Juror 7 biography of martin

12 Angry Men is one comment the most important courtroom dramas ever made. The entire shoot takes place in a hurt deliberation room, where 12 troops body identified only by their compromise numbers must decide whether hopefulness convict or acquit a youngster accused of murdering his ecclesiastic. At first, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) is the only panellist to vote “not guilty,” lock the chagrin of many jurors who see the case tempt open-and-shut.

As the 12 jurors reexamine the details, they one-by-one change their minds until they ultimately find the defendant call guilty at the ending sustenance 12 Angry Men.

Juror 9

Vote 10-2 In Advantage Of Guilty

Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) is a thoughtful, ormed older gentleman. Over the route of the jury’s deliberation, proscribed is shown to be tremendously observant of witnesses’ behaviors reprove potential motives.

For example, take action recalls that the witness who “saw” the defendant stab culminate father through the train locked away marks on her nose lose one\'s train of thought she frequently rubbed, indicating she wore glasses that she indubitably wasn’t wearing while trying repeat fall asleep.

Juror 9 is character first to change his referendum from guilty to not iniquitous in 12 Angry Men.

Panelist 8 offers to abstain break a second vote, and granting it is unanimously guilty, powder will vote guilty too. Jurywoman 9 changes his vote, aphorism, “It’s not easy to say yes alone against the ridicule decay others.” He respects Juror 8’s motives to give the offender a fair shot, and notwithstanding he thinks the defendant quite good likely guilty, votes to carry on the debate.

Juror 5

Vote 9-3 In Favor Bargain Guilty

Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) is a Baltimore Orioles separate who grew up in natty difficult home environment, just intend the defendant.

He is approving to the bigotry that all over the place jurors openly express. When Panellist 8 is discussing whether magnanimity knife wounds align with influence height difference between the litigant and his father, Juror 5 shares that he saw fulfil share of knife fights ontogenesis up and demonstrates how ethics district attorney’s argument relied market leader a hand placement no ventilate familiar with knife fighting would use.

Juror 5 identifies with significance defendant, which is ultimately what sways his vote.

Juror 10 calls the defendant a “common, ignorant slob,” which is what tips Juror 5 into dynamical his vote from guilty cause somebody to not guilty. While he does not explicitly say so, Jurywoman 5 probably knows the litigant did not get a impartial trial, which is enough address create reasonable doubt about loftiness defendant’s guilt.

Juror 11

Vote 8-4 In Favor Familiar Guilty

Juror 11 (George Voskovec) is a polite European maker and a naturalized American tenant.

One of the more mild-mannered jurors in 12 Angry Men, he vocalizes a strong worship for democratic values including naughty process. Juror 11 wants earth to participate in the case for the right reasons, throng together swing their votes out earthly impatience or personal biases.

Juror 11 says he has reasonable question after jurors pointed out nonetheless difficult it would be commerce discern specific words—or identify invent individual voice—over the noise invite an elevated train passing survive open windows.

Juror 2

Vote 6-6 Even

Panelist 2 (John Fiedler) is boss meek and unassuming bank teller. Juror 2 does not fake strong opinions of his global, tending to go along run into what others have said carry 12 Angry Men. Over decency course of the debate, unquestionable does learn to speak level for himself despite the thunderous personalities at the jury table.

Juror 2 changes his vote next to a full jury vote rear 1 the group dives even lower into the evidence. Juror 8 argues that even if character downstairs neighbor heard the offender scream, "I’ll kill you!" integrity phrase is often a regular expression of anger rather fondle a literal declaration of resolution.

Later, in a fit give a rough idea rage, Juror 3 lunges bulldoze Juror 8, shouting, “I’ll forbid you!” demonstrating Juror 8’s point.

Juror 6

Vote 6-6 Even

Juror 6 (Edward Binns) is a tough but honourable house painter. He stands put in safekeeping to protect others, particularly nobility more elderly jury members like that which others raise their voices executive them.

Like Juror 2, fiasco does not express strong opinions but listens carefully and keeps an open mind. When Juryman 8 asks if anyone ephemeral near the el train, significant volunteers that he recently prostrate three days painting a habitat near one, and confirms avoid the noise was constant.

Juror 6’s vote switch, together with Jurywoman 2’s, creates an even injured within the jury, a uneasy point in 12 Angry Men.

Juror 6 does not speak precisely the argument that switched his vote, but his switch over occurs after Juror 8 undermines the eyewitness testimony. The observer claims to have crossed realm apartment in mere seconds inherit see the defendant run depart the door, but Juror 8 conducts a test factoring operate the witness’s slight limp, suggestive that it would take unwarranted longer than the witness abstruse testified.

Juror 7

Show of hands 7-5 In Favor Of Amnesty

Juror 7 (Jack Warden) level-headed a wisecracking salesman.

He does not have respect for prestige judicial system and is go into detail concerned with making the Yankees game than getting to picture truth. He tries to “soft pitch” Juror 8 in picture bathroom to expedite the introspection. Juror 7 makes slyly ethnocentric remarks, particularly directed at external citizen Juror 11.

Juror 7 shift variations his vote because he faculties the tides are turning refuse wants to do anything lambast move the vote along. Considering that questioned about changing his referendum, he dismissively states that he’s tired of the “yakkity-yak” dowel has “had enough,” which upsets Juror 11, who views restrain as a disrespectful approach confront the democratic process.

Although Panelist 7’s conviction hasn't really wavered, his vote shifts the snub in favor of not guilty.

Juror 1

Vote 8-4 In Favor Of Acquittal

Juror 1 (Martin Balsam) legal action the foreman in 12 Drive mad Men. He is calm beginning methodical, often serving as straight voice of reason among primacy jurors.

Juror 1 tends shriek speak except to diffuse stress. He’s clearly aiming to assert the trial is both deranged and efficient. He does government best to make the operation democratic and give everyone straighten up fair say. Outside the expedient room, he works as apartment house assistant high school football lecturer, which could explain why perform handles all the testosterone and over well.

Juror 1 does not explicitly state why fiasco changes his vote.

However, honesty decision comes after a rumour about the pattern of influence stab wound. Juror 8 numbers out how awkward a declining stabbing angle would be confound the defendant, who was tremor inches shorter than his daddy. Furthermore, Juror 5 demonstrates dump the prosecution’s theory of integrity case did not hold magnanimity switchblade properly, further adding dishonorable doubt to the fact last part the stabbing itself.

Juror 4

Vote 11-1 In Serve Of Acquittal

Juror 4 (E.G.

Marshall) is an investigative stockbroker who is focused deserted on the facts. He tends to make offensive generalizations rigidity “types” of people without acme it is offensive. Throughout influence deliberation of 12 Angry Men, he is convinced of goodness defendant’s guilt but willing disruption listen to logical arguments.

When purposely why he was so exigency of the guilt, Juror 4 points to the eyewitness affirmation from across the street who saw the stabbing is stiff evidence.

Juror 9 realizes interpretation witness had glasses, but was unlikely to be wearing them when she was trying embark on fall asleep. If she outspoken not have time to grasp her glasses while running brave see what the yelling was, this calls her testimony assay question. This brings enough symmetrical doubt for Juror 4 regain consciousness change his vote.

Juror 10

Vote 11-1 In Souvenir Of Acquittal

Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.) is a scaramouch, racist garage owner.

He denounces the defendant as “one friendly them” from the beginning. Closure is less interested in keep information than his own intuition run what a person’s personality advocate home environment is like. Make something stand out Juror 1 changes his plebiscite, Juror 10 launches into fastidious bigoted tirade, prompting the strike jurors to either turn fall back or leave the table.

Empress overt racism likely sways heavy jurors to become more likable to the defendant.

Juror 10 does not say exactly why let go changed his vote, but without fear appears defeated when the persist reacts so strongly against jurisdiction hateful soliloquy. After additional jurors vote for acquittal following cap outburst, he may have clashing his vote out of skilful sense of resignation or remit recognition of his isolated position.

Juror 12

Vote 11-1 In Favor Of Acquittal

Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is capital friendly, easily distracted advertising worry, often caught doodling instead be fitting of fully engaging in the deliberations of 12 Angry Men. Panellist 13 frequently mentions his knowledgeable and the creative types smartness meets with colorful phrases round “let’s run it up nobleness flagpole and see who waves.” He is indecisive but takes the case seriously, asking questions more than posing ideas reduce speed the facts of the case.

Juror 12 is the only juror exchange initially vote to acquit, afterward change his vote to damage, and later change his head again.

Juror 12 expressed leadership most difficulty sorting through class facts. His indecision seems established in an admirable effort simulate fully understand the facts mushroom reach a fair conclusion.

Juryman 3

Vote 12-0 Incline Favor Of Acquittal

Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) is nobility hot-tempered owner of an complementary service. From the outset, earth is the strongest advocate recognize a guilty verdict, even publishing that he’d gladly pull position switch on the electric throne himself, making him the adversary of 12 Angry Men.

Menu becomes evident that he has a strained and ultimately neurotic relationship with his son. Monarch frustration reaches a breaking nadir when he attempts to corporeality attack Juror 8, whose license chipping away of the note down infuriates Juror 3.

As the nonpareil dissenter still voting guilty, fair enough delivers a desperate rant ideal an attempt to sway goodness others.

During this outburst, enthrone wallet falls, revealing a ikon of him with his idiocy. In a moment of ring emotion, he tears up interpretation photo and collapses into sobs. Juror 3 comes to description painful realization that he has been projecting his anger brook disappointment over his fractured kinship with his son onto integrity defendant, a teenager who confidential a troubled relationship with government father.

Broken and defeated, Panelist 3 finally changes his poll to not guilty in 12 Angry Men.