The story begins after closing arguments have been presented in the capital murder case against a troubled teenager, who stands accused of killing his father with premeditation. The judge, heard but unseen, announces the instructions to an all-male (as traditionally staged) jury. As in most American criminal cases, the twelve men must unanimously decide on a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty". (In the justice systems of nearly all American states, as in the case of New York State where the case is implied to be tried, failure to reach a unanimous verdict, a so-called "hung jury", results in a mistrial.) The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence; the jury is then locked into the room until a verdict is reached. Adding to the tension, the weather is exceptionally hot and the lone fan in the room is broken.
As the jurors begin, they take a preliminary vote to assess the room. All the jurors vote guilty except one, Juror 8, who is leaning toward guilty but, acting on a hunch and a desire not to rush to judgment, votes not guilty. The jurors begin explaining why they came to their decisions, and though Juror 8 is unconvinced, he agrees to abstain from the next round of voting and change his vote to guilty if the others remain unanimous. With the next vote, Juror 9 flips, agreeing it should not be rushed.
The jurors begin assessing the evidence. The alleged murder weapon, a knife that was testified to be unique, turns out to be identical to one in Juror 8's possession, a common switchblade. One of the witnesses, a downstairs neighbor, claimed to have heard the defendant yell "I am going to kill you," a loud thud, then saw the defendant fleeing down the staircase of their shared apartment complex 15 seconds after the incident; an experiment shows that a man of his age and condition could not have possibly reached the staircase in a comparable amount of time, and furthermore, a passing train would have overwhelmed any sound the witness had heard beyond any clear identification. One by one, Jurors 5, 11, 2 and 6 flip to not guilty. Juror 7 soon follows, solely because he wants to get out in time for the Yankees game that evening; a thunderstorm soon rolls in, raining out the game and rendering that point moot.
Juror 4 points out the weakness of the defendant's alibi and failure to remember details during interrogation. Juror 8 quizzes Juror 4 on what he did the past several days to demonstrate that memory is fallible, especially under stress, also noting that the defendant did successfully recall the details at trial (to which the guilty voters point out that he could have been coached). Juror 5, who had a similar upbringing to the defendant and had experience with switchblades, demonstrates that it would have been impractical for a switchblade user, especially one shorter than the victim, to stab in the downward direction the stab wound was. Juror 12 flips along with the foreman.
Jurors 3, 4 and 10 remain in the guilty camp. Juror 4 remains convinced of the one remaining witness, a lady who testified seeing the crime by chance from across the street in her bed, temporarily convincing Juror 12 to flip back to guilty. Juror 10, in a tirade, admits he is voting guilty as an act of white supremacy and is ordered to keep silent. Juror 8 is initially unable to rebut this evidence until realizing that the witness normally wore glasses, which she would not have been wearing in bed, making it highly unlikely she actually saw the crime in sufficient detail to identify the perpetrator. Juror 4 flips, Juror 12 returns to not guilty, and Juror 10 begrudgingly casts a not guilty vote.
Juror 3, whose temper had increasingly flared throughout deliberations, is the last holdout. In an impassioned final plea, he vows to hang the jury and relates the crime to his own strained relationship with his son, then breaks down in tears. The other jurors remind him that the defendant is not his son, and he finally flips. The foreman delivers the not guilty verdict to the bailiff, the door unlocks and the jurors all leave, with Juror 8 helping Juror 3 with his coat.
Characters
The characters are unnamed; throughout their deliberation, not a single juror calls another by his name, and they are identified in the script merely by number. The epilogue, not included in all productions, gives Jurors 8 and 9 names (Mr. Davis and Mr. McCardle, respectively).
Rose wrote several different variations of the stage adaptation of the story. Once dramatic rights to the film were sold, several versions based on the film were staged as well.
It was staged in San Francisco in 1955[1] and in Europe in 1958, including an adaptation by Andre Obey in Paris.[2]
In 1964, Leo Genn appeared in the London production, directed by Margaret Webster. For other theatrical adaptations, wherein female actors are cast, the play is often retitled 12 Angry People or 12 Angry Jurors.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
