But I was convinced of the the argument that the woman across the street saw only a blur without her glasses, yet positively identified The Kid, again, either deliberately lying or confabulating. The train was just too loud for him to possibly hear the yells of the boy. Some background The McCarthy trials, named after the American communist-crusader, Senator Joseph McCarthy 1940s-1950s led to the prosecution of left-leaning intellectuals and artists accused of being Communist sympathisers. When pressed by Juror 11, however, Juror 7 claims though unconvincingly that he believes the defendant is not guilty. He expressed no adherence to either position but wanted to discuss the case in an open-minded manner. Having argued several points, Juror 8 requests another vote, this time by secret ballot.
Last of all to agree is the rigid Juror 3 who is forced to present his arguments again. Another issue dealt with in the movie is prejudice. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. It is a masterpiece of stylized realism--the style coming in the way the photography and editing comment on the bare bones of the content. They take a vote on that, too.
As a result, three jurors change their votes back, leaving the tally at nine to three in favor of guilt. In a secret ballot, Juror 9 is the first to support Juror 8, and not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion. Juror 3 Jack Klugman responds to the negative comments by informing them that he too is from the ghetto. Three traps himself in his fervor to discount the old man and uphold his testimony at the same time. Nine changed his vote to give Eight a chance.
The film has also been subject to parody. None of this can be proved, and the burden to prove lies with the prosecution, which they did not, and could not do. You can't believe what he said. The Foreman encourages the jurors to refocus on their job. Five says he has and acknowledges that the sound as a train passes is incredibly loud. Eight is, in many ways, a persuasive storyteller. Rose deliberately assigns to each juror a personal narrative which reflects his view that many of the jurors tend to be influenced by their circumstances and experiences which further shape, and often entrench, their biased opinions.
The possibility of being a hung jury is brought up, but Juror Eight refuses to accept the possibility. The case of George Stinney is also an interesting one. He stamps his foot to indicate the body falling to the ground, and Eight starts to walk slowly. Juror Eight reminds them that the woman wears glasses, but she would not wear them in bed and would not have had time to put them on to see what she claims to have seen. If the young man is found guilty, there is a mandatory death sentence the jury needs to be unanimous in their decision. Who else had the motive? Length: ~2 hours, including one 15-minute intermission.
B Ridiculously, freaky coincidences do happen. Not like the overhand wound found on his dad. The the main one about going to the defendant's neighborhood and bringing physical evidence into the jury room is pretty indisputable as misconduct. Now remember, Jury, this is a. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep, and points out that, on her own evidence, the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn't have had time to put them on. If this boy had stabbed him, it would have been a an underhand cut.
Save us a lot of time and money. That is why this boy is innocent. What are the chances of that? Rose also relies on a two-act structure. After some argument, they agree to discuss the facts of the case. At this point, he has them wavering about reasonable doubt. An argument erupts between Jurors Three and Eight, as Juror Three insists the boy is guilty and must be executed.
He proposed that he would abstain from voting, and if the other eleven jurors voted guilty unanimously, then he would acquiesce to their decision. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury. The Hispanic defendant was deemed not guilty on the grounds of self-defence even though he pursued and shot the unarmed Martin. Disclaimer: These notes are designed as teaching aids only to be used in conjunction with workshops conducted by English Works. That is the overall ending. He has his opinion and loves to share it.