Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was an architect named Davis and the only one to vote towards not guilty. When questioned as to if he really believes that the boy is innocent he simply responded “I don’t know.” Davis felt that if they have the boy’s life in their hands then the least they could do is talk about it for an hour. Davis’s claim was that he had reasonable doubt about whether or not the boy actually killed his father. There were many little things that they overlooked in the cross-examination and Davis said “if I were him I would have asked for a new lawyer.” By voting not guilty, and presenting his reasoning, Davis was able to get the jury to take a look at the evidence once again with a fine-toothed comb. In order to provide a valid argument, Davis needed to show the jury the grounds under which he believed the evidence presented was not credible enough to send him to the chair.
Davis the name of number 8 juror tried to convince the members of the jury and he succeed to change their minds. Davis was smart and logically man, he started doubt the evidence by the switch knife. The jurors believed the knife belongs to the eighteen years old guy and he stabbed it in his father chest, Davis made his argument by said might the murder used another knife looked like the guy’s knife and he showed the jurors a knife looked like the knife was used to kill the man. After this argument the one of jurors #9 changed his vote to not guilty. After that #5 juror who had a problem to express his opinion, he changed his mind and vote for not guilty.
This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”. One guy, the 8th juror, did not agree with these saying’s and believed that a tough decision like this could not be decided in 5 minutes. He played a smart game, which we call ’playing devils advocate’. While the 11 men thought the person charged was guilty, this one juror thought differently. The 12 angry men were your average men, but each one had a different side.
The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father. When the jurors enter the Jury Room, they all think this case is open and shut – until they take the initial vote, and discover one man voted in favor of not-guilty. All the other jurors seem to think that all the evidence is laid out for them, while Juror Eight is not so sure. Juror Eight reviews all the evidence and is able to find many ways in which reasonable doubt was established. Specifically, in the testimony of the old woman, through the weapon that was used to murder the father, and finally through the testimony of the old man.
The Unfair Trial of Tom Robison In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the character Tom Robison is accused of a crime he did not commit and the evidence presented in the courtroom actually supported he was innocent. Heck Tate is the sheriff of Maycomb County, who was called after the crime, was made. As the sheriff he didn’t handle this crime the appropriate way. Heck was supposed to call a doctor to check Mayella, getting an understanding of exactly what was wrong with her. Heck also went wrong when he didn’t get everyone’s side of the story; he only got the Ewells side.
The real reason he was being so obnoxious was because he had issues with his teenage son which effected his opinions about teenagers. That is why he was voting guilty throughout the movie. No one knew about his son, and background so they had no clue why he was so obnoxious. When juror #3's emotions were revealed everyone knew why he was so angry and that changed everyone thought about him.
While in the jury room a vote was conducted to determine what people thought of the boy –guilty or not guilty. It turned out that out of twelve people only one (the architect) thought the boy was not guilty. Inductive reasoning seems to have been the basis of their decisions as many evidences rose. One of the evidence presented is where an old man living down stairs claimed to have heard the boy shouting ‘I will kill you.’ it was also after these words that he heard a thud which forced him to rush to the stairway. The man also insists that he saw the boy running downstairs after the commotion.
The film “12 Angry Men” (1957) is based on the story of twelve jurors who are responsible for deliberating and deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. Although to most it seems like an open and shut case where the boy is definitely guilty, one juror speaks out against the popular groupthink of the other eleven jurors and admits that although he does not know if the boy is guilty, he is not convinced that he is. Throughout the film this one juror, played by Henry Fonda, speaks his mind in a very non-confrontational way, and begins to sway the jury vote by vote. By the end of the film the jury has reached a consensus of “not guilty”. Power is described in our text as “the ability to influence, command, or apply force; a measure of a person’s potential to get other to do what he or she wants them to do, as well as to avoid being forced by others to do what he or she does not want to do”.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
Even though he witnessed many horrible things, he could not believe in his Father’s true work. He died because he was not aware of what was happening in the concentration camps. (Boyne, page 213) it states, “He assumed that it had something to do with keeping the rain out and stopping people from catching colds.” This shows that Bruno had no idea that he was taken to a gas chamber. Standing in the big room, in between skinny, shaved head men, he was more concerned on catching cold than the vision in front of him. Another example of how Bruno was avoiding thinking about what was happening around him was when he said, “I expect we’ll have to wait here till it eases off and then I’ll get to go home” (Boyne, page 212).