Reasonable doubt is doubt of the defendant’s guilt for the crime that they are being accused of. If reasonable doubt exists the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. If the only doubt is are unreasonable doubt, the prosecutor has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he should be found guilty. In the play ' Twelve Angry Man', the jury must decide on a verdict regarding whether the boy in the trial is guilty or not guilty to murder on a first degree. Juror eight play an important role to help use evidence to create reasonable doubt for the rest of the jury. He provided clues that doubt had surfaced during the case, which helped prove that prosecutor had failed to provide enough evidence for a guilty verdict.
In the
…show more content…
play, a key piece of evidence presented by juror 8 that provides a reasonable doubt was on page 35; 'I’m going to kill you'. ‘This phrase-how many times has each of you used it? Probably hundreds. ‘If you do that once more junior, I'm going to murder you.'' '' Come on, Rocky, kill him!'' We say it every day. This doesn't mean that we're really going to kill someone''. This helps to convince the other jurors that everyday this phrase is used but it isn't always meant as a real threat. This was proven when jury three got angry with jury eight and start shouting (pg. 43) ' Shut up! Let me go. I'll will kill you! I will kill you!' Jury eight than said ' you don’t really mean you'll kill me, do you? This part was the most crucial part that helped prove that people say phrases like these and don’t really mean it. Another vital piece of evidence was about bifocals, which are glasses with two parts that help a person to see things that are nearby and things that are far away.
The woman said that when she looked out the window she saw the murder taking place. Juror eight show how her testimonial doesn’t prove that it was the boy who killed his father. (PG.61) -'juror eight-' I think it's logical to say she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don't think she'd put them on to glance casually out the window. . . . She testified that the murder took place the instant she looked out, and that the lights went out a split second later. She couldn't have had the time to put on her glasses then. Now perhaps this women honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say that she only saw a blur'. He show that their were doubt that could have been found in the testimonial that was
given. There was evidence provided that helped show that the boy could have been found guilty in the crime. Juror three show that the boy was guilty, was an important part of his argument was that the old man who had testified, had told the court that the kid running downstairs after he heard something falling to the ground. They react the crime scene in (pg. 51) ‘juror four I 'm going to kill you. Seven catches knife in his hands and falls to floor a second after shout. He writhes a bit, then rolls onto his right side. Four stares at him for a few moments, then digs into his pockets and produces a handkerchief. It takes him a moment or two to unfold handkerchief; then he bends down and wipes handle of knife. He looks about, as though as checking to be sure that he has done everything. Then he rushes to door that leads out of jury room and wipe doorknob. Then he turns around a full circle and wipes both knob again. He would have to wipe both knobs. (Then he rushes R and goes back to the door of jury room and repeat the process on doorknob. Then he stamps his foot and cries out) Stop!. '' This demonstration took twenty five second. This prove that the old man could have saw the kid running down the stairs. As a result of this evidence, people may reach the conclusion that the boy is guilty. However, he is not guilty because Juror eleven and eight were able to question juror three about how reliable the testimonial of the old man. In page 53, ' eight- the police officers were using big bulbs and one even had a flashlight. Eleven- this old man looked down the dark hallway of a tenement and recognized a running figure.'' This helped support that there is reasonable doubt in the case, because it would have been too dark for the old man to see anything. All the evidence that was collected didn't have solid leads and doubt was found and exposed in the trail, which must had led to a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is if you have reason to believe that the evidence show isn’t concrete. Then you would have to find the accused not guilty. In Twelve Angry Men, there wasn't enough solid information to find the kid guilty. All the evidence provide the phrase ‘I'm going to kill you’, the bifocal; and the dark hallway, all convince the jurors that the kid was not guilty, because reasonable doubt was found in the trial.
In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see
In the film “12 Angry Men”, several critical thinking skills are imposed in attempts to persuade the members of the jury to believe that the suspect is guilty or not guilty. To begin with, the word choice used in the film seems to be ambiguous in which the words used could have two completely different meanings. For example, a juror in the movie believes that the suspect is guilty all because he claims that “the way they are by nature” or “they are all alike”. This phrase is very vague without having a clear definition, meaning that it can be misinterpreted by others. These faulty statements don’t prove a point in regards to finding whether or not the defendant is guilty, as it is misleading.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
An inductive argument is made that it is unlikely that the female witness was wearing her glasses when she awoke; because, people do not usually go to sleep with their glasses on. Therefore, the juror concludes that the witness was probably unable to clearly see the murder. I do not feel that this is a strong argument because of the counter-example that sometimes people fall asleep with their glasses on. Another counter-example is that it is possible that her glasses may have been off, but she may have put them on very quickly upon waking.