Twelve Angry Men: A Jury's Deliberation Process in Reginald Rose's Drama, Slides of Decision Making

Download Twelve Angry Men: A Jury's Deliberation Process in Reginald Rose's Drama and more Slides Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity! Reading & Creating Texts – Unit 1 VCE ENGLISH UNIT 1&2 1 By Reginald Rose ABOUT THE AUTHOR Reginald Rose was born in New York in 1920, and served in the US Army during the early 1940s. He was married twice, and had six children. He began writing for television in the early 1950s, and later worked for all three of America's major television networks. He also wrote for screen and stage, and continued to write, particularly for television, until the late 1990s. Rose died in 2002. SYNOPSIS A classic jury-room drama, Twelve Angry Men follows a jury's decision-making process in a murder trial, tracking the gradual changing of eleven of the twelve jurors' minds about their verdict. Twelve Angry Men is set in New York in 1957, and the entire action of the play takes place on one hot afternoon and evening in the jury room of a court of law. The two single-scene acts cover exactly the period of time of the jurors' discussion. The action is continuous with no change of location, which contributes to the play's overwhelming sense of emotional tension and claustrophobia. The twelve angry men of the title are the twelve men of the jury. They are identified in the script only by jury numbers (and Foreman), and there is no evidence that they even know each other's names. This is indicative of the play's focus on the case and its broader ethical implications, rather than personal details of individual characters' lives. When details do emerge, they are only ever discussed with reference to their influence on the particular juror's vote. The only other character who appears in the play is a guard who serves only a perfunctory and practical purpose in the text. Similarly, the defendant, victim, lawyers and witnesses in the trial are never named. The play begins at the conclusion of the court's exploration of the case, when the jury must retire to the jury room and decide on a verdict. The opening lines are the Judge's offstage voiceover, reminding the jury of their duty and at the same time furnishing the audience with the basic details of the trial - including the important fact that the jury must reach a unanimous verdict. We are introduced to the bare facts of the case (further details of the case emerge gradually), as the jury agree to a preliminary and informal vote. Eleven of the twelve jurors are convinced that the defendant, a young boy from an underprivileged socio-economic background, is guilty of fatally stabbing his father. Reading & Creating Texts – Unit 1 VCE ENGLISH UNIT 1&2 2 In this first vote, 8th Juror stands alone. He maintains that he is uncertain and therefore must vote 'not guilty'. This decision introduces an important legal concept to be examined over the course of the play: for the jury to convict the accused, they must be confident, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. While 8th Juror does not yet suggest that the defendant is innocent, he feels that there is reasonable doubt about whether the boy really committed the crime, and is therefore compelled to vote 'not guilty'. As the play progresses, jurors regularly call for informal votes (both secret and public) to see where opinion stands. With each vote, jurors become less certain, swayed by arguments and questions presented first by 8th Juror and later by others too. By the end of the first act, after three votes, two jurors have changed their minds so that the vote stands at 9:3, still in favour of convicting the defendant. 8th Juror is gently persuasive in the face of anger, frustration, criticism and challenge from other jurors - particularly 3rd and 10th. The tension and conflict increase as jurors begin to question their own beliefs and change their votes. Details of the trial emerge in the course of the deliberations, helping us understand the jurors' 'guilty' votes. But as witnesses and witness statements are questioned, the audience, like the jurors, finds itself increasingly open to doubt. For example, in the first act 8th Juror produces a switch-knife identical to the one presented as evidence in court. The prosecutors had argued convincingly for the uniqueness of this particular weapon, but 8th Juror's ability to produce an identical weapon erodes the others' confidence that the evidence proves the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To change their votes to 'not guilty', 8th Juror must only introduce reasonable doubt into the other jurors' deliberations; he need not demonstrate the defendant's innocence. This makes his task easier, and he proceeds to provoke doubt amongst his fellow jurors, slowly and patiently questioning a series of arguments, statements and pieces of evidence from the trial. Several other jurors also begin to question these previously accepted 'facts' until, near the end of the second act, eight jurors have changed their vote and now only three (3rd, 4th, and 10th) remain convinced of the defendant's guilt. At the height of the conflict, 10th, 4th and finally 3rd jurors change their minds. The denouement of the play is swift and tidy as the jurors reach a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty', before making their exit to deliver their verdict to the court. CHARACTER SUMMARIES Guard: A minor character; the guard enters several times to deliver exhibits from the case at the jury's request. Foreman: The Foreman of the jury, or principal juror, is in charge of running the proceedings in the jury-room. Although he is ultimately responsible for delivering the verdict, he has no more power than the others. Nor does he assert his position or appear more confident than anyone else; he simply fulfils his role of coordinating the group. He is the seventh juror to change his vote to 'not guilty'. We learn that the Foreman is a football coach at a high school in Queens. 2nd Juror: A first-time juror, he is slightly nervous and anxious about the proceedings and about his responsibilities. He is the equal-fourth juror (along with 6th) to change his vote. 3rd Juror: 3rd Juror is married and has a twenty-year-old son with whom he has a troubled relationship. He runs a messenger service. Confident and sometimes aggressive, 3rd Juror describes himself (perhaps sarcastically, but seemingly accurately) as 'the competitive type' (p.54). He has been a juror before and thinks this case is clear-cut. He is resistant to 8th Juror's arguments and is the final juror to change his vote. 4th Juror: The ninth (second-last) juror to change his vote. We learn that 4th Juror is a broker.