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.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
