Mrs.Callaway
Language 10
12 November 2014
Fly on the wall Yesterday at a New York County Courthouse, an allmale jury helped decide the verdict of the sentencing of a young 16yearold boy, who was accused of murdering his father. After the prosecution, eleven of the twelve jurors voted the defendant guilty. In the due process of law, the defendant has a right to a trial by jury which is used in this occasion. To start off with, the eighth juror is the only one that is convinced that the young boy is innocent while all the other men think he is guilty. As I sit on the eighth jurors shoulder, I hear him starting to argue with the third juror. The seventh juror really wants to go to his baseball game, so they decide to take an hour to talk about the verdict. I move over to the third jurors shoulder. He starts talking about the old man's testimony. He states that the old man heard the boy yell "I am going to kill you" and he heard a body fall and saw the young man run out of the apartment. Next to the third juror the fourth juror starts talking about the defendant's alibi.
The fourth juror states that the young boy said he was at the movies, but he does not remember what movie he saw or who played in the movie. Thinking to myself: I think that is a coincidence.. But I do not have a say in this because I am just a fly on the wall. After awhile, the eighth juror asks to see the evidence again. The foreman goes to the door and gets the knife. The fourth juror flicks open the knife and jams it into the table. Then out of no where the eighth juror stands up and takes the same exact knife out of his pocket and stabs it into the table. Everyone becomes silent. They all start talking about the knife situation. The boy states
that the boys knife fell out of his pocket. As far as they know there is not an accomplice in the murder, so it is either the young boy or someone took his knife. Eventually they take another vote. It is ten to two. The eighth juror tells the seventh juror that they have to have reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant. The eighth juror starts talking about his circumstantial evidence, he tells how the father was not a good role model for his son and how he was never there for his son, he was either drinking or in jail. I fall asleep on the eighth jurors shoulder.
When I wake up they are voting for the last time. Everyone votes not guilty and the defendant is acquit from the trial.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
4. I believe this was an example of win-win negotiations. I feel this way because towards the end of the movie the other 11 jurors need to come to a conclusion based on facts that were given, and they had to use deductive reasoning to do so. The boy was acquitted with the charges dropped, as a result of the win-win negotiations.…
- 336 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Juror number 8 came with a reasonable argument to the jurors that changes the 9th juror’s perspective. The argument convinces the 9th juror to be an advocate for the boy/support the boy. Even though the 9th juror is convinced and sees the case from a different view than before, the other jurors are still not convinced. The 8th juror makes a tough but smart decision when voting to take time and sit and talk a bit more throught the case to find a conclusion. At first he says that the defendant is not guilty but he then reevaluates his decision and says “i don’t know.”…
- 105 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
In a crowded jury room, opinions collide as discussions about the innocence of a young boy are decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. The two men that cannot put their personal emotions aside are juror 3 and juror 10. These men are motivated by their emotions rather than the evidence.…
- 491 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Soon after the men gather in the deliberation room the foreman suggests a vote. All of the jurors except Henry Fonda suggested the boy was guilty. Fonda, is unsure of the defendant's guilt or innocence himself, even though his fellow jury members all disagree…
- 1676 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
He makes everyone believe by pulling out a duplicate knife. However, juror number eight could be disqualified by the judge if he unearthed information regarding this manner. Jurors…
- 555 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The 8th Juror is a key character throughout the play. He is the only dissenter who votes ‘not guilty’ in the very beginning and says ‘it’s not easy to raise hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.’ As a logical, gentle and thoughtful character, the 8th Juror slowly works out the way to make the jury rethink the case and the possibility of the boy not killing his…
- 583 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
5th Juror: 5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and has experience in living in slums his whole life.…
- 1553 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Okay, Juror #3 is the angry father, and Juror #8 is the guy who stands alone in the INNOCENT vote, right?…
- 1927 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In the film Twelve Angry Men produced by Reginald Rose begins when a young teenage boy was on trial for murdering his abusive father. All the evidence and facts brought to the trial was against him, however, the twelve jurors had to make a verdict whether the boy is guilty or not guilty, and they decision would concluded whether the boy should or should not be sent to the electric chair. In process of making a verdict, the twelve jurors came together to reason and decide the fate of the boy. The verdict began with eleven guilty to one not guilty. Juror number 8, who voted not guilty did not believe on the evidence because, he believed that the murder weapon could be available to anyone, so he had purchased a look alike knife. Which made some…
- 407 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The film 12 Angry Men is about a murder trial conducted in a courtroom. The judge gave the jury its final instruction telling them that a guilty verdict will result in a death sentence for the defendant, an 18-year-old boy who was accused of murdering his father using a knife! One juror had a personal connection with the case. He has not seen his son for more than two years. He claims that the young boy is guilty and that all young kids are criminals. The juror has bias towards the trial because he see his son in the young boy. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven jurors voted for conviction. Another juror states that he has doubts about the case and hopes to give the boy a favorable decision. The young boy had a hard life living in the slum. A third juror claims that each of the…
- 1026 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror Three has a strong prejudice for the murder because he has a similar experience with his son. He transfer his anger to the suspect, and keep his prejudice for the murder is guilty. Because Juror Three’s…
- 653 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror 5 lived in slums and could relate to the accused but he chose to vote guilty as he felt attacked by the other jurors…
- 1675 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Biased testimony towards the defendant resulted in a prejudice jury. Very frequently, statements like ‘We heard the facts, didn’t we?’ or ‘Pay attention to the facts’ are expressed in the jury room. The 4th Juror cited that the murder weapon was a knife so unique that ‘the storekeeper who sold it to him identified the knife in court and said it was the only one of its kind he ever had in stock.’ The 8th Juror argues that ‘It’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.’ None of the Juror’s believes this possibility as they have already established their prejudices against the accused. The 10th Juror says ‘Let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie… They think different. They act different.’ These are not ‘facts’ but prejudice opinions made by the 10th Juror about the socio-economic status of the boy. It can assumed that the ‘facts’ presented in this case can be viewed as biased opinions and reports that impairs the true facts.…
- 853 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Juror #Eight Also insists that, “during the trial, too many questions were left unasked”. “He asks for the murder weapon to be brought in” and says that “it is possible that someone else stabbed the boy’s father…
- 899 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
A final piece of evidence comes from the murder weapon, which the boy admits he bought; the prosecution states that the switch knife is incredibly unique and is not sold in any of the nearby areas. However, a juror is able to find an identical knife sold in the same area, which once again proves there is a reasonable doubt in the case. Throughout the play it is made apparent that the defense for the boy was lacking, and they did not strike many of the necessary possible jurors during voir dire. For instance, Juror 10 is a complete bigot who believes anyone who comes from a poor area, like the boy, is not trustworthy. In the play the jurors unanimously decide on a not guilty verdict based on the untrustworthy evidence. After their hours of careful discussion, it is clear that their decision was not made hastily, which once again shows that the lacking defense led to the appearance of guilt. In this fictional case, many jurors pushed for a hung jury, however, ultimately it was decided that evidence made possibility for reasonable doubt, and delivered a not guilty…
- 450 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays