12 Angry Men (1997)

In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote “guilty” except Juror 8, who argues that the accused deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening’s Yankees game, and 10 who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums. Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses, and the prosecution’s claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade of which he possesses an identical copy, was “rare”. Juror 8 argues that he cannot vote “guilty” because reasonable doubt exists.

Conceding that he has merely hung the jury, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain. He agrees to change his vote providing the outcome is a unanimous “guilty”. The ballot reveals one “not guilty” vote. Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children. However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion.

Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the accused tell his father “I’m going to kill you”. Juror 5 then changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the defendant would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.

Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness’ claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father’s body hit the floor since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke. An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to “burn the boy”. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadistic public avenger, causing Juror 3 to nearly attack Juror 8. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6–6. When a thunderstorm begins, it is likely that Juror 7’s baseball game will be cancelled.

Juror 4 doubts the alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the accused, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade, revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.

Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors (especially 11) for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the defendant is not guilty. Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him, with Juror 4 finally telling Juror 10 to be quiet. Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments. When the remaining “guilty” voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8–4.

Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she probably wears glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. Other jurors, most notably Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep, and points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn’t have had time to put them on. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to “not guilty”, leaving only Juror 3.

Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the accused to be guilty. He loses control and tears up a photograph of him and his son. Breaking down, sobbing, he declares “not guilty”—now the vote is unanimous. Outside, Jurors 8 and 9 finally exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.

12 Angry Men by Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0