12 Angry Men (1957)

Pages: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Background
12 Angry Men (1957), or Twelve Angry Men (1957), is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of 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 openand-shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant (with a criminal record) whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury and the American judicial system with its purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias. Alternatively, the slow-boiling film could also be viewed as commentary on McCarthyism, Fascism, or Communism (threatening forces in the 50s). One of the film's posters described how the workings of the judicial process can be disastrous: "LIFE IS IN THEIR HANDS DEATH IS ON THEIR MINDS! It EXPLODES Like 12 Sticks of Dynamite." This was live television-trained director Sidney Lumet's first feature film - a low-budget ($350,000) film shot in only 17 days from a screenplay by Reginald Rose, who based his script on his own teleplay of the same name. After the initial airing of the TV play in early 1954 on Studio One CBSTV, co-producer/star Henry Fonda asked Rose in 1956 if the teleplay could be expanded to featurefilm length (similar to what occurred to Paddy Chayefsky's TV play Marty (1955)), and they became co-producers for the project (Fonda's sole instance of film production). The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. Persistently and persuasively, he forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review the shaky case (and eyewitness testimony) against the endangered defendant. He also chastises the system for giving the unfortunate defendant an inept 'court-appointed' public defense lawyer who "resented being appointed" - a case with "no money, no glory, not even much chance of winning" - and who inadequately cross-examined the witnesses. Heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and certainties, and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outbursts fill the jury room. [A few of the film's idiosyncracies: Even in the 50s, it would have been unlikely to have an all-

male, all-white jury. However, it's slightly forgivable since the play made the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric (the jurors were made to represent a cross-section of American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic.) The introduction of information about the defendant's past juvenile crimes wouldn't have been allowed. Jurors # 3 and # 10 were so prejudiced that their attitudes would have quickly eliminated them from being selected during jury review. And it was improper for Juror # 8 to act as a defense attorney - to re-enact the old man's walk to the front door or to investigate on his own by purchasing a similar knife. The 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly personal and exaggerated.] This classic, black and white film has been accused of being stagey, static and dialogue-laden. It has no flashbacks, narration, or subtitles. The camera is essentially locked in the enclosed room with the deliberating jurors for 90 of the film's 95 minutes, and the film is basically shot in real-time in an actual jury room. Cinematographer Boris Kaufman, who had already demonstrated his onlocation film-making skill in Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront (1954) in Hoboken, and Baby Doll (1956) in Mississippi, uses diverse camera angles (a few dramatic, grotesque closeups and mostly wellcomposed medium-shots) to illuminate and energize the film's cramped proceedings. Except for Henry Fonda, the ensemble character actors were chosen for their experience in the burgeoning art of television. The film was a financial disaster when it first opened (during a time of colorful widescreen film offerings), but it did receive three Academy Award nominations (with no wins): Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. All three categories lost to David Lean's Oscar-sweeping, extravagant epic film The Bridge on the River Kwai. Henry Fonda's central role as a juror with resolute caution was un-nominated as Best Actor. None of the jurors are named, and they don't formally introduce themselves to each other (except for two of them in the final brief ending). Jurors are labeled with numbers based on their jury numbers and seats at a conference table in the jury room (in clock-wise order). The Twelve Jurors: A summary of the anonymous characters helps to flesh out their characters and backgrounds. The order in which each eventually decides to vote "not guilty" is given in brackets: Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach, doggedly concerned to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership [9] Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during tense times of argument; better memory than # 4 about film title [5] Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people (and the defendant); arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and defiant until the very end [12] Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall) Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, coolheaded and rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare; treats the case like a puzzle to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death; claims that he never sweats [10-11 - tie]

Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; grew up in a poor Jewish urban neighborhood and the case resurrected in his mind that slum-dwelling upbringing; a guilty vote would distance him from his past; nicknamed "Baltimore" by Juror # 7 because of his support of the Orioles [3] Juror #6: (Edward Binns) A typical "working man," dull-witted, experiences difficulty in making up his own mind, a follower; probably a manual laborer or painter; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists [6] Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous year), a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses baseball metaphors and references throughout all his statements (he tells the foreman to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the defendant and for the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates James Cagney at one point; votes with the majority [7] Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truthand-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors; named Davis [1] Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and resigned to death but has a resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but perceptive, fair-minded; named McCardle [2] Juror #10: (Ed Begley) A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist bigotry; nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world into 'us' and 'them'; needs the support of others to reinforce his manic rants [10-11 - tie] Juror #11: (George Voskovec) A watchmaker, speaks with a heavy accent, of German-European descent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law [4] Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick black glasses; doodles cereal box slogan and packaging ideas for "Rice Pops"; superficial, easily-swayed, and easy-going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or belief system; uses advertising talk at one point: "run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it" [8]

The Story
The film opens with the camera looking up at the imposing pillars of justice outside Manhattan's Court of General Sessions on a summer afternoon. The subjective camera wanders about inside the marbled interior rotunda and hallways, and on the second floor haphazardly makes its way into a double-doored room marked 228. There, a bored-sounding, non-committal judge (Rudy Bond) wearily instructs the twelve-man jury to begin their deliberations after listening to six days of a "long and complex case of murder in the first degree." He admonishes them that it is a case involving the serious charge of pre-meditated murder with a mandatory death sentence upon a guilty verdict, and now it is the jury's duty to "separate the facts from the fancy" because "one man is dead" and "another man's life is at stake." The judge states the important criteria for judgment regarding "reasonable doubt," as the camera pans across the serious faces of the jury members: If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then

you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen. As the jury leaves the box and retires to the jury room to deliberate, the camera presents a side-view and then a lingering, silent closeup of the innocent-faced, frightened, despondent slum boy defendant with round, sad brown eyes. [His ethnicity, whether he's Puerto Rican or Hispanic, is unspecified.] The plaintiff musical theme of the film (a solo flute tune by Kenyon Hopkins) plays as the claustrophobic, bare-walled, stark jury room (with a water cooler in the corner and a dysfunctional mounted wall fan) dissolves into view - and the credits are reviewed.

The Start of Jury Deliberations: A few of the men light up cigarettes and remove their jackets, or wipe the sweat from their faces on "the hottest day of the year." The guard (James Kelly) exits and locks the jury room door from the outside - startling a few of the men. Juror # 3 casually mentions to Juror # 2 his belief that the case is "openand-shut" against the youngster - and he reveals his hidden biases: "If you ask me, I'd slap those tough kids down before they start any trouble." # 12 expresses how "lucky" they were to get an exciting murder case. # 7 is impatient to leave to attend the evening ball game between the Yanks and Cleveland. # 11 concurs that the prosecuting attorney did an expert job, while # 10 reveals his biases: It's pretty tough to figure, isn't it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that...It's the element...I'm telling ya, they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves 'em right. Juror # 8 is deep in his own thoughts at the window, until he is called to join everyone at the table. Vote of 11 to 1: The foreman presents two alternatives: should they discuss things first and then vote, or "take a preliminary vote" immediately to "see who's where"? The latter alternative is chosen, and the vote is accomplished by the simple raising of hands. Six of the jurors (# 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12) quickly put their hands up. After a slight pause - and because of peer pressure, jurors # 2, 5, 6, 11 and 9 hesitantly join them - with one lone dissenter, Juror # 8. Juror # 10 shakes his head, clearly disbelieving and upset by the lone dissenter: "Boy, oh boy, there's always one." # 8 votes not guilty, not because he is sure of the boy's innocence, but because he wishes to talk about the serious case without emotionally pre-judging the eighteen-year old boy, as # 3 does:

The kid's a dangerous killer, you could see it...He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, would you like me to list them for ya? Juror # 8 admits that he doesn't necessarily believe the boy's story, but he feels that the accused is entitled to a thoughtful weighing of the facts - the legal standard that they were given by the judge: It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first...We're talking about somebody's life here. We can't decide in five minutes. Supposin' we're wrong. But Juror # 7 is firmly convinced of the boy's guilt: "You couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years." # 8 suggests not voting guilty in a hasty fashion, and proposes that they discuss things for at least an hour. He reviews the sociological background of the boy's childhood, while # 10 is accusatory and filled with racial prejudice: # 8: Look, this kid's been kicked around all of his life. You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was nine. He lived for a year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning. He's a wild, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all. # 10: I don't mind telling you this, mister. We don't owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? What do you think that trial cost? He's lucky he got it. You know what I mean? Now look, we're all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars. # 9: Only an ignorant man can believe that...Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth? Round-the-Table Explanation of Each Juror's Vote: Juror # 12 suggests that the other jurors should attempt to "convince" Juror # 8 of the defendant's guilt "that he's wrong and we're right." Going around the table, each of the jurors is given a minute or two. With common-sense questions, Juror # 8 often responds with influential arguments and questions for the others to consider: Juror # 2 - Very meekly, the flustered Juror # 2 struggles to put his opinions into words: "I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' I mean, nobody proved otherwise." Counter-argument: Juror # 8 reminds the bank teller that "the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution." Juror # 3 - Juror # 3 first asserts that he has "no personal feelings," and just wants to discuss the "facts," about how at ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing, the old man who lived under the room where the murder occurred heard loud noises of a fight, and also heard the kid yell out at his father: "I'm gonna kill ya." A second later, he heard a body hit the floor. The old man ran to his door, opened it up, and saw the kid running down the stairs and out of the house. The coroner fixed the time of death around midnight. According to # 3, "these are facts - you can't refute facts," and the boy is definitely guilty. Counter-argument: The eyewitness account of the old man is examined later in the deliberations. Juror # 4 - Juror # 4 states that the boy's entire alibi was 'flimsy." He claimed that he was at the movies at the time of the killing, yet one hour later, he couldn't remember the names of the films he saw or who played in them. And no one saw him going in or out of the theatre. Counter-argument: Later on, Juror # 8 attacks this juror's own ability to recollect small details. (Interrupting the Order) Juror # 10 - Juror # 10 believes that the testimony of the woman across the street who witnessed the

killing is conclusive. The woman was lying in bed and couldn't sleep because of the heat. She looked out her window and "right across the street," ("his window is right opposite hers - across the el tracks") she saw the kid "stick the knife" into his father at precisely 12:10 am. # 10 claims that "Everything fits." The woman witnessed the killing through the windows of a passing, empty el train with its lights out. Counter-argument: # 8 disputes # 10's trust in the ethnic woman's testimony: "How come you believed the woman's (story)? She's one of them, too, isn't she?" Juror # 5 - Juror # 5 passes. Juror # 6 - Juror # 6 admits being "convinced very early in the case." He searched the case for a motive, and the testimony of the people across the hall from the kid's apartment was "very powerful" and was "part of the picture" that helped him make up his mind. They testified that they heard a fight or argument between the father and boy around 8 o'clock that evening - the father hit the boy twice and they saw the boy run angrily out of the house. Counter-argument: # 8 denies that the testimony provided a "strong motive. This boy's been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs with him...I can't see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder." Juror # 7 - Nonchalantly, Juror # 7 stubbornly states that the defendant's background doomed him to lead a criminal life: "It's all been said. We could talk here forever, it's still the same thing. This kid is 5 for 0. Well, look at his record. When he was ten, he was in children's court. He threw a rock at a teacher. When he was fifteen, he was in reform school. He stole a car. He's been arrested for mugging. He was picked up twice for knife fighting...They say he's real handy with a knife." [The Juror mis-spoke - he should have used his baseball terminology to imply that the kid was a loser by saying: 'this kid is 0 for 5.'] Counter-argument: # 8 points out that ever since the boy was five years old, his father beat him up regularly. Juror # 3: Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teenaged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out." Support for # 7: Juror # 4 cites a study about how slum conditions breed criminals: "This boy...a product of a broken home and a filthy neighborhood. We can't help that. We're here to decide whether he's innocent or guilty, not to go into the reasons why he grew up the way he did. He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals...Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society." Counter-argument: # 7's confident statement - with reinforcement from # 10 ("the kids who crawl out of these places are real trash") cause # 5, a man with slum-dwelling experience, to become very uneasy and defend himself: "I've lived in a slum all my life...I've played in backyards that were filled with garbage. Maybe you can still smell it on me?" Juror # 8 - After many days of listening to evidence in the case, Juror # 8 evaluates the poorly-argued cross-examination by the "just plain stupid" defense lawyer: "Everybody sounded so positive. I began to get a pecular feeling about this trial. I mean, nothing is that positive...I began to get the feeling that the defense counsel wasn't conducting a thorough enough cross-examination." He also reminds everyone that there was only one "alleged eye-witness" to the killing, although there were others who heard the killing and the flight of the boy, and there was also a lot of "circumstantial evidence." He tries to instill doubt in the others regarding the witnesses who testified under oath. Through a clever thought process, he causes Juror # 12 to contradict himself and admit that the whole case "isn't an exact science": # 8: Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong?...They're only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong? # 12: Well no, I don't think so. # 8: You know so. # 12: Oh come on, nobody can know a thing like that. This isn't an exact science. # 8: That's right, it isn't.

Discussion of the Knife, the Murder Weapon: The rotational order is broken when a discussion of the knife that the defendant recently purchased interferes. Juror # 8 requests that the very-unusual knife "in evidence" be brought in for another look. The sequence of events related to the knife are reviewed again: The boy went out of the house at 8 o'clock after being 'punched' several times by his father He went to a neighborhood "junk shop" and bought a switch-blade knife with a "very unusual carved handle and blade" He met some friends in front of a tavern about 8:45 pm, and talked with them for about an hour The boy's friends identified the "death weapon" in court as the "very same knife" that the boy had with him The boy arrived home at around 10 o'clock, and claimed he went to a movie about 11:30 pm, returning home at 3:10 am "to find his father dead and himself arrested." The boy claimed that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies and that he never saw it again

However, no witnesses saw the boy go out of the house, or at the theatre, and the boy couldn't recall the names of the films he saw. Juror # 4 doubts the boy's claims, believing that the boy stayed home instead of going to the movies, had another fight with his father and stabbed him to death with the "very unusual knife," and then left the house at 12:10 pm. Counter-argument: One of the film's most dramatic moments is when Juror # 8 argues: "...It's possible the boy lost his knife and somebody else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It's just possible...I'm just saying a coincidence is possible." He confounds the other jurors by introducing a new piece of evidence that he has acquired. From his pocket, he produces a knife identical to the one with which the boy allegedly stabbed his father, and sticks it in the wooden table next to the other switchblade. He tells the incredulous jurors that someone else could have bought an identical $6 knife, like he did the night before, at a little pawn shop in the boy's neighborhood just two blocks from the boy's house, and used it to kill the boy's father. He exclaims: "IT'S POSSIBLE," as the perfunctory Juror # 4 responds: "BUT NOT VERY PROBABLE." Unconvinced, impatient - and increasingly hostile, Juror # 10 accuses Juror # 8 of trying to stubbornly "hang" the jury: "You're not gonna change anybody's mind." And Juror # 7 is concerned that he'll miss his ball-game if they have a prolonged stale-mate. Since # 8 realizes that he is the "only one" holding up the others, he makes a risky gamble - he proposes another vote with secret ballots (with himself abstaining): I'm gonna call for another vote. I want you eleven men to vote by secret written ballot. I'll abstain. If there are eleven votes for guilty, I won't stand alone. We'll take in a guilty verdict to the judge right now. But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out. Vote of 10 to 2: As the votes are read by the foreman, the 10th (of 11 votes) is "Not guilty" - one juror has changed his vote. Juror # 10 is exasperated and angry: "Boy, how do ya like that?...All right, who was it? Come on! I wanna know." Baseball fan Juror # 7 is perturbed, and Juror # 3 excitably accuses # 5 of being persuaded by the emotional appeals and bleeding-heart oratory of # 8 (a "golden-voiced preacher (who) starts tearin' your poor heart out about some under-privileged kid just couldn't help becomin' a murderer and you change your vote!"). Juror # 3 takes the floor and yells vehemently: We're tryin' to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs - and someone starts tellin' us fairy tales and we're listenin'.

And then old man Juror # 9 surprisingly admits that he changed his vote, and explains he did so because he respects # 8's independence of thought: This gentleman [# 8] has been standing alone against us. Now, he doesn't say the boy is not guilty. He just isn't sure. Well, it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others, so he gambled for support and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. Now the boy in the trial is probably guilty, but uh, I want to hear more. Right now, the vote is ten to two. Discussion of the Credibility of the Testimony of the Old Man and Old Woman: After a short break, the discussion continues with a reexamination of the case. Juror # 3 asks about the testimony of the old man who heard the threat and the body hit the floor, and saw the kid running down the stairs and out of the house. And Juror # 12 and # 4 repeat the testimony of the old lady who "looked right in the open window and saw the boy stab his father" - and "saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevated train." There were six cars on the train and she saw the killing through the last two cars. Counter-argument: Juror # 8 questions whether it would have been that easy to hear and identify the voice that issued the threat. He also speculates how long it would take a six-car el train going at medium speed to pass a given point (the open window of the room where the killing took place) - maybe ten seconds. He wonders about the contradictory timing of the testimony of the old man and woman: how could the old man in the apartment downstairs distinctly hear the threat and the body hit the floor a second later, while the woman across the street was viewing the killing through the last two cars, when an el train was making a deafening noise as it passed? We can assume that the body hit the floor just as the train went by. Therefore, the train had been roaring by the old man's window a full ten seconds before the body hit the floor. The old man according to his own testimony ("I'm gonna kill you, body hitting the floor a split second later") would have had to hear the boy make this statement with the el roaring past his nose. It's not possible he could have heard it. Juror # 3 asks what difference it makes how many seconds it took before the old man heard the screams - "nobody can be that accurate." That proves Juror # 8's point: Well, I think testimony that could put a boy into the electric chair should be that accurate. Identifying with the discredited elderly witness, the old man Juror # 9 - with a keen eye for detail observantly explains why the testimony, under oath, was mistaken, inaccurate, and possibly unreliable. He speculates that the witness probably didn't lie deliberately - sometimes a witness will unconsciously twist the facts, or present unreliable testimony, or say things for appearance's sake: Attention, maybe...The seam of his jacket was split under the shoulder...to come to court like that...He was a very old man in a torn jacket and he walked very slowly to the stand. He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know this man better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life - who has never had recognition or his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him. Nobody quotes him. Nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing to be nothing. A man like this needs to be quoted, to be listened to, to be quoted just once - very important to him...He wouldn't really lie. But perhaps he made himself believe that he heard those words and recognized the boy's face. Juror # 8 also reminds everyone that the phrase: "I'm gonna kill you" is commonly used with lethal implications, and the boy was "much too bright" to yell out a homicidal threat for the whole neighborhood to hear. Juror # 10 raises an ironic objection that is corrected by the immigrant juror:

Juror # 10: Bright! He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English! Juror # 11: He doesn't even speak good English. Vote of 9 to 3: At this point, Juror # 5 changes his vote to 'not guilty'. And Juror # 11 is definitely swayed by Juror # 8's independence of judgment and reasonable doubt. He brings up his own crucial questions: why did the boy return to the scene of the crime three hours after the stabbing murder ("Wouldn't he be afraid of being caught?")? And if the boy was returning to retrieve the knife that could be connected to him, why did he leave it there in the first place? Vote of 8 to 4: Another vote is tallied, with a show of hands of those voting not guilty - four vote not-guilty (the immigrant watch-maker # 11 changes his mind because of his "reasonable doubt"). Juror # 3 criticizes all those who have voted not guilty: "What is this? Love Your Under-privileged Brother Week or something?" Discussion of the Lame Old Man's Walk to His Front Door: The next major issue is the lameness of the old man - did he actually walk (or run) the long distance from his bedroom and down the hallway to his chain-locked front door and see the panicked boy run down the stairs from the apartment at 12:10 am, fifteen seconds after the killing? Or did he merely assume that it was the boy? Juror # 8 requests a diagram of the apartment to investigate further: I'd like to find out if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, 'cause he had a stroke last year, can get from his bedroom to his front door in fifteen seconds. In the ensuing argument, Juror # 3 angrily blunders his way into another mis-statement - thereby affirming that the old man's testimony was probably suspect: Juror # 3: How does he know how long fifteen seconds is? You can't judge a thing like that. Juror # 9: He said fifteen seconds and he was very positive about it. Juror # 3: He was an old man. Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything? A large cardboard diagram is brought into the room, illustrating both the layout of the old man's apartment below and the boy's apartment above, the 43 foot long hallway, and the door to the stairs. "It's 12 feet from the bed to the door, the hall is 43 feet" - a total of 55 feet to be traversed in only 15 seconds by the seventy-five year lame old man who recently had a stroke. Juror # 8 imitates the movements of the old man while Juror # 2 clocks them, demonstrating that it would have been impossible for the crippled witness to get to the door in 15 seconds - it would have taken him more like 41 seconds, almost three times longer. Juror # 8 summarizes the finding: The old man heard the fight between the boy and his father a few hours earlier. Then when he's lying in his bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy's apartment, heard the woman scream from across the street, got to his front door as fast as he could, heard somebody racing down the stairs, and assumed it was the boy. Juror # 3 castigates # 8 for twisting the testimony around to support the boy, and rails at everyone for being convinced of the boy's innocence. His threat to kill # 8 is recognized as a false one:

Juror # 3: Assumed? Brother, I've seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. You all come in here with your hearts bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice. You listen to some fairy tales. Suddenly, you start getting through to some of these old ladies. Well, you're not getting through to me. I've had enough. (To everyone) What's the matter with you guys? You all know he's guilty. He's got to burn. You're letting him slip through our fingers. Juror # 8: Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner? Juror # 3: I'm one of 'em. Juror # 8: Perhaps you'd like to pull the switch. Juror # 3: For this kid? You bet I would. Juror # 8: I feel sorry for you. What it must feel like to want to pull the switch! Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger. You want to see this boy die because you personally want it - not because of the facts. You're a sadist! (# 3 lunges at # 8 but is held back) Juror # 3: Let me go! I'll kill him! I'll kill him! Juror # 8: (softly and defiantly) You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you? The entire group has gathered around Juror # 8, and all of them silently stare back at the isolated Juror # 3. [Only ten of the other eleven jurors are visible.] Juror # 11 delivers a short speech to everyone about their awesome responsibility in a democracy to "decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have never heard of before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing." Vote of 6 - 6: The next vote is an open ballot with the result tied - "even Steven." Juror # 2 and # 6 change their votes to not guilty. Now they're "into extra innings" according to Juror # 7. And Juror # 10 wonders if the vote changed because "you think too much - you get mixed up." Thunder and a sudden downpour as dusk approaches bring a coolness and lessening of emotional tensions on the humid afternoon and early evening. Juror # 10, with Juror # 7's support, threatens to walk into court and declare "a hung jury" - but the idea is soon sidetracked with discussion of the defendant's alibi. Discussion of the Defendant's Alibi: The issue of the defendant's "only alibi" on the night of his father's murder is revisited - the boy was allegedly at a theatre, but he could not remember the names of the movies he saw or the stars that appeared in them on the night of the murder. Counter-argument: Juror # 8 asks if Juror # 5 could remember similar small details, especially after an "upsetting experience such as being slapped in the face by your father" or after an incident of "great emotional stress"? Under relentless questioning, the smug, rationalistic Juror # 5 fails to remember the exact title of the inexpensive second-feature (and the names of its stars) that he saw with his wife three nights earlier. Contrary to his statement that he never sweats, he also has to wipe a drop of sweat from his head with a handkerchief. Juror # 8 underscores the obvious: And you weren't under an emotional stress, were you? Discussion of the Angle of the Stab Wound: Juror # 2 asks about the stab wound and its "downward angle." The boy was five feet, seven inches tall, and his father was six feet, two inches tall - a difference of seven inches, so he notes: "That's a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who is more than half a foot taller than you are." Juror # 8 is volunteered to be the victim in a demonstration, since he is already standing up. Juror # 3 stands face to face with # 8, crouches down until he is shorter, and then raises the knife to strike

downward into his chest - while the others nervously react. According to # 8, the angle is "down and in this is the way it was done." Counter-argument: But Juror # 5, who has had experience with switchblade knife fights in his childhood neighborhood, corrects everyone's notion of the downward angle. The switchblade is used "underhanded" to save time by any expert knife user - "Anyone who's ever used a switchknife wouldn't handle it any other way." Vote of 5 to 7: Suddenly, Juror # 7 non-chalantly switches his vote to not-guilty because he's "sick of all the talking" - but really to facilitate the proceedings so that there can be a unanimous verdict and he can be dismissed to attend the ball game: "You've heard me. I've had enough." Juror # 11 is deeply offended by the man's light-heartedness: "Who tells you that you have the right to play like this with a man's life? Don't you care...Don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?" Vote of 3 to 9: Another show of hands - each disembodied - reveals that Juror # 12 has switched his allegiance, along with the Foreman. Only Jurors # 3, 4, and #10 are hold-outs for guilty. As Juror # 10 again criticizes minorities in a hateful tirade, one by one, other jurors rise and literally turn their backs on his personally racist attitudes. Eventually, he is left standing and babbling in the middle of the room: You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie. It's born in them...They don't know what the truth is. And let me tell ya, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone either. No, sir. They get drunk. Ah, they're real big drinkers, all of 'em. You know that. And bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Well, nobody's blamin' 'em for it, that's the way they are, by nature, you know what I mean? Violent!...Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us. Look, they're lushing it up and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed - they don't care. Oh sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I'm the first one to say that. I've known a couple who are okay, but that's the exception, you know what I mean? Most of them, it's like they have no feelings. They can do anything. What's going on here? I'm tryin' to tell ya. You're making a big mistake, you people. This kid is a liar. I know it. I know all about them. Listen to me, they're no good. There's not a one of 'em who's any good....This kid on trial here...well, don't you know about them? There's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen. Listen to me. Juror # 4 silences him for good: "Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." Eventually, everyone moves back to their seats. Juror # 8 speaks about the incomprehensibility of the truth: I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can, but we have a reasonable doubt and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Discussion of the Old Woman's Eye-Witness Account and Eye-sight: There's only one major issue - the "unshakable testimony" given by the woman who lived across the street who actually saw the murder committed. According to Juror # 4, she testified that at the critical moment, she saw the boy raise his arm over his head and stab down into the father's chest. She went to bed at eleven o'clock that night, and her bed was next to an open window where she could look out while lying down and see directly into the boy's room across the street. She tossed and turned for over an hour - unable to fall asleep. Finally, she turned toward the window at about 12:10 am and as she looked out,

she "got a good look" at the boy in the act of stabbing his father, through the windows of the passing el train. Vacillating back and forth "like a tennis ball" on his opinion, Juror # 12 changes his vote back to guilty. Counter-argument: Juror # 9 notices that Juror # 4 is rubbing the deep indented marks or impressions on the sides of his nose where his glasses rest. Juror # 9 remembers that the forty-five year-old woman who testified against the boy had the same marks on the sides of her nose - and she kept rubbing them in court. She made a "tremendous effort" to look ten years younger "for her first public appearance" with "heavy makeup, dyed hair, brand new clothes" - and she wasn't wearing her glasses because she thought they would "spoil her looks." Juror # 4 deduces that it's logical to assume that "no one wears eyeglasses to bed" - and so it was highly unlikely that the woman could have had time to put on her glasses to see the murder sixty feet away, in the split second it occurred through the cars of the passing el train - and in the middle of the night. Juror # 8 concludes: "Maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say she only saw a blur...Don't you think the woman might have made a mistake?" Vote of 1 to 11: Juror # 12 is easily convinced to change his vote back again to not-guilty. Juror # 10 agrees with the majority, as does the stockbroker Juror # 4 "with a reasonable doubt". Only one desperate juror, # 3, is left alone to vote guilty, and he is pressed to argue his beliefs by # 8: "We're not convinced - we want to hear them again". Juror # 3 pleads that they must believe what was testified under oath in court: Every single thing that took place in that courtroom...says he's guilty. Whaddya think - I'm an idiot or somethin'? Why don't you take that stuff about the old man, the old man who lived there and heard everything. Oh, and this business about the knife - why, because we found another one exactly like it? The old man saw him, right there on the stairs. What's the difference how many seconds it was? Every single thing. The knife fallin' through a hole in his pocket. You can't prove he didn't get to the door. Sure you can take all the time huddled around the room, but YOU CAN'T PROVE IT! And what about this business with the el? And the movies? There's a phony deal if I ever heard one. I'll betcha five thousand dollars I'd remember the movies I saw. I'm tellin' ya, everything that's gone on has been twisted - and turned. This business with the glasses. How do you know she didn't have 'em on? This woman testified in open court. And what about hearin' the kid yell? Huh? I'm tellin' ya, I've got all the facts here, here. As he pulls out his wallet to show them "facts," out flies a picture of him with his son. He threatens everyone ("you lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts") that he will not be intimidated: "You're not gonna intimidate me. I'm entitled to my opinion." He glances at the picture, painfully rages at his own family's relationships and his own sense of guilt, and tears the photograph to shreds: Rotten kids, you work your life out! Broken and contrite, Juror # 3 sobs into his contorted fist: "Not guilty. Not guilty." The door is unlocked and the jurors slowly move out of the conference room after reaching a unanimous decision of not guilty. Juror # 8 reconciles himself with Juror # 3 by taking his coat from the closet and helping him put it on. The camera pans along the conference table, strewn with the ad man's doodles, cigarette-laden ashtrays, picture scraps, discarded newspapers, the second switchblade knife, and a wad of paper. Outside in a brief epilogue, Juror # 9 formally asks Juror # 8's name before they walk out onto the rainslickened steps and sidewalk in front of the courtroom: Juror # 9: What's your name? Juror # 8: Davis.

Juror # 9: My name's McCardle. Well, so long. Juror # 8: So long.