11, who takes his duty as a
citizen very seriously, questions whether all of the jurors have a clear understanding of "reasonable doubt," the
obnoxious Juror 7 makes an angry speech full of anti-immigrant invective. Next, the newly confident Juror 2 asks
how a 5'6" boy could have made a downward stab wound on a man who stood 6'2", leading Juror 5, who saw many
a knife fight in the tough neighborhood in which he was raised, to convincingly demonstrate that the boy would
most likely have held the knife underhanded, making a downward wound impossible. The foreman and Juror 12
eventually vote "not guilty," as does Juror 7, whose lack of concern over the case and desire to do whatever is most

expedient greatly angers Juror 11, the immigrant. When Juror 8 asks the three remaining jurors to explain their
continued insistence on a guilty verdict, Juror 10 makes an angry speech so full of hate and bigotry that everyone is
shocked into silence. Juror 4, earlier so confident that the boy was guilty, admits he has reasonable doubt when the
astute Juror 9 suddenly remembers that a female prosecution eyewitness had impressions on the sides of her nose
of the sort left by eyeglasses. In support of their "not guilty" verdicts, the jurors realize that the witness deceived
the court by taking off her glasses prior to her court appearance and they surmise that she was most likely not
wearing them in bed the night she claimed to have witnessed the murder. Since Juror 10, who remains separated
from the group because of shame over his outburst, has indicated he will change his vote, Juror 3 now stands alone
in his conviction that the boy is guilty and he becomes increasingly belligerent and stubborn. When a picture of his
son, who is only a few years older than the accused, unexpectedly falls out of his wallet, he suddenly breaks down
into sobs and exclaims that all children are rotten ingrates. Overcome with emotion and guilt at the memory of his
son, who rejected his harsh and authoritarian manner, he finally whispers "not guilty." As the jurors silently file out
of the jury room, Juror 8 gently hands the distressed man his jacket. On the courthouse steps, Juror 8 and Juror 9
bid farewell, secure in the knowledge that they helped to ensure that personal prejudices did not determine the fate
of the accused.
1.

The Foreman/Juror #1 (Courtney B. Vance): High school football coach; He tries to keep order in the hostile jury
room.

2.

Juror #2 (Ossie Davis): A meek bank teller who does not know what to make of the case.

3.

Juror #3 (George C. Scott): A businessman with a hot temper. He has a strained relationship with his son. He is
convinced that the defendant is guilty, though it may not be through the facts of the case.

4.

Juror #4 (Armin Mueller-Stahl): A stockbroker; he is very eloquent and looks at the case more coherently than the
other jurors: through facts and not bias. He is appalled at some of the behavior of the other jurors (especially Jurors 3,
7, and 10.)

5.

Juror #5 (Dorian Harewood): Health care worker (possibly an EMT); he is from the Harlem slums; he connects with
the man at trial and is disgusted at the bigotry of Juror 10.

6.

Juror #6 (James Gandolfini): A house painter; he is patient and respectful of what other people have to say.

7.

Juror #7 (Tony Danza): A salesman; he is not concerned at all about the young man on trial, and eager to complete
their jury assignment so he can use his tickets to a baseball game that evening. He is impatient and rude, and likes to
crack jokes a lot.

8.

Juror #8 (Jack Lemmon): An architect who is very quiet, and has two children. He is the only one of the twelve who,
at first, votes not guilty. He becomes close friends with Juror 9 at the end of the film. His real name is Davis.

9.

Juror #9 (Hume Cronyn): A wise old man who sides with Juror 8 and becomes friends with him at the end of the
film. His real name is McArdle.

10.

Juror #10 (Mykelti Williamson): Carwash owner; Former member of the Nation of Islam, he is a loudmouth,
narrow-minded bigot, extremely rude and often interrupts people, who feels that no good thing will come out of the
boy's "kind". Ultimately he is shunned from the group by the eleven men, with Juror 4 ordering him to "sit down" and
to "not open his filthy mouth again."

11.

Juror #11 (Edward James Olmos): Watchmaker; An immigrant, he believes in justice in America and will see it get
done. He is observant of the facts around him.

12.

Juror #12 (William Petersen): An ad executive; He is swayed very quickly by others' opinions, and does not have a
full understanding of the life at stake outside of the jury room.

13.

Mary McDonnell The Judge

14.

Tyrees Allen The Guard

15.

Douglas Spain The Accused

The 12 jurors in the order in which they are referred. They are seated in this order in the movie.
1

The jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties and never gives any reason for changing his vote; proves to be helpful
to others. An assistant high school American football coach. He is the ninth to vote "not guilty". Martin Balsam

A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds up, so does his courage. He
is the fifth to vote "not guilty". John Fiedler

A businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful, and stubborn with a temper. He is the last to vote "not guilty".
Lee J. Cobb

A rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts, and avoids any small talk.
He is the 11th to vote "not guilty". E. G. Marshall

A man who grew up in a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan. An ambulance crewman. He is the third to vote "not guilty". Jack
Klugman

A house painter, tough but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to vote "not guilty". Edward Binns

A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations. He is the seventh to vote "not guilty". Jack Warden

An architect and the first to vote "not guilty". Henry Fonda

A wise and observant elderly preacher. He is the second to vote "not guilty". Joseph Sweeney

10

A garage owner; a pushy and loudmouthed bigot. He is the 10th to vote "not guilty". Ed Begley

11

A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen. Very polite and makes wordy contributions. He is the 4th to vote "not
guilty". George Voskovec

12

A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the 8th to vote "not guilty". Robert Webber