TWELVE ANGRY MAN SINOPSYS The 12 Angry Men focuses on jurys deliberation about the guilt or innocence of 18year

old Latino boy. This Latino boy had been accused stabbing death his own father. This deliberation takes place in a jurys room in New York City. All the jury was deliberate the case in the basis of reasonable doubt. The question they are deciding is whether the defendant, a teenage boy from a city slum, murdered his father. The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. Base on the information that received by jury, the defendant has a weak alibi1. A knife he claimed was lost is found at the murder scene, and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. 2Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty and only one jury vote for not guilty. He is jury eight. Some jury especially Jurors Three, Seven, and Twelve criticize him, but he defend and says that he does not know whether the young boy is guilty . Its very hard for him to send a boy to his death without discussing it first. After some argument, they agree to discuss all the facts of the case that they have and understand. Juror Three reviews what they know. From his review, he understands an old man who lives underneath the room where the murder took place heard loud noises just after midnight. He heard the son yell at the father that he was going to kill him. Then he heard a body falling and moments later, saw the boy running out of the house. Juror Four says the boy's story is flimsy. He said that he was at the movies at the time of the murder, but no one remembers seeing him there. Also, a woman living opposite looked out of her window and saw the murder through the windows of a passing elevated train. During the trial, it was verified that this was possible. Further facts emerge, the father regularly beat his son, and the son had been arrested for car theft, mugging, and knife fighting. He had been sent to reform school for knifing someone. Juror Eight insists that, during the trial, too many questions were left unasked. He asks for the murder weapon to be brought in and says that it is possible that someone else stabbed the boy's father with a similar knife. Several jurors insist the knife is a very unusual one, but
1

Rathjen, Brian. Plot Summary for12 Angry Man. The Internet Movie Database. Accessed on 3 April 2010. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/plotsummary 2 Answer.Com . Twelve Angry Men (plot summary). Answer.Com. Accessed on 3 April 2010. http://www.answers.com/topic/twelve-angry-men-play-1

then Juror Eight produces from his pocket a switchblade that is exactly the same. He says that it is possible the boy is telling the truth. After listening to the complaints of Jurors 7 and 10, Jurors 5 and 11 change their votes to not guilty. After Jurors 2 and 6 also decide on "not guilty", 7 becomes tired and also votes "not guilty" just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him nothing but shame. They still continue discussing. However, when pressed by Juror 11, Juror 7 says he believes the defendant is not guilty. Juror 12 changes his mind after voting "not guilty", but switches back to guilty after Juror 4 points out that the woman who saw the killing is the one piece of evidence there might not be a loophole3 that their miss in the discussion . Juror 1 also votes "not guilty". Juror 10 loses all favor or respect after indulging in a narrow-minded rage, after which he is told to "sit down and don't open his mouth again" by Juror 4, who becomes convinced by Juror 9. Juror 9 states that the witnesss testimony may be inaccurate because she may not wear her glasses at the time of the alleged murder. The jury that vote not guilty is Juror 3 who, after a long confrontation with Juror 8, breaks down after glancing at and furiously tearing up a picture of him and his son. It is revealed that Juror 3 has not seen his son in two years, and his rage may be the result of a falling out with the boy. When his son was young, the father tried to teach the son to "be a man" after seeing him run away from a fight. The son ended up punching his father in the mouth. The final vote is unanimous for acquittal. All Jurors leave and the defendant is found not-guilty

Sidney Lumet. Story Line 12 Angry Men. The Iapolis Cinema. Accessed on 3 April 2010. http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-1YLO/12-angry-men/storyline.html

THE CHARACTERS

Instead of organizing the jurors in numeric order, the characters are listed in the order they decide to vote in favor of the defendant.

Juror #8:

He votes not guilty during the jurys first vote. Described as thoughtful and gentle, Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the most heroic member of the jury. He is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. At the beginning of the play, when every other juror has voted guilty he is the only one to vote: not guilty. Juror #8 spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. A guilty verdict will result in the electric chair; therefore, Juror #8 wants to discuss the relevance of the witness testimony. He is convinced that there is reasonable doubt. Eventually he persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant.

Juror #9:

Described in the stage notes as a mild, gentle old man, defeated by life and waiting to die. Despite this bleak description, he is the first to agree with Juror #8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young man to death. Also, during Act One, Juror #9 is the first to openly recognize Juror #10s racist attitude, stating that, What this man says is very dangerous.

Juror #5:

This young man is nervous about expressing his opinion, especially in front of the elder members of the group. He grew up in the slums. He has witnessed knife-fights, an experience that will later help other jurors form an opinion of not guilty.

Juror #11:

As a refugee from Europe, Juror #11 has witnessed great injustices. That is why he is intent on administering justice as a jury member. He sometimes feels self-conscious about his foreign accent. He conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and Americas legal system.

Juror #2:

He is the most timid of the group. Just how timid? Well, this will give you an idea: For the 1957 adaptation of 12 Angry Men, director Sidney Lumet cast John Fielder as Juror #2. (Fielder is best known as the voice of Piglet from Disneys Winnie the Pooh cartoons). Juror #2 is easily persuaded by the opinions of others, and cannot explain the roots of his opinions.

Juror #6:

Described as an honest but dull-witted man, Juror #6 is a house painter by trade. He is slow to see the good in others, but eventually agrees with Juror #8.

Juror #7:

A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman, Juror #7 admits during Act One that he would have done anything to miss jury duty. He represents the many real-life individuals who loath the idea of being on a jury.

Juror #12:

He is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. He is anxious for the trail to be over so that he can get back to his career and his social life.

Juror #1:

Non-confrontational, Juror #1 serves as the foreman of the jury. He is serious about his authoritative role, and wants to be as fair as possible.

Juror #10:

The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror #10 is openly bitter and prejudice. During Act Three he unleashes his bigotry to the others in a speech that disturbs the rest of the jury. Most of the jurors, disgusted by #10s racism, turn their backs on him.

Juror #4:

A logical, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror #4 urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. He does not change his vote until a witnesss testimony is discredited (due to the witnesss apparently poor vision).
5

Juror #3:

In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views. Only when he comes to terms with this can he finally vote not guilty.

VALUE IN 12 ANGRY MEN Culture, which is the language, beliefs, values, norms, and behaviors, is around us everyday, all the time. To understand culture, social facts are necessary to know. Social facts are patterns of behavior that characterize a social group, which includes values, norms, and sanctions. In the movie, 12 Angry Men, the jury as a group is an example of a culture in which social facts can be described. The values of the jurors in 12 Angry Men seem to be along the same lines. Most of the men value that the way they dress at work must be presentable. Their idea of what is desirable in life is to be successful. The groups values differ when it comes to the way they treat their elders, though. An obvious norm of the jury is that murder is not acceptable; it disobeys the expectations of behaviors that reflect their values. These men have a few norms that they share, but also have norms that are different, due to their differences in social facts. They all think kids now are worse than when they were kids. Sanctions were expressed in the group when the men voted. At first the signs of sanctions consisted of being lectured for voting not guilty. Disapproval was mostly directed towards the men voting not guilty because they stood up for the boy. A sanction against the boy, if found guilty, could be death. The twelfth juror did not use his own groups way of doing things as a yardstick for judging others. He put himself in the boys shoes by taking everything into consideration and the other men did not start to do this until the end of the movie. One of the men brought up a point that just because he grew up in the slums doesnt mean he murdered his father. He spoke from his personal experiences. But the twelfth juror added, I kept putting myself in the kids place. This is important because his way of looking at the case was fine. The man stood firm on his vote until the boy was proved with facts to be guilty.

SUMMARY Act 1 Summary Twelve Angry Men takes place in a jury room in the late afternoon on a hot summer's day in New York City. After the curtain rises, the judge's voice is heard offstage, giving instructions to the jury. He says that the defendant is being tried for first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory death penalty. The judge adds that if the jury has reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they must acquit him. The verdict must be unanimous. The jurors, all men, file into the jury room and sit in straight-backed chairs around a long conference table. The weather is hot, and there is no air-conditioning; some of the men are irritable. From the initial chitchat, it is clear that most members of the jury regard the man as guilty. Jurors Seven and Ten ridicule the defendant's story. Apparently, a young man has stabbed his father to death with a knife. He admits that he bought a knife that night but claims that he lost it. The jury takes a vote. Eleven jurors vote guilty, and one juror, Juror Eight, votes not guilty. Jurors Three, Seven, and Twelve criticize him, but Juror Eight says that he does not know whether the man is guilty or not but that it is not easy for him to send a boy to his death without discussing it first. After some argument, they agree to discuss the facts of the case. Juror Three reviews what they know. An old man who lives underneath the room where the murder took place heard loud noises just after midnight. He heard the son yell at the father that he was going to kill him. Then he heard a body falling and moments later, saw the boy running out of the house. Juror Four says the boy's story is flimsy. He said that he was at the movies at the time of the murder, but no one remembers seeing him there. Also, a woman living opposite looked out of her window and saw the murder through the windows of a passing elevated train. During the trial, it was verified that this was possible. Further facts emerge: the father regularly beat his son, and the son had been arrested for car theft, mugging, and knife fighting. He had been sent to reform school for knifing someone. Juror Eight insists that, during the trial, too many questions were left unasked. He asks for the murder weapon to be brought in and says that it is possible that someone else stabbed
8

the boy's father with a similar knife. Several jurors insist the knife is a very unusual one, but then Juror Eight produces from his pocket a switchblade that is exactly the same. He says that it is possible the boy is telling the truth. The other jurors scoff at this, but Juror Eight calls for another vote, a secret one this time. He says that he will abstain. When the votes are counted, there are ten guilty votes and one not guilty. Act 2 Summary Juror Three is angry with Juror Five because he thinks that Juror Five is the one who changed his vote. It transpires that the not-guilty vote was cast by Juror Nine. This juror says that he wants to hear more discussion of the case, even though there is still a strong feeling among the other jurors that the defendant is guilty. Jurors Three and Twelve start to play a game of tic-tac-toe to pass the time, but Juror Eight angrily snatches the piece of paper away, saying that jury deliberations are not a game. Pressured by Juror Eight, the jury agrees that it would take about ten seconds for the train to pass by the apartment. Juror Eight also establishes that the train is noisy, so the old man could not have heard the boy yell that he was going to kill his father, as the old man testified. Juror Nine suggests that the old man may have convinced himself that he heard the words because he has never had any recognition from anyone and has a strong need for attention. Juror Three responds to this with hostility, but Juror Eight argues additionally that even if the boy had said he was going to kill his father, that does not mean he intended to do so, since people often use that or similar phrases without meaning them. Convinced by these arguments, Juror Five changes his vote to not guilty, making the vote nine to three. Juror Eight then questions the old man's testimony that he took only fifteen seconds to get downstairs, open the front door, and see the boy fleeing. He says that bearing in mind that the man cannot walk well, it probably took longer. Using a diagram of the apartment, Juror Eight acts out the old man's steps and is timed at thirty-nine seconds. He says that the old man must have heard, rather than seen, someone racing down the stairs and assumed it was the boy. An argument erupts between Jurors Three and Eight, as Juror Three insists the boy is guilty and must be executed. Juror Eight accuses him of being a sadist. Juror Three

lunges at him, screaming that he will kill him. Juror Eight replies softly, suggesting that perhaps Juror Three does not really mean what he is saying. Act 3 Summary The jurors take another vote, this time an open one, which is evenly split, six to six. Jurors Two, Six, and Eleven have switched their votes, to the annoyance of Jurors Three and Ten. The possibility of being a hung jury is brought up, but Juror Eight refuses to accept the possibility. They take a vote on that, too. Six jurors vote in favor of declaring themselves a hung jury; six vote against. Juror Four changes his vote, so it is seven to five against declaring a hung jury. Juror Four then argues persuasively for a guilty verdict, based on the evidence. He raises the possibility that although the old man may have taken longer to get to the door than he testified, the murderer might also have taken longer to escape. Reenacting the actions of the murderer, the jurors time it at twenty-nine and a half seconds. This suggests that the old man's testimony that he saw the boy fleeing may be correct after all. As a result, three jurors change their votes back, leaving the tally at nine to three in favor of guilt. Juror Four still insists that the boy is guilty. He says the most important testimony is that of the woman who says she saw the murder. She was in bed, unable to sleep, when she looked out the window and saw the boy stab his father. Juror Eight reminds them that the woman wears glasses, but she would not wear them in bed and would not have had time to put them on to see what she claims to have seen. He contends that she could have seen only a blur. At this, Jurors Four and Ten change their votes to not guilty, leaving the tally at eleven to one. Only Juror Three insists on a guilty verdict, but when he sees that he stands alone and cannot change anyone else's opinion, he begrudgingly votes not guilty. The jury has reached a unanimous decision, and the defendant is acquitted. Twelve Angry Men ends with the jury agreeing that there is enough reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal. The defendant is deemed not guilty by a jury of his peers. However, the playwright never reveals the truth behind the case. Did they save an innocent man from the electric chair? Did a guilty man go free? The audience is left to decide for themselves

10

REFERENCES

Advanced Knowledge. Twelve Angry Men: Teams That Dont Quit. Facilitator Guide. 1998. (Goes with the Targeted Learning Corporation reference below.) http://advancedknowledge.com/twelve.pdf

Clemens, John K. and Wolff, Melora. Movies to Manage By. Chapter 6 Socratic Leadership12 Angry Men, pp. 117-137. 1999.

Kouzes, James and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. Third Edition. 2002. www.theleadershipchallenge.com

Patnode, Major Norman H (USAF). Program Management and Leadership. The Socratic Method Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance. November-December 2002.

Targeted Learning Corporation. Twelve Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit http://www.targetlearn.com/documentation/TWEL000.pdf

University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, Managerial Psychology. Summary of Class Discussion on Twelve Angry Men, with connections toSix Principles of Group Decision Making. 2005. http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/joshua.klayman/teaching/ManagerialPsych-05B/312%20angry%20handout-2005B.doc.

11