Juror Breakdown 12 Angry Men - HRMG 6200, Essays (university) of Human Resource Management

Download Juror Breakdown 12 Angry Men - HRMG 6200 and more Essays (university) Human Resource Management in PDF only on Docsity! Kid kills his father – guilty verdict will be death sentence, electric chair. Juror 1 (jury foreman) Juror 1 is jury foreman – sitting at the head of the table. – juror 1 is feeling pressure from others not taking it seriously, losing track of the point, not following original idea. Juror 1 talking to juror 8 – he is an assisntant head coach for football – Juror 2 Juror 2 – nervous – first time – he just thinks hes guilty – believes it was obvious. He just thinks he is guilty, obvious from the word go. “I just think hes guilty” Juror 2 believes it was interesting that juror 8 was able to buy same knife 2 blocks away - but juror 3 shut him down. Juror 2 says they shouldn’t joke about leaving early and having kid die. Juror 2 tells juror 7 to stop whistling and taking things not seriously. Juror 2 says a lot of details didn’t come out at trial but now it does – juror 2 defending his choice to juror 7 and 10 – 10 walked away in the middle of it. Juror 3 One juror 3 (runs a messenger service, started with nothing – 37 employees his wife chose the name) with a tie and suit is quite negative and is rushing to finish up the verdict right away. He has been to multiple juries and discriminates the alleged murderer as a kid who he would smack down before they do anything. Juror 3 - assessed facts presented to him by prosectors based on witness account – “no personal feelings” and presented facts during the trial of witness account. Listed timeline presented to him by lawyers and believes you cant refute the timeline or facts. Only 18 but he still has to pay for what he did. Not happy with the kid, no discipline – called his father sir. – juror 3 has (1) – embarrassed his son ran from a fight- I am gonna make a man out of you to his son and he made a man out of him, at 16 they had a fight – father hit in jaw, hasn’t seem him in 2 years, feels regret that he hasn’t seen him in years. Juror 3 upset he got interrupted by juror 2 – brought up thet switchblade knife – juror 3 looks at his photo of his kid and is feeling upset that maybe he failed. Juror 3 accuses juror 5 – of voting not guilty – yells to put guilty man in chair. But he is wrong and tried to apologize but juror 5 ignored him. Juror 3 – recounts witnesses – windows open, its not easy to idenfity shouting voice said juror 8. juror 3 is getting upset at the swing. Juror 3 defending his personality to juror 4 – that he was baited into yelling. Juror 4 Juror 4 – seems like juror 3s favorite as he seems intelligent and stuuborn. Says boys entire story is flimsy- could not defend his own story. Believes slum kid are criminals, and assumes all in the people in the slums are criminals. Juror 4 – set up facts and witness accounts – so far setting up timeline correctly – arrived home at 10 PM – he claims he went to movie at 1130 and home at 310 AM – claimed detetives through him down stairs – defendant says he lost the knife in the movie theater – no one at theater idenfitied hihm and he could not remember the movie name. believes stabbed father to death and wiped the knife clean of fingerprints. Unusualy unique knife. Juror 4 said witness saw killing across the room through el train. Juror 5 Juror 5 – he wants to pass, has no input initially. Lived in slums all his life and took offense to juror 10 for saying everyone in slums is criminal and yelled at by juror 3 for possibly changing his vote to non guilty although he hadn’t.– thought it was a personal attack. juror 5 takes more offense from juror 3 pre- judged notions for being accused of voting not guilty when hes DIDN’T. Juror 5 changed vote to not guilty – and is quite sure. Juror 5 – starting to defind juror 8 and juror 11 in connecting the dots. Juror 6 Juror 6 – felt convinced early in the case – looking for motive – if you don’t have motive, what is your case? Testimonies was very powerful across the street, brought up earlier timeline. Juror 8 challenged him, juror 8 doesn’t think it was a strong motive but juror 6 believes it was. He is worried about the fan no air. Thinks he is guity for sure talking to juror 8 – he doesn’t mind being there, beats working, thinks juror 8 is wronger in his life- hes a working man – doesn’t do supposing. Juror 6 finished painting aparmtment near el ttrain – juror 8 also – noise is almost unbearable to determine. Juror 6 defends juror 9 – talking that way to an old man – juror 6 threatens juror 3 now. Juror 6 says to 7 to stopmaking smart remarks and listen. Juror 7 One of the jurors (Juror 7) is funny with the hat – wants to go to a game later today – Baseball – may be rushed to come to a decision, says you cant change his mind – juror 8 you cant decide in 5 minutes. Lets take an hour and ball game doesn tstart till 8 o clock – Juror 7 – its all been said he says, look at his record – threw a rock at teacher then reform school and arrested for mugging, had a knife on him and that he is real handy. Juror 7 maybe a salesman – hit em where they live that’s my motto – selling marmalade wants to know motive of juror 8 – joking around – do gooders are all like in reference to juror 8. Thinks kid guilty as plain as thenose on ur face. Juror 7 turned on fan – same with the light swith – now it works and now people are not trapped in ahot room with no air – raining outsie and fan on. Juror 8 Juror 8 did not exactly vote – he just said he doesn’t know and doesn’t have enough reason to vote yet – too early and would like a constructive discussion– he doesn’t know so he cant vote guilty yet, hes 18 years old – wants to know before saying guilty. HE wants to talk about it before deciding – he doesn’t know whether he beelives murderer stories. Wants to talk about it first. Juror 8 – burden of proof is upon the prosecution, speaks of constitution. Juror 8 has 3 kids , Juror 8 says kid looks guilty – everyone sounded so positive felt it was not right – the defense counsel was not doing a better cross examination – little things went by- lawyer can be just plain stupid. He would have asked for another lawyer – tear the prosecution to shreds 1 allged eye witness only – and circustamatial evidence. Supposing witness is wrong – they COULD be wrong – people make mistakes, they could be wrong. Juror 8 says coidneidenc is possible – he has the same knife – pawn shop sells knife for 6 dollars – he broke the law – somebody else did the stabbing – its possible proven by juror 8 – juror 4 believes it doesn’t prove much. Juror 8 – issues a proprositing to call for another vote – use a secret ballot – he wont stand alone and if all 11 votes guilty they are done if one person does, they will stay and talk it out. Is an architect. Juror 8 brings up time of el train passing and seeing through it – and brings in other people to weight in on it, he spoke to juror 2 and juror 6 and began relating his own experience with juror 6 and agreement of juror 2. Juror 8- thinks lawyer doesn’t believe in efendants case and did not put it full effort. Juror 3 – brings up arguging and called him an idiot and related to juror 8 on yelling im going to kill you. Juror 8 shows the