Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old Hispanic boy  from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence.
Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old boy  from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty.
If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence. In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening's Yankees game, and 10 who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums.
Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses, and the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade of which he possesses an identical copywas "rare". Juror 8 argues that reasonable doubt exists, and that he therefore cannot vote "guilty", but concedes that he has merely hung the jury.
Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain, and agrees to change his vote if the others unanimously vote "guilty".
The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. An angry Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children.
However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the boy tell his father "I'm going to kill you".
Juror 5 then changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness' claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor, since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke.
An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6—6. Shortly after, a thunderstorm begins. Juror 4 doubts the boy's alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail.
Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the boy, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person.
The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the boy is not guilty.
Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum-born people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun.
Most of the others turn their backs to him. When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence.
Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8—4. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glassesrealizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity.
Other jurors, most notably Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep, and points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn't have had time to put them on.
Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the boy to be guilty.
He finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of him and his son, but suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous. Outside, Jurors 8 Davis and 9 McCardle exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.
Cast[ edit ] The twelve jurors are referred to — and seated — in the order below: An assistant high school American football coach. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others.
He is the ninth to vote "not guilty", never giving the reason for changing his vote; played by Martin Balsam. A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds, so does his courage.
He is the fifth to vote "not guilty"; played by John Fiedler.12 Angry Men is a American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.
Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet. 12 Angry Men is a American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values.
12 Angry Men Questions and Answers. The Question and Answer section for 12 Angry Men is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel. 12 Angry Men is a American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and d.
Discussion and rants, links and quotes, comments and moderation. A place to discuss the intersection of issues that affect black woman, anti-oppression. More than 5 million men in the U.S. experience depression each year. Clinical depression—in women or men—can cause sadness and a loss of interest in once pleasurable activities.