|
At
the close of a murder trial conducted in a New York City courtroom, the
judge gives the jury its final instructions, reminding them that a guilty
verdict will mean an automatic death sentence for the defendant, a Puerto
Rican youth accused of killing his father. Once in the stiflingly hot
jury room, Juror 3, a middle-aged businessman who is estranged from his own
son, loudly proclaims that the boy is guilty and that all ghetto youths are
criminals, while Juror 7, a fast-talking salesman, wants the jury to reach a
decision quickly because he wishes to attend a baseball game that evening.
Juror 1, the foreman, who is a genial high school football
coach, conducts a preliminary ballot and, without hesitation, eleven jurors
vote for conviction. Juror 8, a sensitive and thoughtful architect,
casts the only dissenting vote, stating that he has doubts about the case
and wishes to give the boy, who has had a difficult life in the ghetto, a
fair hearing. Juror 10, approximately sixty years old and the owner of
a garage, gruffly declares that the architect is a weak-willed "bleeding
heart" before launching into a diatribe against slum dwellers. Wishing
to restore calm, Juror 12, a young advertising executive, suggests that each
juror present the reasons behind his verdict as a means of convincing Juror
8.
The salesman, the garage owner and the businessman all
suggest that the boy's ethnicity and class have been enough to convince them
he murdered his father, while Juror 2, a shy and stammering bank clerk,
appears to be maintaining his guilty verdict because he feels intimidated by
the more outspoken jurors. Juror 4, a middle-aged and articulate
stockbroker, and Juror 6, a young blue-collar worker, go over the evidence
which determined their verdicts with much detail and thought.
The prosecution has presented two seemingly reliable
eyewitnesses, and motivation for the murder was suggested by the youth's
frequent fights with his father. In addition, a shopkeeper identified
the murder weapon as identical to an unusual and ornately carved knife he
had sold the boy shortly before the murder. Finishing his exposition,
Juror 4 offhandedly remarks that "everyone knows slums breed criminals,"
leading Juror 5, who until this point has remained silent, to declare with
great dignity that he was raised in a slum.
After Juror 8 points out inconsistencies in the prosecution's
case and raises a number of questions, he throws down a cheap knife he
bought near the courthouse which appears almost identical to the murder
weapon. As many of the jurors begin to grow frustrated with the
discussion, Juror 8 suggests that the foreman take a secret ballot from
which he will abstain, promising that if all of them vote guilty this time,
he will go along with them on the final ballot. Now, however, one
juror out of the eleven votes "not guilty." Most of the jurors believe
that Juror 5 has changed his mind, but the "not guilty" vote turns out to be
that of Juror 9, an elderly and frail man to whom the jurors have, until
now, paid little attention.
After tempers have cooled down, Jurors 8 and 9 point out the
inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events on the night of the
murder, and Juror 9 is especially convincing when he notes problems with the
testimony of a prosecution witness who, like himself, is elderly. The
two men manage to sway Jurors 5 and 11 to their side, for a total of four
"not guilty" verdicts. Juror 10 now explodes with anger over what he
views as "nitpicking" and Juror 3 harasses Juror 11, an Eastern European
refugee, for changing his mind.
 |
|
Click for larger image |
| |
After tempers subside, the weary jury continues its
deliberations; when another ballot is taken, the tally is six to six, with
Jurors 2 and 6 changing their original verdicts. Now at a complete
standstill, some of the jurors want to declare a hung jury, but know that
the judge will not accept the declaration without further deliberations.
When Juror 11, who takes his duty as a citizen very seriously, questions
whether all of the jurors have a clear understanding of "reasonable doubt,"
the obnoxious Juror 7 makes an angry speech full of anti-immigrant
invective.
Next, the newly confident Juror 2 asks how a 5'6" boy could
have made a downward stab wound on a man who stood 6'2", leading Juror 5,
who saw many a knife fight in the tough neighborhood in which he was raised,
to convincingly demonstrate that the boy would most likely have held the
knife underhanded, making a downward wound impossible. The foreman and
Juror 12 eventually vote "not guilty," as does Juror 7, whose lack of
concern over the case and desire to do whatever is most expedient greatly
angers Juror 11, the immigrant.
When Juror 8 asks the three remaining jurors to explain their
continued insistence on a guilty verdict, Juror 10 makes an angry speech so
full of hate and bigotry that everyone is shocked into silence. Juror
4, earlier so confident that the boy was guilty, admits he has reasonable
doubt when the astute Juror 9 suddenly remembers that a female prosecution
eyewitness had impressions on the sides of her nose of the sort left by
eyeglasses. In support of their "not guilty" verdicts, the jurors
realize that the witness deceived the court by taking off her glasses prior
to her court appearance and they surmise that she was most likely not
wearing them in bed the night she claimed to have witnessed the murder.
Since Juror 10, who remains separated from the group because
of shame over his outburst, has indicated he will change his vote, Juror 3
now stands alone in his conviction that the boy is guilty and he becomes
increasingly belligerent and stubborn. When a picture of his son, who
is only a few years older than the accused, unexpectedly falls out of his
wallet, he suddenly breaks down into sobs and exclaims that all children are
rotten ingrates. Overcome with emotion and guilt at the memory of his
son, who rejected his harsh and authoritarian manner, he finally whispers
"not guilty."
As the jurors silently file out of the jury room, Juror 8
gently hands the distressed man his jacket. On the courthouse steps,
Juror 8 and Juror 9 bid farewell, secure in the knowledge that they helped
to ensure that personal prejudices did not determine the fate of the
accused. |
_01.jpg)
_02.jpg)
_03.jpg)
_04.jpg){kind=small}
_05.jpg){kind=small}
_06.jpg)
_07.jpg)
_08.jpg)
_09.jpg)
_10.jpg)
_NRFPT_01.jpg)
_NRFPT_02.jpg)
_NRFPT_03.jpg)
_NRFPT_04.jpg)
_NRFPT_05.jpg)
_NRFPT_06.jpg)
