Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. It was broadcast initially as a television play in 1954. The following year it was adapted for the stage, and in 1957 was made into a film. Since then it has been given numerous remakes, adaptations, and tributes.

Contents

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.[6][7] This courtroom drama tells the story of a jury of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The defendant is an 18-year-old male. There are two witnesses: a lady from across the street and an old man who lives below the defendant.

12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-building and the difficulties encountered in the process among this group of men whose range of personalities adds to the intensity and conflict. It also explores the power one person has to elicit change. The jury members are identified by number; no names are given during the film until, in the final scene, McCardle (Sweeney) asks Davis (Fonda) his name and then provides his own. The film forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the personality, experiences, and actions of the jurors. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set. Only three minutes take place that are not set in the jury room.

In 2007, the film was selected for the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[8] The film was selected as the second-best courtroom drama ever by the American Film Institute during their AFI's 10 Top 10 list[9] and is the highest courtroom drama on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 Movies of All Time.

In a mid-1950s New York County Courthouse, the judge instructs a jury about to deliberate the case of an 18-year-old from a slum on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt, they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, he will receive a death sentence.[11]

In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8. He questions the reliability of the two witnesses, and the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon, a switchblade, was "rare", and produces an identical knife. Juror 8 argues that he cannot vote "guilty" because reasonable doubt exists.

Having hung the jury, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot – if everyone is still agreed, he will acquiesce. 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, but Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion.

Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the threat that one witness claimed to have heard the defendant tell his father: "I'm going to kill you". Juror 5 changes his vote, as does Juror 11, who believes the defendant, having returned to the apartment and been met by the police, was not trying to retrieve the murder weapon as it had already been cleaned of fingerprints. Juror 8 points out that people often say "I'm going to kill you" without literally meaning it.

Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness’s ability to have made it to his door in time to see the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor. Juror 3 is infuriated, and Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadistic public avenger. Juror 3 tries to attack Juror 8, shouting "I'll kill him!", and Juror 8 replies "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?" Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the verdict 6–6 as a thunderstorm begins.

Juror 4 doubts the defendant’s alibi, based on the boy’s inability to recall certain details, and Juror 8 tests Juror 4’s own memory. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the defendant, much shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound, which Jurors 3 and 8 act out. Juror 5 demonstrates that someone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would have been, would not have stabbed downward.

Impatient to leave, Juror 7 changes his vote and earns the ire of other jurors, especially 11; he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the defendant is not guilty. Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Juror 10 erupts in vitriol against slum people. The others turn their backs to him, and Juror 4 tells him, "sit down and don't open your mouth again". Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments. Juror 4 declares that the woman who saw the killing from across the street stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 reverts his vote, making the vote 8–4.

Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose, irritated by his glasses, realizes that the witness had impressions on her nose indicating she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court. Other jurors confirm the same, and Juror 8 adds that she would not have worn them to bed, and the attack happened so swiftly that she would not 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 an increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks about his strained relationship with his own son, the reason he wants the accused to be guilty. He tears up a photograph of him and his son and breaks down, sobbing, and mutters "not guilty", making the vote unanimous. Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat and the jurors leave the courthouse. 1

References