In the timeless classic “Twelve Angry Men,” the opening scene depicts a jury beginning deliberations over a criminal trial with a vote of 11-1 in favor of guilt. The single holdout begins to explain his reasons for doubting the guilt of the defendant, and over the course of the film he convinces the remaining 11 jurors that there exists reasonable doubt, and the verdict comes down in favor of acquittal; apologies for spoiling the film if you have not already seen it. As with many such films, there are quite a few lessons that one can learn from the plot, but one of the most important lessons from “Twelve Angry Men” is that very often jurors have decided how they plan to vote from the very start of the trial.

For example, in the beginning of “Twelve Angry Men,” when asked why he voted guilty, one juror stated, “well uh it's hard to put in to words. I just think he's guilty, I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' I mean nobody proved otherwise.” When pressed for his reasoning for favoring guilt another juror yells, “for crying out loud the kid's own lawyer knew he didn't stand a chance. Right from the beginning, his own lawyer knew it, you could see it.”

Although the story of “Twelve Angry Men” may be fiction, it illustrates an important point. Many jurors make up their minds very early on in a trial, and then simply compile the evidence around the narrative they have already created. They listen to the opening statements of the lawyers and choose a side and stick with it. And once they have chosen a side it is very difficult to persuade them to switch. This demonstrates the extreme importance of a trial attorney's opening statement.