12 Angry Men

1. 12 Angry Men

2. What Is “Reasonable Doubt”? • “That state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.”

3. Thematically Speaking... • “ ‘12 Angry Men …sees all the frailty and narrowness of man, and yet convincingly depicts how principle can sometimes prevail in the most difficult situations’”(Ian Waldron-Mantgani) • Judicial system? • One against many • The power of emotion against rationality • Personal courage and the power of conviction • The sources (and varieties) of good and evil

4. The defendant is entitled to the 7 elements of ‘due process of U.S. Law’ • He must be presumed innocent • He must have the right to confront his accuser • The prosecution must present proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” • He has the right to an attorney • His conviction must be unanimous • His jury must be composed of his peers • He cannot be compelled to testify against himself

5. Motivation for original juror positions • Fear • Anger

6. Persuasive techniques and fallacies • Pathos (fear and anger-pity) • Ethos (presenting yourself as honest, reliable, thoughtful) • Logos (rationality-careful deliberation-comparing-contrasting-reviewing) • Propaganda (bandwagon theory- them against us)

7. The Prosecution’s Case: • At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial: • A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by. • An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you!” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away. • Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder. • Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films.

8. Finding Reasonable Doubt: • Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others. Here are some of the observations: • The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by. • Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood. • Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen. • The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness

9. Questions for analysis • Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? • Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination”? • Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why / why not? • What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? Or the prosecution? • Describe the communication style of each juror. Who comes closest to your own style of communication? • How would you have voted if you were on the jury?

10. Act I Questions • 1) How is racism come ‘into play’ while the jurors begin their initial deliberation? /2 • 2) Why is it important for Juror No. 8 to ‘talk’ about the case? /2 • 3) List three facts the jurors present, which open the possibility that the boy may be ‘not guilty’. /3 • 4) Illustrate how two of the jurors use their personal stories to develop further understanding of the case? To what end are their stories relevant? /4