What Made Every Juror Change Their Mind In 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is one of the most important courtroom dramas ever made. The entire movie takes place in a jury deliberation room, where 12 men identified only by their jury numbers must decide whether to convict or acquit a teenager accused of murdering his father. At first, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) is the only juror to vote “not guilty,” to the chagrin of many jurors who see the case as open-and-shut. As the 12 jurors reexamine the details, they one-by-one change their minds until they ultimately find the defendant not guilty at the ending of 12 Angry Men.

Fonda not only led the cast of 12 Angry Men but also produced it. He masterfully played Juror 8, who never argues the defendant is “innocent,” only that there’s not enough proof to assume guilt. Through the discussion of facts, individuals’ biases and prejudices come to light, influencing their votes. 12 Angry Men makes a debate-fueled courtroom drama as exciting as an action movie. The movie showcases each character’s journey as they gradually develop new perspectives on the case.

You are watching: What Made Every Juror Change Their Mind In 12 Angry Men

1

Juror 9

Vote 10-2 In Favor Of Guilty

Close

Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) is a thoughtful, intelligent older gentleman. Over the course of the jury’s deliberation, he is shown to be highly observant of witnesses’ behaviors and potential motives. For example, he recalls that the witness who “saw” the defendant stab his father through the train had marks on her nose that she frequently rubbed, indicating she wore glasses that she probably wasn’t wearing while trying to fall asleep.

He respects Juror 8’s motives to give the defendant a fair shot, and though he thinks the defendant is likely guilty, votes to continue the debate.

Juror 9 is the first to change his vote from guilty to not guilty in 12 Angry Men. Juror 8 offers to abstain from a second vote, and if it is unanimously guilty, he will vote guilty too. Juror 9 changes his vote, saying, “It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others.” He respects Juror 8’s motives to give the defendant a fair shot, and though he thinks the defendant is likely guilty, votes to continue the debate.

2

Juror 5

Vote 9-3 In Favor Of Guilty

Close

Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) is a Baltimore Orioles fan who grew up in a difficult home environment, just like the defendant. He is sensitive to the bigotry that other jurors openly express. When Juror 8 is discussing whether the knife wounds align with the height difference between the defendant and his father, Juror 5 shares that he saw his share of knife fights growing up and demonstrates how the district attorney’s argument relied on a hand placement no one familiar with knife fighting would use.

Juror 5 identifies with the defendant, which is ultimately what sways his vote. Juror 10 calls the defendant a “common, ignorant slob,” which is what tips Juror 5 into changing his vote from guilty to not guilty. While he does not explicitly say so, Juror 5 probably knows the defendant did not get a fair trial, which is enough to create reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.

3

Juror 11

Vote 8-4 In Favor Of Guilty

Close

Juror 11 (George Voskovec) is a polite European watchmaker and a naturalized American citizen. One of the more mild-mannered jurors in 12 Angry Men, he vocalizes a strong respect for democratic values including due process. Juror 11 wants everyone to participate in the process for the right reasons, not swing their votes out of impatience or personal biases.

Juror 11 does not give details on what specifically gave him enough reasonable doubt to change his vote, but he did switch to not guilty after a lengthy discussion about the accuracy of the witness’ testimony.

Juror 11 says he has reasonable doubt after jurors pointed out how difficult it would be to discern specific words—or identify an individual voice—over the noise of an elevated train passing through open windows.

4

Juror 2

Vote 6-6 Even

Close

Juror 2 (John Fiedler) is a meek and unassuming bank teller. Juror 2 does not have strong opinions of his own, tending to go along with what others have said in 12 Angry Men. Over the course of the debate, he does learn to speak up for himself despite the loud personalities at the jury table.

See more : 10 Henchmen In Martial Arts Movies Who Put Up A Better Fight Than The Villain

Related

12 Angry Men: Why Everyone Thinks It’s Based On A Book (& They’re Wrong)

People commonly mistake the courtroom drama 12 Angry Men for a book adaptation; however, the facts show different origins for this popular story.

Posts

Juror 2 changes his vote during a full jury vote after the group dives even deeper into the evidence. Juror 8 argues that even if the downstairs neighbor heard the defendant scream, “I’ll kill you!” the phrase is often a common expression of anger rather than a literal declaration of intent. Later, in a fit of rage, Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8, shouting, “I’ll kill you!” demonstrating Juror 8’s point.

5

Juror 6

Vote 6-6 Even

Close

Juror 6 (Edward Binns) is a tough but principled house painter. He stands up to protect others, particularly the more elderly jury members when others raise their voices at them. Like Juror 2, he does not express strong opinions but listens carefully and keeps an open mind. When Juror 8 asks if anyone lived near the el train, he volunteers that he recently spent three days painting a house near one, and confirms that the noise was constant.

Juror 6’s vote switch, together with Juror 2’s, creates an even split within the jury, a turning point in 12 Angry Men. Juror 6 does not say precisely the argument that switched his vote, but his switch occurs after Juror 8 undermines the eyewitness testimony. The witness claims to have crossed his apartment in mere seconds to see the defendant run out the door, but Juror 8 conducts a test factoring in the witness’s slight limp, revealing that it would take much longer than the witness had testified.

6

Juror 7

Vote 7-5 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 7 (Jack Warden) is a wisecracking salesman. He does not have respect for the judicial system and is more concerned with making the Yankees game than getting to the truth. He tries to “soft pitch” Juror 8 in the bathroom to expedite the deliberation. Juror 7 makes slyly ethnocentric remarks, particularly directed at naturalized citizen Juror 11.

Juror 7 changes his vote because he senses the tides are turning and wants to do anything to move the vote along. When questioned about changing his vote, he dismissively states that he’s tired of the “yakkity-yak” and has “had enough,” which upsets Juror 11, who views it as a disrespectful approach to the democratic process. Although Juror 7’s conviction hasn’t really wavered, his vote shifts the count in favor of not guilty.

7

Juror 1

Vote 8-4 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 1 (Martin Balsam) is the foreman in 12 Angry Men. He is calm and methodical, often serving as a voice of reason among the jurors. Juror 1 tends not speak except to diffuse tension. He’s clearly aiming to ensure the trial is both fair and efficient. He does his best to make the process democratic and give everyone a fair say. Outside the jury room, he works as an assistant high school football coach, which could explain why he handles all the testosterone so well.

Juror 8 points out how awkward a downward stabbing angle would be for the defendant, who was six inches shorter than his father.

Juror 1 does not explicitly state why he changes his vote. However, the decision comes after a discussion about the pattern of the stab wound. Juror 8 points out how awkward a downward stabbing angle would be for the defendant, who was six inches shorter than his father. Furthermore, Juror 5 demonstrates that the prosecution’s theory of the case did not hold the switchblade properly, further adding reasonable doubt to the fact of the stabbing itself.

8

See more : Is Anne McAlpine Pregnant? Know Everything About Anne McAlpine

Juror 4

Vote 11-1 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 4 (E.G. Marshall) is an analytical stockbroker who is focused solely on the facts. He tends to make offensive generalizations about “types” of people without realizing it is offensive. Throughout the deliberation of 12 Angry Men, he is convinced of the defendant’s guilt but willing to listen to logical arguments.

When asked why he was so sure of the guilt, Juror 4 points to the eyewitness testimony from across the street who saw the stabbing is solid evidence. Juror 9 realizes the witness had glasses, but was unlikely to be wearing them when she was trying to fall asleep. If she did not have time to grab her glasses while running to see what the yelling was, this calls her testimony into question. This brings enough reasonable doubt for Juror 4 to change his vote.

9

Juror 10

Vote 11-1 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.) is a loud-mouth, racist garage owner. He denounces the defendant as “one of them” from the beginning. He is less interested in facts than his own intuition about what a person’s personality or home environment is like. After Juror 1 changes his vote, Juror 10 launches into a bigoted tirade, prompting the other jurors to either turn away or leave the table. His overt racism likely sways some jurors to become more sympathetic to the defendant.

Juror 10 does not say exactly why he changed his vote, but he appears defeated when the room reacts so strongly against his hateful soliloquy. After additional jurors vote for acquittal following his outburst, he may have changed his vote out of a sense of resignation or in recognition of his isolated position.

10

Juror 12

Vote 11-1 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a friendly, easily distracted advertising executive, often caught doodling instead of fully engaging in the deliberations of 12 Angry Men. Juror 13 frequently mentions his job and the creative types he meets with colorful phrases like “let’s run it up the flagpole and see who waves.” He is indecisive but takes the case seriously, asking questions more than posing ideas about the facts of the case.

Related

12 Angry Men Review: Henry Fonda Redefines What It Means To Be A Protagonist In Classic Masterpiece

A film like 12 Angry Men comes around once in a lifetime, and it will remain a blueprint for what a masterpiece looks like. 

Posts

Juror 12 is the only juror to initially vote to acquit, then change his vote to convict, and later change his mind again. Juror 12 expressed the most difficulty sorting through the facts. His indecision seems rooted in an admirable effort to fully understand the facts and reach a fair conclusion.

Juror 3

Vote 12-0 In Favor Of Acquittal

Close

Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) is the hot-tempered owner of an answering service. From the outset, he is the strongest advocate for a guilty verdict, even declaring that he’d gladly pull the switch on the electric chair himself, making him the antagonist of 12 Angry Men. It becomes evident that he has a strained and ultimately estranged relationship with his son. His frustration reaches a breaking point when he attempts to physically attack Juror 8, whose logical chipping away of the facts infuriates Juror 3.

As the lone dissenter still voting guilty, he delivers a desperate rant in an attempt to sway the others. During this outburst, his wallet falls, revealing a photograph of him with his son. In a moment of raw emotion, he tears up the photo and collapses into sobs. Juror 3 comes to the painful realization that he has been projecting his anger and disappointment over his fractured relationship with his son onto the defendant, a teenager who had a troubled relationship with his father. Broken and defeated, Juror 3 finally changes his vote to not guilty in 12 Angry Men.

Source: https://truongnguyenbinhkhiem.edu.vn
Category: Entertainment