Juror 3 Is Guilty In Twelve Angry Men By Reginald Rose

In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge.
Throughout the play, Juror 3 is stubborn and unwilling to listen to any other opinions. Juror 3 continually does or says whatever best suits his needs to convince the rest of the jurors that the teen boy murdered his father. When he first interjects, he describes his thoughts about the case being

pointless and there was no question as to whether the boy was guilty.

As the story unfolds, he tries to rush the case and continues to call for votes. He then becomes more frantic when he sees that the other jurors are starting to become less convinced of the defendants guilt. When any of the other jurors contradict Juror 3, he becomes aggressive and insults them commenting, "you're crazy" (241) or "We don't need a sermon" (224). Similarly, if another juror states something trying to prove the minor is innocent, Juror 3 immediately negates their claim and tries make it seem as if they couldn't possibly know what they were talking about. In another situation where the jurors are disputing whether to believe a witness account made by an old man, Juror 9, who is also an elderly man, describes why the evidence may be skewed. Juror 9 explains that he believes the witness may have accidentally

heard something that was not actually there. He describes that the old man likely lived a life under the radar and wanted to be recognized for something, even if it was just as a witness in a murder trial. Juror 3 quickly jumps in and asserts that Juror 9 is ridiculous and does not have any idea what he's talking about, trying to remove the credibility of Juror 9. Juror 3 originally took the stance that the old man who heard the boy's exclamation as concrete evidence, but in his hurry to convict the boy, he later contradicts his earlier stance now questioning whether the confused old man "...could be positive about... anything?" (239). He says what ever he believes will cause the other jurors to side with him, instead of objectively analyzing the case evidence.
We soon find out that Juror 3 is biased by his need for vengeance because of a past altercation with his son. As one juror stated "we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict" and that they "should not make this a personal thing" (245). Instead of Juror 3 staying objective in the case, he brings in his feelings toward his son. Early in the story he let it slip that he has a son with whom he no longer associates; Juror 3 goes on to say that after his son punched him in the mouth, his son then ran away. Juror 3 harbors resentment towards his son, since he believes he worked hard at being a good parent, just for his son in turn to disrespect him. In the case these negative feelings influenced him by making him biased towards a guilty verdict, Juror 3 even goes so far as to say that if he was one of the boy's executioners he would "...like to pull the switch"(243). Later, when the other jurors ask for reasons behind why Juror 3 believes the teenager is guilty, the juror makes vague statements such as "I'm entitled to my opinion" (255). However, he never substantiates his view on the minor's guilt, again showing that his views were not swayed by any case evidence.
Without Juror 3, the verdict would have been reached more quickly.
Throughout the play, Juror 3 constantly antagonizes the other jurors, making them feel unintelligent. Whenever one of the jurors says something that Juror 3 disagrees with, he makes it seem as if what the other juror said has no merit. Juror 3 does this because he is extremely opinionated, and unable to deal with others having a different view than his. Additionally, he refutes any supporters of boy's innocence by bringing up the evidence, but by doing this he causes the jurors to analyze the evidence more thoroughly. After they go through the evidence they realize that it may not be as incriminating as they first thought. Also, his strong feelings about the verdict of the case may have caused other jurors to switch the side of the case they were on. While Juror 3 was adamant on his stance, other jurors realized that he was being ignorantly stubborn, causing them to reevaluate their own views.