Name: Lucio C.

Avergonzado

Subject: Intro. to Law

Course &Year: JD-1

Subject Professor: Atty.

Mira

A Reaction Paper on the Film 12 Angry Men

The famous English jurist Sir Matthew Hale

once declared that it is better to

acquit five guilty men than to convict one who is innocent. Hence, well -entrenched in the
science of criminal justice that in all criminal prosecutions, an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. By reasonable doubt is not
meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the
mind rest upon the certainty of guilt (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. NO. 185717, 08 June
2011).
This has been clearly illustrated in the American film 12 Angry Man written by
Reginald Rose

in which the

film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they

deliberate the guilt or acquittal of an 18-year old defendant accused of murdering his own
father , on the basis of reasonable doubt. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal
trials by jury must be unanimous.
Being called upon to make a reaction paper about the film, I shall focus my
comments on the advantages and drawbacks of a trial by jury. In doing this, I will confine
my impartial opinion based solely on what had happened in the film and will not be
influenced by scholarly theories about the boon and bane of the said issue.
On the advantage of the system, because twelve men will deliberate the case, any
bias will likely to be cancelled out compare to a one-man decision (the judge decision).
However, as clearly showed in the case, personal prejudice and bias by some jurors cannot
be avoided and in which case, they tend to rely more on emotions rather than the veracity
of evidence presented. Minor details of an evidence or a testimony of a witness

which

may affect the truth or falsity of the entire story may be overlooked upon by the jurors
whose minds are generally not well-trained in legal complexities .
For example, in this case, how if there was no juror number 8 who had the

very

impartial mind to scrutinize the circumstantial evidence of the case, which, by the way ,

was presented by the prosecution, I shall presumed, in a very calculated and organized
manner so as to convince the jurors, and effectively eclipsing the minute details of the
circumstances which later on was proven to be the light that illumined the truth? It can be
remembered that it was juror number eights meticulous and unbiased scrutiny of the
circumstantial evidence that belies the prosecutions theory and convinced the rest of the
jurors to vote not guilty, simply because the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. As the truth of each evidences, circumstantial and material deciphered,
it was found out that the testimonies of the witnesses relied upon by the eleven jurors who
at first voted to convict the accused, were just mere presumptions, a speculated
conclusion not based on what they had actually seen. This could not have been unravelled
without the juror eights impartial thinking. Now may I ask the question, Is there a
guarantee that in every trial by jury, there is always juror number 8?
Although it is fair enough to conclude that the author of the story has intended to
make the defendant innocent of the crime charged against him, the film is a great
reminder that Americas jury system should be a constant subject of debate as regards its
effectiveness in convicting a real criminal and setting free the innocent. Indeed, the film
should become a guiding light to those future jurors to come up with a decision based
solely on pieces of evidence supported by common sense and logic and which must not be
tainted with personal prejudices and biases.
I wholeheartedly

admire juror number 8 for his methodical arguments employing

only reasons, common sense, and

logic to persuade the rest of the jurors. Indeed, he can

be a great defense attorney. On the other hand, his courage to stand for something which
he believes is correct is a constant reminder for all of us not to succumb to peer pressure.
After all, truth will remain a truth even if only one believe it to be true.