Twelve Angry Men Which type of jury is better‚ a unanimous jury or a majority jury? While both have their advantages and disadvantages‚ I believe that a unanimous jury of ordinary people is the best way to come to a verdict. It is the jury’s function to protect defendants from government oppression. Juries do this by using their common sense. It is this common sense that separates ordinary citizens from panels of judges and legal experts. Judges and legal experts have been trained from
Premium Jury Not proven Law
In the beginning of 12 Angry Men‚ they clarify that they had sat through six days of court listening to the case‚ and were now ready to decide the verdict. After those six days of hearing believed conclusive evidence and no defense from the plaintiff‚ it seemed to be an assured decision. When I researched on what exactly happens in the Jury Room it said: The first motion of business in a jury room is to select one of the jurors as a foreman. He or she leads the discussion and tries to encourage everyone
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
chamber relying solely on the testimony given by the two eyewitnesses. Despite Juror #8 raising questions about the reliability of the eyewitnesses’ testimonies‚ the majority of the jurors stick by their guilty votes. Juror #8 maintains his not guilty verdict and through the film‚ continues to raise questions and shows the jurors where there are areas that raise doubt. Although there were only two eyewitness accounts‚ this movie shows how strong the power of eyewitness testimony can be in court.
Premium Jury Verdict Man
Reaction The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty‚ he will be charged with a mandatory sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this
Premium Decision making Verdict Jury
the young man wasn’t guilty‚ but that he was not sure. He could not imagine going through with a guilty verdict for a young‚ scared man who was hanging in the balance between life
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
strike many of the necessary possible jurors during voir dire. For instance‚ Juror 10 is a complete bigot who believes anyone who comes from a poor area‚ like the boy‚ is not trustworthy. In the play the jurors unanimously decide on a not guilty verdict based on the untrustworthy evidence. After their hours of careful discussion‚ it is clear that their decision was not made hastily‚ which once again shows that the lacking defense led to the appearance of guilt. In this fictional case‚ many jurors
Premium Jury Not proven Murder
they have gotten into a terrible argument. The jury has to deliberate on whether or not the boy is guilty of killing his father. The minute the jury got into the holding room to talk about it‚ they immediately wanted to charge him with the guilty verdict so they can get out and about. Something that’s done often in small groups so the situation is solved fast. This movie is mainly about prejudice and how they take a toll on our decision making and views. When the jury first gets together‚ there
Premium Jury Verdict
suggests‚ is to absolve preconceptions in the pursuit for a neutral and modal citizenship. Such concern is established in Rose’s judge’s speech‚ imploring the jury to ‘separate the facts from the fancy’‚ and to reach a common cause of a ‘unanimous verdict’. However‚ standing in the way of this model is an individual perception of truth and order‚ established by Rose in the domineering presence of certain Jurors. Juror 3 seeks to close the proceedings by isolating the facts of the case‚ stating “Let’s
Free Judge Jury Law
reveals his personal issues he "breaks off. He has said more than he intended" and is "embarrassed". His aggression is suggested to be one consequence of his overriding sense of shame and disappointment. Juror Seven wants to leave the jury with a verdict as soon as possible so he can go to his baseball game. His impatience complements his selfish and childish personality. In Juxtaposition‚ the 8th juror has a positive impact on the group; he gradually earns their trust and support because of his considerate
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict
self-control when he expresses his point of view by yelling and shows no regard for the emotions of others when he insults the slums. Henry Fonda is an architect who from the beginning of the movie leads the situation by having doubts as to the proper verdict for the case and questioning the others. He is initiative when he asks the men to discuss the case in further detail. Fonda shows that through teamwork they can all agree on what is right and he slowly persuades the jurors to vote ‘not guilty’ with
Premium Jury Not proven Verdict