Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old boy  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.
Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old Hispanic boy  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, the boy will receive a death sentence.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Juror 8 argues that reasonable doubt exists, and that he therefore cannot vote "guilty", but concedes that he has merely hung the jury.
Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain, and agrees to change his vote if the others unanimously vote "guilty".
The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. An angry 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 5 then changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.
An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy.
Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6—6. Shortly after, a thunderstorm begins.
Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the boy, 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, as the boy would be, 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 boy is not guilty.
Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum-born people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him.
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 glassesrealizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity.
Other jurors, most notable Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing. 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 boy to be guilty.
He finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of him and his son, but suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous.
Outside, Jurors 8 Davis and 9 McCardle exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives. Cast[ edit ] The twelve jurors are referred to — and seated — in the order below: An assistant high school American football coach. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others.
He is the ninth to vote "not guilty", never giving the reason for changing his vote; played by Martin Balsam.
A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds, so does his courage.In the play, Twelve Angry Men (also called Twelve Angry Jurors), a jury must decide whether or not to reach a guilty verdict and sentence a 19 year old defendant to rutadeltambor.com the beginning of the play, eleven jurors vote "guilty." Only one, Juror #8, believes that the young man might be innocent.
Introduction to the Movie and Closing: Before showing the movie, tell the class that the film shows a realistic view of jury deliberations. At the end of the movie, tell the class that the conviction of innocent people is still a serious problem in the United States.
W hat makes a great ensemble drama? Is it simply down to the cast and how they are directed, or do other elements hold just as much weight? Sidney Lumet’s film 12 Angry Men boasts one of the most talented casts ever assembled.
But the film’s greatness . Twelve Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose adapted from his teleplay of the same title for the CBS Studio One anthology television series.
Staged in a London production, the Broadway debut came 50 years after CBS aired the play, on October 28, , by the Roundabout Theatre Company at the American Airlines Theatre, where it .
A jury argues a case in a stuffy room on a hot summer's day. Eleven say "guilty!" But one holdout (Jack Lemmon) is convinced of the defendant's innocence and stubbornly argues "reasonable doubt.". Sidney Lumet directed more than 40 films in his half-century career, many of them dealing with issues of social justice and fairness.
That includes the movie where it all began, concerning a dozen.