Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have …show more content…
We have the coincidence that the man was murdered just when the train was passing. Due to the proximity of the house and the noise the train emits the old man could not hear anyone scream. The man also argues that fifteen seconds after hearing those words and watching the father's body fall he watched the young man running down the hall. With the help of the building's plans the jury number eight showed that it was impossible for the man to see the young man running down the hallway only 15 seconds after hearing the scream according to the distance between him and the hall. Another piece of evidence is a woman who swears to have seen the young man stabbed the father through the last two windows of the train. The evidence says that she was asleep and when she woke up and turned to the window through the last two windows of the train, she was able to see how the young man stabbed his father. The only problem with this argument is that the woman wore bifocal glasses and nobody usually sleeps with glasses so it would be very difficult that without their lenses of such magnitude could see what actually
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In the case of Ohio v. Clark, Darius Clark states that by using a three and a half year olds word as testimony, it violates his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. He argues that this child is not “mature enough to give reliable testimony, uninfluenced by those who might try to shape what they say and unaffected by the pressure of a trial setting” (Denniston 2). Although the man pleaded guilty to the charges of child abuse and received 28 years of prison time, he knows that his sixth amendment right was violated and is fighting against it. The use of someone that “is incompetent to appear in court as a witness” violates the sixth amendment and the fourteenth amendment pertaining to the Due Process Clause filed under it in Section I (Ohio
In the play Twelve Angry Men there was a man prosecuted with the stabbing his father at the chest. 12 Jurors had to decide if the boy was guilty or not, I would say he is not guilty for two main reasons. First a quote in the book stated “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her eye glasses to bed, and I don’t think she put them on to casually look out the window” (page 61). This quote shows that the witness from the plaintiff could not have seen the crime happen without her glasses on. My last reasoning on why I think the boys not guilty is because Juror 5 said “ who’s ever used a switch blade befor would never stab the knife downward” (page 56).
Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.
R. V. Bann - Verdict Rationale In the case of R. V. Bann, Bobbie Bann, the defendant, was charged with second-degree murder. Around the 14th day of June, the year 2015, in the City of Mariposa in the County of Missinaba, Mr.Bann committed second-degree murder on Fallon King, who was in the bathroom when she killed by gunshots. During the trial, it was a little confusing, the defense side was making objections almost the entire time, and it is a little difficult to follow, however, I did manage to found some evidence that indicates that Mr.Bann has murdered and caused the death of Ms. King.
In all facets of human life there is a constant pressure. One of the most potent forms of this is peer pressure. It affects how humans make decisions, in all facets of an everyday life. Peer is a force that can bring out the best and worst of humanity. Additionally, in the context of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men peer pressure is used to highlight the best and worst aspects of the American judicial system circa 1954.
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
Visual Evidence for the Murder Trial of Andrea Yates The children could hear the terrifying screams from their siblings in the bathroom. One by one all five entered the bathroom where their mother waited for them, unfortunately not a single one would make it out alive. Within six months of this heinous crime Andrea Yates the mother of these five children was put on trial.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”. According to evidence, the noise of the train passing would be much too loud to hear anything,
From the beginning, the evidence pointed to a sloppy or naïve murderer. The victim’s blood and scalp hair were under his clothes, indicating he was dressed after the murder. His shoes were tied with the bow on the outside, not as if he had tied them himself. The running shoes were clean and pristine, despite having rained on the day Robert was to have left the house to run.
12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.
William Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights.
The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.