Reasonable Doubt In The Play 'Twelve Angry Man'

892 Words2 Pages

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…

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

Open Document