12 Angry Men Jury Analysis

It is a matter of life and death and it is all up to twelve people. According to Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn't make sense, you should find for the defense.” If the facts that are presented by the prosecution are not clear then the jury should vote the defendant not guilty. One may disagree with this statement because if the evidence that is presented in court is unclear, and then the jury grants the defendant not guilty and the defendant really did commit the crime then there is a criminal on the loose. For instance the OJ Simpson case when OJ tried on the glove and it did not fit. The jury saw that there was unclear evidence that proved him guilty and there was nothing that proved him not guilty but the jury still ruled not guilty even though he did kill his wife. However, the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose agrees with this quote. There is a boy on trial for the murder of his father and when the jury goes into the jury room to discuss a verdict eleven
The old man testified that he heard the boy on trial yell, “I am going to kill you,” at his father. However, there was an el train passing by at the same time. The jury thought this was solid evidence, but when the jury started to discuss this evidence juror eight said, “An el train takes six second to pass a given point or two seconds per car...The old man would have had to hear the boy say, “I’m going to kill you,” while the front of the el was roaring past his nose. It's not possible that he could have heard it.” (Rose 11). This statement completely crushed the testimony that was given in court. It also change the minds of many of the jurors because the evidence became questionable that at first voted guilty when the jury voted again the vote change “nine to three in favor of guilty” (Rose 12). Proving that when information is unclear or does not make sense then some of the jury members voted the defendant not