Summary of both Acts I & II

The play takes place in a jury room at the New York Court of Law in 1957. The jury room is empty when the play begins, and the Judge can be heard giving the jurors a final set of instructions. We learn that this is a murder case and that the accused will automatically receive the death penalty if proven guilty. The jury members enter following these directions.

The men file in and decide to pause for a moment before making their decision. They gripe about how hot the space is and how there is no air conditioning; even the fan is broken. Aw we learn, the defendant has been charged with the murder of his father, and all of the jury assume that he is abviouslt guilty. The twelve eventually take a seat and cast their votes. Due to the need for a unanimous jury, all the jurors except for the eighth vote “guilty” forcing the jury to deliberate the case.

The dissenting vote is met with a harsh response from the jury. In an effort to persuade the eighth juror, they ultimately decide to go around the table and state their cases for why they think the boy is guilty.

The following details of the case are revealed through this discussion; an elderly man who lived below the child and his father testified that he heard a fight upstairs, heard the youngster say, “I’m going to murder you,” then a body hit the floor, and then saw the boy rushing down the stairs. The youngster claimed his father was killed, but he was unable to recall the titles or the actors. Throughout the windows of a passing elevated train, a woman who lived across the street claimed to have witnessed the younger killing his father. That evening, the youngster and his father got into a fight, and the boys father beat him twice as a result. Last but not least, the boy has a long history of criminal behaviour, which includes attempting to slash another teen with a knife.

“He was in children’s court when he was ten for throwing a rock at his teacher. At fourteen he was in reform school. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. He was picked up twice for trying to slash another teenager with a knife.”

The opposition to the defendant is strong. The third juror likens the defendant to his own son, from whom he was alienated, while the tenth juror confesses to having strong racist feelings against the defendant.

The 8th juror surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had bought in a pawn shop two blocks from the boys home a few nights earlier, disproving the claim that the knife was so distinctive and identifiable. When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as the knife purchased by the defendant, a “one-of-a-king” knife.

The eighth juror makes the claim that the other eleven could vote, and if they all chose “not guilty”, he would join their guilty verdict rather than standing alone. They concur and cast their cote in private. The results of the voting were 10 “guilty” votes and 1 “not guilty” and the discussion moved on.

The jury members immediately turn on the fifth juror, claiming that he altered his vote our of sympathy fro the youngster. The ninth juror rises and declares that he altered his vote in order to hear both sides of the debate.

The credibility of the elderly man who lives below questions the testimony of the eighth juror. The old guy may have only testified to feel important, according to the 9th juror. The eighth juror adds that even if he did hear him say, “I’m going to murder you,” that statement might have been misinterpreted as a figure of speech. The verdict is not 9-3 in favour of guilt when the fifth juror switches his vote to “not guilty”.

They take another vote after more argument, which prompts the question of why the youngster would have come home after killing his father. This time, the votes for “not guilty” come from the fifth, eighth, ninth and eleventh.

After some discussion, the eighth juror questions whether the elderly downstairs neighbour, who had suffered a stroke and could only more slowly, could have reached the door in time to watch the youngster run down the stairs in fifteen seconds that he had claimed. When the 2nd juror times him and the 8th juror reconstructs the layout of the apartment, they come to the conclusion that he could have have reached his door in that amount of time.

In a violent reaction, the third juror strikes out at the eighth juror, yelling, “god damn it! I’ll murder him! I’ll murder him.” “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” the 8th juror queries. Demonstrating his earlier claim that many people who say “I’ll murder you” do not mean it.

The identical point in Act I where we left off is where Act II picks up. The jury picks back up with they discussion once things have settled down. The jury divides again, this time by six to six. They pause to rest outside, it starts to rain during this pause. They can also activate the fan to cool the space.

When deliberations restart, the eighth juror tries to refute the arresting officers testimony that the defendant was unable to make the movies he had allegedly views the night. He claims that tits possible that the defendant just forgot the titles and actors of the movies wile “under extreme mental turmoil”.

It is debatable whether or not the defendant would have made the “down and in” stab wound given his knowledge and expertise of how to use a switchblade after more talk about the knife.

It is current nine to three, with all jurors voting “not guilty” with the exception of the third, fourth, and tenth. When the 4th juror reprimands that 10th for his lengthy racist tirade, the 10th juror is sent back to his seat.

The eyewitness evidence of the women who lived across the street is called into doubt by the 9th juror because she was wearing spectacles but declined to wear them in court, raising the question of whether or not she would have been wearing then in bed when she observed the murder through her window.

The vote is not 11 to 1, and the third juror is by himself. He initially maintains his state, declaring that he will be the holdout to result in a hung jury. He starts a final, ferocious tirade against the youngster that turns into nonsense. After a brief closing argument from the 8th and 4th jurors, the 3rd juror ultimately gives in and says, “All right, not culpable” The jurors depart the courtroom after the Forman alerts the guard that they have made a decision.

Twelve Angry Men Characters

Foreman

Assistant high-school football coach. Non-confrontational. He is serious about his authoritative role, and wants to be as fair as possible.

2nd Juror

Bank clerk. A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. He is the most timid of the group and is easily persuaded by the opinions of others.

3rd Juror

A very strong, forceful and extremely opinionated man. In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. He is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that they defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end. Juror #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views. Only when he comes to terms with this he can finally vote “not guilty”.

4th Juror

A man of wealth and position. A logical, well-kopek stock-broker, he urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. He does not change his vote until a witness testimony is discredited due to the witness’ apparently poor vision.

5th Juror

A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligation in this case very seriously but who finds it difficult to speak up. He grew up in the slums. He has witnessed knife-fights, an experience that will later help other jurors from an opinion of “not-guilty”.

6th Juror

An honest, but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully.

7th Juror

A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman, who has more important things to do than sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. He can be seen as a bully.

8th Juror

He votes “not guilty” during the Jurys first vote. Described as thoughtful and gentle. He is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the defendant. He spends the rest of the time urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. He is convinced that there is a reasonable doubt.. Eventually he persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant. A man who sees many sides to every question and constantly seeks the truth. Above all, a man who wants justice to be done, and will fight to see that it is.

9th Juror

A retied, mild, gentle, old man, defeated by life and waiting to die. He is the first to agree with Juror #8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young man to death. A man who recognises himself for what he is.

10th Juror

Garage owner. An angry, bitter man, a bigot who places no values on any human life save his own. A man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him. He has a bad cold and continually blows his nose, the most abhorrent member of the group, be his openly bitter and prejudice. Most of the jurors, disgusted by his racism, turns their backs on him.

11th Juror

Watchmaker. A refugee from Europe. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed, humble, and almost subservient to the people around him, but a man who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. He conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and americas legal system.

12th Juror

Advertising man. A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls, and has no real understanding of people. Spend most of his time drawing on a note pad.