Not Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

I believe that the defendant is not guilty this is because first off the knife that was brought the night of the murder after the defendant got into a argument with his dad and wanted to get away from his house. According to the text he lives in a bad neighborhood meaning that he could have went out and brought

The juror, explained the situation must be carefully observed before acting upon it. As a young child, Juror 8 thinks that the accused went through a lot. For that reason, the past experiences cause juror 8 to think that he may not have murdered his father. Juror 8 acknowledges, “This boy has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can’t see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder” (17).

And this gives people some thought about if the old man heard anything at all, and a few minutes later Juror Nine changes his vote to not guilty, starting the whole transition that leads to the end of the play. Another piece of evidence that had pieces missing was the boy not remembering the movie. Now it was said that the boy should have remembered a movie three hours before the police were called for the murder, but the boy said he didn’t remember the name or the actors from the movie. Juror eight tries to prove that you can’t remember everything from long ago. Recalling every detail is not possible.

The most persuasive pieces if evidence in this case for the defense was the fact that the women who claimed to have saw the boy stabbing his father did not have her glasses on. Other persuasive pieces of evidence for the defense were the fact that the old man could not have possibly gotten to the stairs to see the boy running down in time and the fact that one of the jurors was able to find the exact same switchblade. The most persuasive piece of evidence that the prosecution had was the fact that the man heard the 'boy' yell, "I'm going to kill you!”

During the argument, one of the jurors mentions what nuisance glasses are, then juror eight starts to think. The woman across the elk tracks, her testimony couldn’t be credible. “The woman who testified that she saw the killing wears glasses”(3.1.61), “The woman wore bifocals. They looked quite strong”(3.1.61). Since the woman wore strong bifocals, she could not have positively identified the defendant as the murderer while also looking through the el train.

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

Throughout the time of the play, many jurors, including Juror 9 had to deal with challenges and responsibilities. One of the responsibilities that a jury has is to follow the rules of presumption of innocence. In the article Presumption of Innocence, it states. “Throughout these proceedings the defendant is presumed to be innocent.” (New York

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

The boy bought the knife the day before the murder, which the majority of jurors interpreted that the boy killed his father. However, one of the jurors went to the store the boy bought the knife at and found several knifes that were exactly the same to the murder weapon. Even though the juror showed the same knife to the other jury members, some of them still believed that the boy was guilty since he bought the knife that was used in the murder. Common ground information in this case does not lead to shared understanding or interpretation due to the controversy between the witnesses and the

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

Finding the truth of what happened on the night of the murder is critical to Mr. Davis. First, he forces the jury to look at the murder weapon. It is a switch knife with a pattern on the handle. According to the store owner, he sold a knife to the 18 year

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Evidence and reasonable doubt play major roles in this play, the men would each state facts and even some opinions of their own to make just to their side guilty or not guilty. After juror 8 ends up being the only one to vote not guilty, he is asked why he believes the boy is innocent, he answers “I don’t know” and wants to talk it out and examine all the evidence. The whole story goes around from juror to juror as they argue and one by one they each vote not guilty except two jurors do not go so easy number three and ten. One very important thing brought up by juror three in the screen play and not the movie, is the fact that the kid claimed that he had bought the knife as a present of a friend of his because he had busted the other kid’s knife on the pavement, and the fact he had broken the knife just 3 weeks before his dad was murdered, this kind of evidence was very important to the way the

The prejudices of the court even those in this very room are manifesting and hindering this case. You see, the boy is considered a food knife fighter, and when he explained that the blade he bought earlier on in the day of the murder was lost, most of the men did not believe him, and the fact that a model just like it was found in the boys fathers chest seemed to be a conclusive guilt to most men. I have an identical switchblade which proves this weapon is not all that unique after all. When the stabbing occurred, the blade was used overhand; an experienced knife wielder would hold a blade underhand. This proves that he would of stabbed from down up, not up down. How could this young boy have killed his father when it is proved otherwise that the stabbing was done

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.