12 ANGRY MEN

SYNOPSIS:

An eighteen-year old boy is charged with the murder of his father. Trial has just
concluded and the jury is about to vote on whether the accused is guilty or not. If the
accused is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death. The judge reminds the jury that their
votes must be unanimous to convict or to acquit.

The jury retires in the jury room. The deliberation starts and a preliminary vote is
taken. It results to a vote of 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict. The only one to vote not guilty
is juror number 8. When asked why he voted not guilty, he says that he would like to talk
about the case longer because a life is at stake. Juror number 12 suggests that each of the
11 men who voted guilty state their reasons to convince juror number 8. Juror number 2
begins and states that he voted guilty because the defense failed to prove their case. Juror
number 3 says that he voted guilty because of the testimony of the old man who lives in the
room directly below the crime scene. The old man testified that at about 12 midnight, he
heard the boy yell, “I will kill you” and then a second later, he heard a body fall to the
ground. The old man went out of his bedroom and walked to the door in time to see the boy
running away from the apartment. Juror number 4 adds that he voted guilty because the
boy’s alibi is flimsy. The boy said that during the time of the murder up until 3 am in the
morning, he was at a movie house yet the boy could not remember the titles of the movies
he saw nor the stars in the movie when he was asked about it. Juror number 5 passed when
it was his time to speak. Juror number 6 states that he voted guilty because the boy had
motive to commit the crime. Those living in the apartment heard the boy and his father
argue at about 8 pm the night of the murder. The father hit his son twice then the boy left
the house. Juror number 7 states that the boy is guilty because of his record. The boy was in
child court when he was only seven years old, had stolen a car and is known to be skilled in
knife-fighting. Juror number 8 is asked to speak and he states that while he isn’t sure if the
boy is not guilty, he thought the defense lawyer did a horrible job representing the boy. He
says that there is one alleged eye-witness to the case, a woman who lives across the
apartment where the murder took place, and the others are circumstantial evidence. He
states that these pieces of evidence may be wrong.

The jury then talks about the murder weapon which is a switch knife. Juror number
4 says that the switch knife, which the boy admitted to buying the night of the murder at a
neighborhood junkshop, was one of a kind. The owner of the junkshop testified that they
had only one knife of that kind in stock. The boy stated that he lost the knife before he went
with his friends to the movie house. The same knife was later identified as the murder
weapon. Juror number 8 disproves this when he brought out a knife which is exactly the
same as the murder weapon. He says that he bought it the night before at a pawnshop two
blocks away from the boy’s neighborhood.

The jury then talked about the testimony of the woman living across the apartment,
exactly opposite the room where the murder happened. She testified that she saw the boy
stabbed the victim as an El-train passed. The woman testified that the El-train was empty
and that the lights of the train were out so she was able to see through the last 2 carts of the
train. The 11 men who voted guilty agreed that the testimony was believable. Juror number
8 proposes that the 11 men vote by secret ballot and if all of them still vote guilty, he will
accept their decision but if at least one changes to a vote of not guilty, they will continue
talking. They agree and the votes were taken. The result was 10-1. There was one who
switched his vote to not guilty.

Juror number 9, an old man, revealed that he is the one who changed his vote. Juror
number 8 brings up the issue of the El-train. He says that when an El-train passes by, the
noise it creates is unbearable. Juror number 6 agrees with him. Juror number 8 then asks
how the old man heard the boy say, “I will kill you” to his father when as the woman
testified, an El-train passed by when the murder happened. Juror number 5 changes his
vote to not guilty.

Juror number 11 also begins to question the story of the prosecution, saying it was
unreasonable for the boy to have killed his father, wipe the knife clean of his fingerprints
and then come back 3 hours later to find his father’s dead body. Juror number 4 explains
that the boy must have run in panic and then after calming down, went back to retrieve the
murder weapon. However, juror number 11 states that the woman who witnessed the
murder said that she screamed right after she saw the boy stab his father, the boy must
have heard the scream. Already with reasonable doubt, juror number 11 also changes his
vote to not guilty.

Juror number 5 brings the old man’s testimony in issue again as he recalled the old
man testified that he was able to go from his bedroom to the door in time to see the boy
running down the stairs in about 15 seconds. Recalling that the old man was dragging his
right foot during the trial and has to be helped to get to the witness’ stand, juror number 8
conducts an experiment to see if it was possible for the old man to have reached the door in
15 seconds. When juror number 8 did his experiment, it took him 41 seconds to complete
the distance from the old man’s bedroom to the door. Another vote was taken which
resulted to a vote of 6-6. Jurors number 7 and 10 propose that they declare themselves a
hung jury. However, the others oppose.

The jury then discussed the boy’s alibi. Juror number 8 says that it is possible that
the boy could not remember the movies he saw because of emotional stress. After all, he
was questioned by the police in the kitchen of their apartment room when the dead body of
his father is lying nearby. He tests this theory with juror number 4 and proves his point
when juror number 4 could not remember the movies showing in the movie theater he
went to a few days ago.

Juror number 2 also states that the angle of the stab wound disturbs him. He is not
satisfied that the boy which is shorter than his father by 7 inches could have stabbed his
father downwards. After a demonstration, juror number 3 proves that it could have
happened. However, juror number 5 shows how a switch knife is used and by his
demonstration, the stab wound could not have been downwards. Juror number 7 then
changes his vote to not guilty. When another vote is taken, jurors number 12 and number 1
change their votes to not guilty, leaving only 3 jurors voting for guilty.

Juror number 4 states that even though the other jurors have made good points, the
testimony of the woman still stands. Juror number 12 changes his vote back to guilty. Then,
as juror number 4 argues, he takes off his eyeglasses and rubs his nose. This reminds juror
number 9 of the woman. The woman had the same marks as the marks on the nose of juror
number 4 and the woman also rubbed his nose the same way as juror number 4. Juror
number 4 confirms that only eyeglasses would cause the marks. They then come to the
conclusion that it would have been impossible for the woman to have seen the crime 60
feet away from her room when she claimed she just woke up from her sleep when she saw
the murder. It was not possible that she was wearing her glasses that time. Jurors number
4, number 10 and number 12 then change their votes to not guilty, leaving juror number 3
alone. Juror number 3 is blinded by anger towards the accused because he has a bad
relationship with his own son. He tearfully changes his vote to not guilty. Juror number 1
declares that they have reached a verdict. One by one, the 12 men leave the jury room. As
juror number 8 walks through the courthouse, juror number 9 catches up to him and asks
for his name. Juror number 8 answers that his name is Davis. They shake hands as juror
number 9 says that his name is McCardle.
ISSUE IN THE MOVIE:

Whether or not the boy killed his father based on the evidence presented by the
prosecution.

RULES OF EVIDENCE SHOWN IN THE MOVIE:

1. Disputable Presumption/Presumption of Law

“Sec. 3. Rule 131. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are

satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(a)That a person is innocent of crime or wrong xxx”

When Juror number 2 stated his reason for his guilty vote, the following transpired:

Juror #2: It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious
from the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution.

The presumption of the innocence of the accused is a disputable presumption.

Also, the prosecution has the burden of proof to overcome this presumption.
Furthermore, in criminal cases, the accused has the right to be presumed innocent until
proven otherwise by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The words “reasonable doubt”
was used many times in the film and usually the jurors change their votes when they
have a reasonable doubt already as to the guilt of the accused.

2. Presumptions of Fact or Inferences

Presumptions of fact are those which the experience of mankind has shown to be
valid, founded on general knowledge and information.

There are several scenes in the film which showed the jurors coming to
presumptions or inferences based on the facts and on human experience. Some of them
are the following:

a. Juror number 8 has lived near the El-line once and Juror number 6 has painted a
building near an El-line once and both agree that when an El-train passes by, the
noise it creates is unbearable. Based on this knowledge and experience, they
concluded that the old man could not have heard the boy utter, “I will kill you” since
the boy uttered it while the El-train passed by.

b. Based on the knowledge that the old man has a bad right foot, the jurors came to the
conclusion that the old man could not have walked from his bedroom to the door of
his apartment in 15 seconds as he has testified in court.
c. Based on the knowledge and experience of Juror Number 4, the jurors came to the
conclusion that the woman who eye-witnessed the murder wears eyeglasses. And
since the woman testified that she had been sleeping before she looked up in her
window and saw the murder, the jurors concluded that she could not have put on
her eyeglasses to have seen clearly what was transpiring 60 feet away from where
she was.

d. Based on human experience, juror number 8 stated that when a person usually says,
“I will kill you”, he does not really mean it. Juror number 2 agreed and he said that
while he was working in the bank weeks ago, he got into an argument with another
man and he told the man, “I will kill you” although he didn’t really mean it.