Evidence In 12 Angry Men

488 Words2 Pages
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

More about Evidence In 12 Angry Men

Open Document