Twelve Angry Men: Juror's Trial

1313 Words6 Pages
If you were a juror in a murder case, would you undoubtedly conjecture that the arraign person is guilty? Playwright Reginald Rose published Twelve Angry Men in 1955. This play took place during a hot summer day in a jury room of a New York Court of Law in 1957. In act I of Twelve Angry Men, this about a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father by a numerous amount of people. All things considered, if the verdict came back guilty the nineteen-year-old man would be sentenced to death by the electric chair. Without delay, the jurors came to their decision and eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty, but to be able to prosecute the nineteen-year-old man, the jurors needed to be concordant with each other. Nevertheless, the…show more content…
In act II of Twelve Angry Men, Juror #8 discussed with the rest of the jurors as to why he believed that the man was not guilty in his eyes. With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father, was undeniably innocent. The main characters in Twelve Angry Men are the foreman of the jury, jurors two through twelve, and the defendant. The foreman of the jury is exceedingly impressed…show more content…
The jury had a murder case that dealt with a nineteen-year-old man that was accused of murdering his father from several people. If the man was found guilty of the crime, then he would be sentenced to death. Each one of the jurors came to their own decision deciding whether or not the defendant was guilty of the crime or not. The rising action in the play is that only Juror #8 found the defendant innocent and all the other jurors found him guilty of the crime. In order for the jury to make a decision, they needed a unanimous vote. All the jurors went into an exclusive room to discuss whether the defendant is innocent or guilty of the crime. The climax of the play is Juror #8 was beginning to show proof of evidence that defendant did not murder his father and some of the jurors began to switch their vote. Juror #8 began to discuss more evidence that did not link the defendant to the crime. The falling action in the play is that almost all the jurors decided to switch their vote from guilty to innocent except Juror #3. Juror #3 was obstinate about switching his vote from guilty to innocent because he believed that even with all the evidence that was shown the defendant is still guilty in his eyes. The resolution of the play is that Juror #3 finally decided to switch his vote from guilty to innocent because he wanted to leave already. All the jurors
Open Document