1 / 8

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men. EN 255 Mr. David Rude. Plot Summary.

varian
Download Presentation

12 Angry Men

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 12 Angry Men EN 255 Mr. David Rude

  2. Plot Summary A jury must decide whether or not to reach a guilty verdict and sentence the 19 year old defendant to death. At the beginning of the play, eleven jurors vote “guilty.” Only one man, Juror #8, believes that the young man might be innocent. He must convince the others that “reasonable doubt” exists. One by one, the jury is persuaded to agree with Juror #8.

  3. What Is “Reasonable Doubt”? “Reasonable Doubt” is explained thusly: “That state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.”

  4. The Prosecution’s Case • At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial: • A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by. • An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you!” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away.

  5. Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder. • Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films.

  6. Finding Reasonable Doubt • Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others. Here are some of the observations: • The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by. • Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood.

  7. Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen. • The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness.

  8. Questions to discuss and debate • Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? • Does Juror #8, or any other character, exercise “reverse discrimination”? • Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why / why not? • What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? Or the prosecution? • Describe the communication style of each juror. Who comes closest to your own style of communication? • How would you have voted if you were on the jury?

More Related