The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto

who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men ar
e locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evid
ence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the elect
ric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decisi
on and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found
guilty.
Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the me
n are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #
8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is i
n uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenient of his decision. After
questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda)
by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed
juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is
widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspec
t. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded
of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid
not guilty.
Arriving at a unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The ju
ry encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each ot
her. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as deliberations begin slowly b
ecomes a questionable not sure. Although the movie deals with issues relating t
o the process of effective communication this paper will focus of two reasons wh
y they encounter difficulties and how they overcome them. First, we will apply t
he Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their situation. Then, we will
see how each individual's frame of reference and prejudices effect their percept
ion which cause difficulties in the communication process.
If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area
in the case of all of the men. Take into consideration, referred to by juror nu
mbers only they do not even have the benefit of knowing their names. These men h
ave never talked before. Each of them come from different situations with indiv
idual and unique experiences. The public area consists solely of the shared inf
ormation provided during the trial. Their hidden area is immense resulting in an
equally large blind area. The public, hidden and blind areas are relatively the
same for each juror before beginning the deliberation. It is the size of the un
conscious area that will differ more among the men. We will see how the contents
of the unconscious area will largely effect the decision making process of some
of the jurors. Because the information contained in the unconscious area is unr
ecognized it is often the most difficult to overcome.
Henry Fonda's (Juror #8) interpersonal style would be classified as op
en-receptive. He levels with the others by openly admitting that he does not kn
ow if the boy killed his father and solicits feedback in order to make an accura
te decision. He says "I just don't think we should send a boy off to die withou
t at least talking about it first." The example he set encourages the others to
level and be open to receive feedback. The movie illustrates the process of lev
eling and soliciting feedback which can make all the difference.
The character with the largest hidden window is the boy on trial. Real
izing this, Henry Fonda (Juror #8) tries to put himself in the boys shoes to gai
n a better understanding of his situation. "The poor boy has been beaten on the
head once a day every day since he was five years old!" and "I think if I were t
he boy I'd get myself a better lawyer... He didn't stand a chance in there." In
this case one can only speculate as to the contents of the boys hidden area. T
he important factor is his desire to comprehend the boys feelings.

One man in particular, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) has a sizable unconscious

area. He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoug
hts. This is eluded to in a conversation between juror #7 (Jack Warden)and him
self. Looking at a picture of him and his son he says "haven't' seen him in two
years, kids, you work your heart out..." then he abruptly stops. The broken rela
tionship with his son preoccupies his thoughts as several times throughout the m
ovie he is found staring at the picture. His interpersonal style would be classi
fied as a blabbermouth. He is neither open or receptive. He has his opinion and
loves to share it. The net result is a large blind area. He is unwilling or una
ble to level with the others and is also unreceptive to any feedback. Most like
ly the extent of these feelings and the effect it has on his perceptions is unco
nscious to him. Eventually, he finds himself the only one maintaining a vote of
guilty. He feels his sense of reality is in question and it threatens him. This
puts him on the defensive. He bursts accusing the others of being crazy. This em
otional eruption changes from bitter anger to sad understanding. His defenses st
art to crumble as his unconscious emotions become visible to him. By recognizing
his unconscious emotions essentially what he has done is level with himself. O
nce he did this he realized the anger and frustration with regards to his son ha
s been misdirected toward the accused. With a new understanding of himself he is
able to change his vote to not guilty.
Another issue dealt with in the movie is prejudice. Prejudice is defi
ned as premature judgment or bias. In a trial situation Jurors are asked to onl
y consider the evidence presented to them. Individual biases are not expected to
effect the decision making process. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outs
ide the court room door is near impossible. As the movie demonstrates prejudice
can distort our views and greatly effects our ability to make accurate assessme
nt's.
Strong prejudice is displayed by Juror #10 (Ed Begley) as he bursts i
nto a rage while referring to people from the ghetto, "Look you know these peop
le lie, it's born in them...they don't need any real reason to kill someone...th
ey get drunk all the time, all of them, and bang! someone's lying in the gutter.
..nobody's blaming them, for that's their nature, violent" he even goes on by s
aying "their no good, not a one of thems anygood." It is doubtful Ed Begley cou
ld see past his prejudice in order to hear the evidence in the trial. His guilty
vote is cast as soon as he learns about the boys disadvantaged life in the slum
s. While most of the men are aware of the stigma attached to people from the ghe
tto they are willing to try to put the stereotype aside. His outburst has caused
quite a disturbance in the room. This disturbance serves two purposes. First, i
t provides the "not guilty" defenders with an understanding that his prejudice i
s the reason for his opposition. It is always easier to overcome an objection if
you know what it is. Having this knowledge allows for a more productive commun
ication there by convincing him that he should change his vote. Secondly, it al
lows him to vent his frustrations. In doing so, he realizes the power of his emo
tions which forces him to step back and take a look at what he really feels. Th
e look on his face shows he has a realization. For the first time he understands
his prejudices have effected his perceptions. This new understanding of himsel
f enables him to think more clearly and objectively.
It is interesting that the most damning evidence is the testimony prov
ided by an eyewitness to the murder who is also a member of the boys slum commun
ity. Yet the boy, a product of the same community is an assumed liar. Henry Fond
a (Juror #8) points out the double standard to the others when he says "she's on
of them too?" Juror #3 (Jack Klugman) responds to the negative comments by inf
orming them that he too is from the ghetto. "Listen" he says "I've lived in a sl
um all my life, I've played in back yards that were filled with garbage, maybe y
ou can still smell it on me." Another gentlemen tells him "lets not be so sensi
tive, he didn't mean you." Pointing out these double standards undermine the co

nfidence of the jurors who's votes stemmed from pre judging.

Every man has the right to a fair trial, most would love the right to
this jury. As the movie closes the not guilty verdict is handed down. It is not
known if the boy is guilty or innocent, that will forever remain in his hidden
area. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) entered the trial with an open mind, he managed to
convince the others to do the same. The movie illustrates that everything is n
ot what it appears to be. Being aware of this is the first step to better unders
tanding.