Although the accused youth never appears as a character on stage, discussion of his actions

and motivations drives the play. The youth is referred to as a “kid” by many of the jurors. He
grew up in a slum without a mother, and is an 21 immigrant—all facts that color the jurors
ideas about him and his guilt. He is accused of stabbing his father to death.

THE JUDGE

A minor character whose offstage voice sets the context for the play by reminding the jurors
of their legal responsibilities in this case. The judge establishes the charge as “murder in the
first degree” and explains that for a man to be “guilty” the evidence must prove this “beyond
a reasonable doubt.”

Foreman (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. Despite being described as "not overly
bright," he helps calm down the tensions and moves the conversation onward with
professional urgency.

He sides with the "guilty" side until, just like Juror #12, he changes his mind after learning
about the details of knife-fighting from Juror #5.

Juror #2
He is easily persuaded by the opinions of others and cannot explain the roots of his
convictions. In the very beginning, he goes along with the general opinion, but soon Juror #8
wins his sympathy and he begins contributing more, despite his shyness.

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 is 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 #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may
have biased his views and it is only when he comes to terms with this that he can finally vote
“not guilty.”

Juror #4
A logical, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror #4 urges his fellow jurors to avoid emotional
arguments and engage in rational discussion.

He does not change his vote until a witness’s testimony is discredited (due to the witness’s
poor vision).

Juror #5
This young man is nervous about expressing his opinion, especially in front of the elder
members of the group. In Act One, his allure makes others believe that he is the one who
changed his mind during the secret vote.

But, it wasn't him; he didn't dare go against the rest of the group yet. However, it is also his
experience from the slums where he grew up, just like the defendant, that will later help
other jurors form an opinion of “not guilty.”

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.

He defies the adversity and pursues the facts, in search of a more complete and objective
picture. Juror #6 is the one who calls for another ballot and is also one of the first six pro-
acquittal ones.