The classical courtroom drama, Twelve Angry Men, follows the jury deliberation of a first degree murder trial in what seems to be an open and shut case. Accused of stabbing his own father to death with a switchblade is an 18 year old Latino boy from the slums. His fate is left in the hands of twelve Caucasian men, who must unanimously agree that the boy is either guilty or innocent. Throughout the film they debate amongst each other in an overheated, claustrophobic jury room.
Beginning the movie with a preliminary vote, it is apparent that the accused murderer’s Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights have been violated when 11 of the jury members agree that the boy is guilty. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states that all accused criminals being tried have the right to “an impartial jury of the state”. As the jurors begin arguing their judgment of guilt, it becomes quite clear that the jury is made up of a number of biased individuals. Juror #2 simply bases his decision off of personal feelings, unable to give a solid defense to why he believes the boy is guilty, saying that “It’s hard to put into words, I just think he’s guilty”.
Sorely standing out from the others is angry Juror #10. His racist, bigoted comments clearly define his character as being intolerant. From the beginning, Juror #10 stands stubborn in his belief that the boy is guilty. In a rant, he segregates the boy’s “kind” (uneducated slum ridden folk) from the rest of society, describing “them” as “born liars”. Quite rudely Juror #10 also attempts the argument that the boy is a “common ignorant slob” who “don’t even speak good English,” when he is in fact the ignorant one.
Quite opposite minded is Juror #8, portrayed by Henry Fonda. He plays the lone man with an open mind and a reasonable doubt in his mind that the accused might actually be innocent, although he is unsure. The main reason he questions the defendant’s guilt is because the entire prosecution was based upon witnesses and their testimony. He argues that people make mistakes, and since witnesses are people, it is quite possible that they could have made a mistake.
The entire film is based around the discussion and debate that the jurors make in regards to the defendant’s alibi and witness testimony. Juror #8 successfully persuades the eleven other jurors, who initially found the boy guilty, to consider what may have actually happened and closely examine the facts. Their group discussion/debate/argument of the facts convinces the eleven jurors that it was not likely that the boy committed the murder, therefore providing them each with reasonable doubt.
However, Juror #3 is the most stubborn of them all and the last to be persuaded. His prejudice against children clouds his judgment, placing a bias on why he thinks the boy is guilty. His own son, who he hasn’t seen for 2 years, grew up to challenge his authority and reject his morals. The anger Juror #3 feels is the reason he is so stubborn in his guilty opinion of the defendant.
The argument can be made that the film does not portray a modern criminal trial jury. In Twelve Angry Men, the jury consisted of all Caucasian males, who are all of the same approximate age and social status (middle class). Common today in criminal trials, defendants are judged by jury members who are peers. Clearly, the jury in Twelve Angry Men was not one constructed of the boy’s peers.
Holmes’s argument indicating that experience and human prejudice influences the law more than logic is dramatized throughout the film. Each jury member enters the courtroom and the jury room with a different set of beliefs and experiences. The beliefs and experiences they bring with them influence their decision of why the boy is guilty or not. For instance, Juror #3 based his decision off his bitter relationship with his son. It is impossible to be blind to all prejudices and ignore all biases one may have when influencing what happens under the law. We are only human; just as the jurors in Twelve Angry Men we base most of our decisions off of life experiences, morals, stereotypes and prejudices exposed to us throughout the years.
Twelve Angry Men has historical significance in the world of law since it was one of the first films to give insight to the American public on not only what happens in the courtroom, but also in the jury room (where the jury decides its verdict). One must consider the era in which this film was released (1957). It was a period representing a “darker age” of technology, when media coverage on court proceedings was practically non-existent. Twelve Angry Men can be credited with the establishment and development of courtroom dramas in film today.
