Twelve Angry Men: A Film: Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men is a film about a jury of twelve men who are assessing a murder trial. The trial’s outcome would determine if an 18 year would be sentenced to death. The men went into the jury room with an assumption that the defendant was guilty. They did an open vote where everyone raised their hands to determine who felt he was guilty or not guilty. Every juror, but one, raised their hands for guilty, some of the jurors slowly raised their hands after seeing the rest of the room raise their hand. The one juror who did not raise his hand angered the other jurors who wanted it to be an open and shut case, but the juror felt they needed to talk it out before sentencing a man to death. They decide to go over the evidence to please the man and …show more content…
He keeps arguing that he cannot vote guilty in good conscience, but offers the rest of the jury the ability to revote without him and he will go along with whatever they decide. They chose to do an anonymous vote this time on a piece of paper. The secret ballot was held and one new juror decided to vote not guilty. This created tension in the room and one of the jurors was questioning who decided to vote not guilty. One juror reveals that he voted not guilty, feeling that the case needed further discussion. They debate the testimony of the elderly man who claimed he heard the boy yell “I’m going to kill you” right before the murder took place and they claimed that he could not have heard him due to the train passing by. This causes another juror to change his vote. The jurors voting not guilty then claim that it is unreasonable for the boy to flee the scene, leaving a clean knife behind, and then coming back to the scene. They then question how fast the old man who had a stroke could get to the door to see the boy run down the …show more content…
More jurors change their vote to not guilty. They then prove that it is possible for the boy to forget his alibi when under pressure. Additionally, they question the way the father was stabbed, saying that it is unlikely that the boy who was shorter than his dad would have stabbed the dad the way he was stabbed. This changes more jurors’ votes to not guilty. Few remaining jurors have not changed their vote. When questioned, they said it was because the woman saw the murder from her bedroom window through the passing train. After seeing the one juror, who wears glasses, rub his nose, another juror realizes that the witness did that as well and must have worn glasses. There is a strong chance that she did not wear her glasses at night and probably did not see the boy himself, but a blur that she assumed was the boy. This causes all but one juror to change their vote to not guilty. After a long rant about his prejudice toward his own child, he changes his vote to not guilty and the jurors leave the room to deliver their