Sir Sahid Mir Organizational Behaviour and leadership Zaeem Qadir

(12213)

12 Angry Men Summary

12 Angry Men is a 1997 American television drama film, its a story about a teenaged
boy from a city slum who murdered his father. When the final closing arguments in
a murder trial have been presented to the judge, she gives her instructions to the jury, all
of whom are men. In the United States, the verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous.
A non-unanimous verdict results in a hung jury which in turn forces a mistrial. The jury is
further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death
sentence. Under current American criminal law, a defendant must first be found guilty,
and then the jury in the sentencing phase must find an aggravating circumstance and
unanimously agree to recommend the death penalty, if the state has the death
penalty, The jury of twelve retires to the jury room, where they begin to become
acquainted with their personalities and discuss the case.

The story revolves around their difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, mainly
because of the personal prejudices of several of the jurors. An initial vote is taken and
eleven of the jurors vote for conviction. Juror number 8, the lone dissenter, states that
the evidence presented is circumstantial and the boy deserves a fair deliberation, upon
which he questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder,
the fact that the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as the testimony indicates
(he produces an identical one from his pocket), and the overall shady circumstances.

Having argued several points, Juror 8 requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He
proposed that he would abstain from voting, and if the other eleven jurors voted guilty
unanimously, then he would acquiesce to their decision. However, if at least one juror
voted "not guilty", then they would continue deliberating. In a secret ballot, Juror 9 is the
first to support Juror 8, and not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling
that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.

After hearing further deliberations concerning whether one witness heard the murder
take place, Juror 5 (who grew up in a slum) changes his vote to "not guilty." This earns
criticism from Juror 3, who accuses him of switching only because he had sympathy for
slum children. Soon afterward, Juror 11, questioning whether the defendant would have
reasonably fled the scene and come back three hours later to retrieve his knife, also
changes his vote. Jurors 2 and 6 also decide to vote "not guilty" to tie the vote at 6-6,
Juror 7 (who has tickets to a baseball game at 8:00 that night) becomes tired and
changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him nothing but
shame. When pressed by Juror 11, however, Juror 7 says he believes the defendant is not
guilty.

The next people to change their votes are Jurors 12 and 1 when Juror 8 demonstrates
that it is unlikely that one witness saw the boy flee the scene, making the vote 9-3. The
only dissenters left are Jurors 3, 4, and 10. The remaining jurors are intrigued when Juror
11 proves that although the psychiatric test presented in the case stated that the boy
had subconscious desires to kill, tests of such do not prove anything other than what
could possibly happen. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 proceeds to
go onto a bigoted and narrow-minded rage on why people from the slums can't be
Sir Sahid Mir Organizational Behaviour and leadership Zaeem Qadir
(12213)

trusted, and as he speaks, Juror 4 responds: "Sit down. And don't open your filthy mouth
again."[citation needed]

When Juror 4 is pressed as to why he still maintains his vote, he states his belief that
despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that
the woman who saw the murder from across the street still stands as solid evidence.
After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty" to make the vote 8-4
again. Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which was being irritated by his
glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4, the witness who alleged she saw the murder, had
impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, and likely was not
wearing them when she saw the murder. After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 all
change their vote to "not guilty".

Last of all to agree is the rigid Juror 3 who is forced to present his arguments again. He
goes off on a tirade, presenting the evidence in haphazard fashion, before coming to
what has been bothering him all along: the idea that a son would kill his own father (it
was established earlier in the film that Juror 3 had a bad relationship with his son). He
begins to weep and says he can feel the knife being plunged into his chest. Juror 8 points
out quietly that the boy is not his son, and Juror 4 pats his arm and says: "Let him live."
The man gives in. The final vote is unanimous for acquittal.

All jurors leave and the defendant is found not-guilty off-screen, while Juror 8 helps the
distraught Juror 3 with his coat in a show of compassion. In an epilogue, the friendly
Jurors 8 and 9 exchange names (all jurors having remained nameless throughout the
movie) and part ways.