Welcome to Mr. Barnes' website

Twelve Angry Men

Summary & Analysis

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

 

ACT 1

​

-This play will take place entirely in the ‘jury room’. The setting is cramped, uncomfortably hot, forcing its reluctant occupants to constantly face and confront one another.

 

-The cast, it must be noted, is comprised entirely of Caucasian men. Thus, try to interpret how this play might serve as a critique of gender, justice, and so forth.

 

-As Act 1 opens the jurors engage in small talk about the trial. Immediately juror 8 is depicted as an outsider; he stands off to the side, absorbed in his own thoughts.

 

-The jurors have a vote in order to determine where they all stand. Juror 8 is the only juror who does not want to immediately convict the accused.

 

-Juror 10’s biases emerge as he declares that the young Latino defendant should not be seen as credible, “[y]ou're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.” The thrust of his argument is that all Latinos are not trustworthy and should more or less be viewed as guilty at all times.

 

-The jurors agree that they should attempt to persuade juror 8 to vote guilty by reviewing all of the facts of the case with him.

 

-As the jurors take turns attempting to convince juror 8 it becomes apparent that many of them are incapable of defending their conclusion that the defendant is guilty. Juror 2, for example, explains that the defendant is guilty because “nobody proved otherwise,” while jurors 3 and 4 appear to be the only ones with concrete, logic based reasons.

 

-Jurors 3, 4 and 10 lay out the prosecution’s case, which on the surface appears to be quite strong. Here are the facts of the case:

 

• The accused and his father had a physical altercation on the evening of the murder.

• Later on the same evening the accused purchased a switch blade knife that he claims was a gift for a friend. During the evening the knife is lost and is ultimately identical to the one said to be used in the murder of his father.

• During the time that the murder took place the accused claims to have been at a film, though he was incapable of naming the film he was viewing.

• There are multiple witnesses to the crime. The first witness is an eye witness who lives in the apartment across the street. This witness reported that she looked out of the window while in bed. At that very moment an elevated train was passing by her window and she was able to see into the apartment of the accused through the windows of the passing train. The witness claims that she saw the accused plunge a knife into his father’s chest. At this very moment, the second witness, an elderly man who lived directly beneath the scene of the crime witnessed the following; he claims to have heard the accused scream, “I’m going to kill you”, which then triggered him to rush to his front door. Upon looking through his peephole, the elderly gentleman claims that he saw the accused running out of the building.

• Juror 7 points to the past record of the accused who apparently had a history of  violence.

 

-Juror 3 offers the audience a crucial insight into his life when he shares an anecdote about his son; “[...]I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, "I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying." When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! [...]” At this point critical readers should be asking themselves how this juror’s issues with his own son might impact his ability to assess the guilt of another son who may have murdered his father.

 

-Conflict among the jurors continues to escalate. Juror 4 declares that slums are breeding grounds for criminals and offends juror 5 who actually grew up in a slum.

 

-It emerges that these twelve men have a diverse array of reasons for concluding that the accused is guilty. While some have logically weighed the facts, others have relied on bias, gut feelings and instinct. Reginald Rose evidently intends to critique the judicial system via this play and seems to suggest that trials do not necessarily result in justice being done.

 

-Juror 8 explains why he has doubts concerning the guilt of the accused;

 

• The boy’s court appointed lawyer did not defend the boy well, failing to ask a number of important questions during the trial.

• Juror 8 is also skeptical of the claims about the murder weapon; during the trial it was more or less depicted as being one of a kind. Juror 8 exposes this claim as a falsehood by going to the neighborhood of the accused and buying a knife that is identical to the murder weapon.

 

-At the close of Act 1 juror 8 suggests that everyone vote again without him. If they continue to think the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then he says he will join them in finding the boy guilty, potentially condemning him to receive the death penalty.

​

-Juror 8 gambled at the end of this act. After planting the seeds of doubt in his fellow jurors he put them in a position in which they would be forced to realize that finding the 19 year old defendant guilty means potentially being his co-executioner.

​

ACT 2

 

-Act 2 opens with the foreman reading the results of the anonymous vote. It is revealed that one more juror has begun to doubt the defendant’s guilt.

 

-The results of the vote are upsetting to most of the jurors, who seem in a rush to hastily end their deliberation. Juror 3 in particular expresses his disappointment in a rather sinister fashion, “We're trying to put a guilty man into the chair where he belongs.” The fact that he thinks the defendant is guilty is not an issue. Rather, it is his zealousness to see him executed that might cause one to question his motives.

 

-Jurors 3 and 5 nearly fight because 3 assumes it was 5 who changed his vote. Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote due to his respect for juror 8’s courage for standing alone for what he believes in.

 

-Juror 3 nearly gets into a fight with juror 8—his second altercation within moments.

 

-Juror 8 continues to scrutinize the evidence presented in court.

 

• He explains that an elevated train is so loud that the downstairs neighbor could not have heard the boy say, “I’m going to kill you!”

• He later suggests that even if the boy did say, “I’m going to kill you!” it does not prove he committed a murder because people say variations of that statement every day.

 

-Juror 9 joins in scrutinizing the testimony of the elderly downstairs neighbor. He suggests that the gentleman may have exaggerated what he witnessed in order to be important for the first time in his life.

 

-Juror 8 shifts his scrutiny to another aspect of the elderly witness’ testimony. Despite having suffered 2 strokes and walking with canes, the witness claimed that he was able to travel 50+ feet in 15 seconds in order to be at his peephole when he claims he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime. Juror 8 emulates the path and pacing of the witness, and proves that the elderly gentleman likely made a false or otherwise inaccurate claim.