Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose the defendant is obviously not guilty. In the book the jury is fighting over wether or not the defendant is guilty. The evidence in a case is the most important thing to look deeper into. The defendant couldn't have been guilty because of the knife, the old man, and the lady across the street. The knife is one of the major key points for the prosecution. The knife was used to kill the defendants father and was supposed to have a unique design. The knife argument was thrown out when the Eight juror brought out an identical knife. “The 8TH JUROR stands for a moment in silence, then he reaches into his pocket and swiftly withdraws a knife . . . then he leans forward and sticks the knife into the table alongside the other. They are exactly alike. (Reginald Rose 50)" It …show more content…
. . would have had to hear the boy make this statement while the el [train] was roaring past his nose"(Reginald Rose 70) The other key witness who had a flaw in her testimony was a woman who lived next door to the defendant. The woman said that she saw the defendant killing his father with her own eyes while gazing out of her window at night. A small problem with her testimony is that it would have been very difficult to identify someone at night while a train is passing in front of the window. The biggest problem though is that the woman had dimples under her eyes which can only be gained from glasses. No one wears glasses while they're in bed so there is no possible way she could identify someone. “It’s logical to say that she wasn’t wearing them while she was in bed, tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep"(Reginald Rose 129). In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose they decided the verdict of not guilty. The defendant was obviously innocent as shown by the knife, old man's story, and the woman's false eyesight. In no way has the defendant been proven guilty beyond a reasonable