top of page

Twelve Angry Men

Supplemental Material

​

Link to full script: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irVXTuMAQESSwtoqOtQiC_-5dZa59LCmOxA_IQzlxww/edit

 

A concept essential to understanding this play is that of REASONABLE DOUBT:

 

If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. This means that if the jury is not 100% certain about the guilt of the accused, they must find that person innocent.

 

A jury is only allowed to consider the facts of the case at hand. A jury CANNOT base their verdict on stereotypes or unsubstantiated impressions or intuitions.

 

Irrelevant Factors that should generally NOT factor in to the deliberation of guilt or innocence of a given defendant:

 

Race ~ Age ~ Religion ~ Gender ~ Sexual Orientation ~ Class (etc.)

 

*The exception to the above would likely be if the crime that had been perpetrated was a hate crime and might have therefore been motivated by one or multiple of the above factors.

 

A Hung Jury:

 

A jury that is unable to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The result is a mistrial, and legal proceedings must be re-initiated to bring the case to trial again. 

 

First Degree Murder:

 

Unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. 

 

Second Degree Murder:

 

Is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, or committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

 

Justifiable Homicide:

 

Is the killing of a person in circumstances that allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt.

​

Assault versus Battery: What's the difference?

​

Battery is physical and Assault is psychological.

​

Assault Explained

​

The definition of "assault" will vary slightly across statutes and case law, but the most basic and common definition is "an intentional act putting a person in imminent apprehension of an offensive or harmful physical contact."

In other words, you assault someone when you put them in the position of psychologically anticipating that they will be subject to battery. Examples of assault may be raising a fist, brandishing a weapon, or even making a verbal threat with some indication that you will follow through. 

​

There are a few nuances here, too. For example, the defendant does not have to intend to actually commit battery. If I swing a baseball bat at someone in order to scare him, I could still be liable for assault even if I did not intend to actually make contact. Another quirk here is that "apprehension" does not necessarily mean fear. If I threaten to punch a professional wrestler, he might not be afraid of me. But as long as he anticipates the punch, I have assaulted him. 

​

Battery Explained

​

The definition of "battery" will vary slightly across jurisdictions, as well as between tort law and criminal law. However, the most basic and common definition of battery goes along the lines of "an intentional physical contact with a person without his or her consent that results in bodily harm or is offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity."

​

This is a broad definition. It can include anything from a punch in the face to an unwanted hug to a rude jostle between strangers passing on a narrow sidewalk.

There are many interesting legal nuances to this definition. For example, the physical contact has to be intentional, but the harmful nature of the physical contact does not have to be intentional. This means that if I hug my friend not knowing that she does not want to be hugged, I could be liable for battery even though I did not intend to harm or offend her; it is enough that I intended to hug. Also, "physical contact" does not need to involve a body part of the offender. If I hit you with a stick or throw a T-shirt at you, that could be battery, even though I have not touched you myself. Courts have even held that blowing cigarette smoke in someone's face could constitute battery, or poisoning someone's food. In addition, the legal definition of "person" in this definition includes logical extensions of the person, such as a walking cane.

​

The key here, however, is that there must be some physical contact for battery to exist. 

​

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/so-sue-me/201504/the-difference-between-assault-and-battery#:~:text=But%20is%20there%20actually%20a,physical%20and%20assault%20is%20psychological.&text=The%20definition%20of%20%22battery%22%20will,tort%20law%20and%20criminal%20law.

​

​

Lady Justice is both a symbol and concept that dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, respectively. In ancient times she was believed to be a goddess. In modern times, however, her image is meant to be understood as an embodiment of the most important values and principals of the judicial system.

 

Lady Justice is BLINDFOLDED because the court is blind to the insignificant factors of a case. This means, race, age, class, etc. are irrelevant. One does not require eyes to consider the most important facts in a trial. The blindfold serves as an assurance that irrelevant judgments will not be part of the decisions rendered in court.

 

Lady Justice holds a SCALE because in court the facts as presented on both sides will be equally considered. A verdict can and will only be rendered when the scale decisively tips towards either Innocence or Guilt.

 

Lady Justice holds a SWORD because her judgments are final, irreversible, etc. The sword symbolizes both authority and the last word on a matter. In many places the court ultimately decides whether one lives or dies in certain instances. 

​

DESCRIPTIONS OF JURORS

​

 

FOREMAN

A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER TWO

A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER THREE

A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.

 

 

JUROR NUMBER FOUR

Seems to be a man of wealth and position. A practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. Seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER FIVE

A naïve, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously, but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.

 

 

JUROR NUMBER SIX

An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER SEVEN

A loud, flashy, glad-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward.

​

​

JUROR NUMBER EIGHT

A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER NINE

A mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER TEN

An angry, bitter man. A man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own. A man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER ELEVEN

A refugee from Europe who had come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.

​

 

JUROR NUMBER TWELVE

A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs, and polls and has no real understanding of people. A superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow.

​

* * *

​

Jury:

Word Association

 

-Vulnerability        -Fear           -Paranoia              -Fair (?)                 -Just (?)

-Peers (?)                 -Susceptible to corruption or tampering?

 

Each person has a unique a nuanced answer to the questions that will follow. The answers to these questions will impact not only how you interpret and respond to the text, they will also offer insight into your world view. Among other things, they will reveal how you feel about justice, due process, juries, humanity as a whole, and so forth.

 

The Questions

 

-Are humans inherently good or inherently bad?

​

-Are humans inherently smart or inherently ignorant?

​

-Are humans inherently diligent or inherently lazy?

 

-Are humans inherently just or inherently corrupt?

​

 

Emerging Conflicts in the Play:

 

Juror versus Juror          

 

Logic versus Hate/ Irrationality

 

*Individual versus Group

​

*This last conflict links to the concept referred to by many as the tyranny of the majority. This concept often arises when “discussing systems of democracy and majority rule” and arises particularly in scenarios that are hinged on “decisions made by a majority” that places “its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots ,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).

​

* * *

​

 

 

 

 

All of the information that will follow has been taken directly from the American Bar Association's website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/jurydeliberate.html

​

How Courts Work

Steps in a Trial

 

Jury Deliberations

​

After receiving the instructions and hearing the final arguments, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberating. In most states the first order of business is to elect one of the jurors as the foreperson or presiding juror. This person’s role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict. The bailiff’s job is to ensure that no one communicates with the jury during deliberations.

​

In some states, the jury may take the exhibits introduced into the record and the judge's instructions to the jury room. Sometimes the jury will have a question about the evidence or the judge's instructions. If this happens, the jury will give a note to the bailiff to take to the judge. The judge may respond to the note, or may call the jury back into the courtroom for further instructions or to have portions of the transcript read to them. Of course, any communication between the judge and jury should be in the presence of lawyers for each side or with their knowledge.

​

Usually the court provides the jury with written forms of all possible verdicts, so that when a decision is reached, the jury has only to choose the proper verdict form. In most instances, the verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous. In some states a less than unanimous decision is permitted in civil cases. All federal cases require a unanimous decision.

​

If the jury cannot come to a decision by the end of the day, the jurors may be sequestered, or housed in a hotel and secluded from all contact with other people, newspapers and news reports. In most cases, though, the jury will be allowed to go home at night. The judge will instruct jurors not to read or view reports of the case in the news. Nor should they consider or discuss the case while outside of the jury room.

​

If the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, a hung jury results, leading to a mistrial. The case is not decided, and it may be tried again at a later date before a new jury. Or the plaintiff or government may decide not to pursue the case further and there will be no subsequent trial.

​

The Role of Judges

​

What does a judge do? Maybe it's best to start with what he or she doesn't do. Even though he or she works for the state, a judge is not a law enforcement officer. A judge is not a prosecutor. Judges don't arrest people or try to prove them guilty.

​

Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law.

​

The Role and Structure of Courts

​

Law won't work without independent courts. That means courts that aren't under the thumb of the political powers-that-be. An independent judge can assure that your case will be decided according to the law and the facts—not the vagaries of shifting political currents.

​

We need courts to interpret and apply the law when parties dispute. In that way, courts take law out of dry and dusty law books, and make it part of the living fabric of our lives. Courts apply the law to specific controversies brought before them. They resolve disputes between people, companies and units of government.

​

Often, courts are called on to uphold limitations on the government. They protect against abuses by all branches of government. They protect minorities of all types from the majority, and protect the rights of people who can't protect themselves. They also embody notions of equal treatment and fair play. The courts and the protections of the law are open to everybody.

​

In any state, there are not one but two distinct court systems: state courts and federal courts. The vast majority of cases—over 95%—are handled by the state courts. The great bulk of legal business—traffic offenses, divorce, wills and estates, buying and selling property—is handled by the state courts, because all these areas are governed primarily by state laws.

​

Basically, the courts of this country are divided into three layers:

​

  • trial courts, where cases start;

  • intermediate (appellate) courts, where most appeals are first heard; and

  • courts of last resort (usually called supreme courts), which hear further appeals and have final authority in the cases they hear.

 

This division is generally true of both state courts and federal courts.

​

* * *

​

Comparison of a Defense Lawyer & a Prosecutor

by Maureen Malone, studioD 

Excerpted from: http://work.chron.com/comparison-defense-lawyer-prosecutor-26628.html

​

Prosecutors and defense lawyers are attorneys working on criminal cases. Prosecutors charge suspects with crimes and attempt to convict them in court, while defense attorneys strive to defend their client, the suspect, and prevent a conviction. Although the two types of lawyers are similar, each plays a distinct role in the court system.

​

Prosecutor and Defense Lawyer Similarities

Both prosecutors and defense lawyers complete the same education. In addition to completing a four-year undergraduate program, lawyers must attend three years of law school to attain a juris doctor degree. Required coursework includes contracts, constitutional law, civil procedure and legal writing. After completing law school, lawyers must pass the bar examination to be admitted to the state bar and begin practicing law. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are both key players in the criminal court system.

​

Role in the Courtroom

During a trial, the prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He does this by presenting evidence and questioning witnesses in an effort to convince the jury of guilt. The defense lawyer's goal during the trial is not to prove the accused is innocent, but rather to be an advocate and represent the client throughout the trial. Even if the accused has admitted guilt to the defense attorney, the defense does not have to share this information and may still defend the client. If evidence was obtained illegally or the client's rights were violated, this may allow the defendant to escape conviction.

​

​

bottom of page