[OnTheFly]

Hey guys if any of you have seen the movie 12 Angry Men I need some help answering a few questions on it. I don't have time to watch the movie and although I've seen it before the questions are too specific for me to answer. Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks guys.

The questions:
Spoiler (Click to View)

[Greenbird]

They find the convicted innocent AND he changes everybodys mind.

[rezone]

It's been a while since I've seen the movie so I don't remember the details. I just know that everyone wanted to find the convict guilty but one jury member wasn't convinced and thought there wasn't enough evidence. The other jury members got mad and just wanted to make a decision so they can leave. But the one jury member refused. So they tried different voting methods and talked about the case more which eventually lead more people to change their minds to not guilty. Eventually they realized through discussing that he really wasn't guilty and therefore he was proven not guilty by the jury.

[Mr. Robot]

Your welcome :)

---

[Raymond Reddington]

I wish I had read this novel, or I would have answered these questions for you. Well you can always view a quick summary of the book and that would answer most parts.

[Mr. Robot]

Also here you go OP

1) Who was chosen to serve on the jury?
Regular people were chosen to serve on the jury

2) What factors influenced the jurors as they discussed and decided this case?
After discussing the case, the jurors changed their minds because of reasonable doubt. The evidence and or testimonies were not completely full proof.

3) What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence of the defense? The prosecution?
I think the most persuasive pieces of evidence for the defense would that the woman, who "supposedly" witnessed the murder from her window, did not have her glasses on. This throws the whole identification of the defendant into question. Ironically we can compare this with the prosecutions best evidence which is this same woman as an actual eye witness to the murder. The case hinged on her eye site.

4) What, ultimately, was the crucial factor in determining the outcome of the trial?
The crucial factor was David, if he would have made the votes unanimous then the case would have been decided and the kid would have went to jail
What are the most persuasive

5)Juror 3 almost caused a hung jury, but in all reality it should not have been hung because Juror 3's vote was influenced by his anger at his own son. Once he realized what he'd based his decision on, he quickly changed his vote in a very emotional scene.

6) - YOU HAVE TO WRITE THIS


7)Does this play/film leave you feeling concerned or confident that a "trial by jury" results in a fair trial? What are the reasons for your position?
The jurors learned about reasonable doubt. The guy that had a problem with his son learned that not all kids are the same as his. The guy that was racist learned that he had a problem & “they” aren’t all bad. The guy that believed that the boy was lying about the movie learned that anyone can forget anything especially under emotional distress. This film leaves me concerned about a trial by jury because not everyone is like David. It’s hard to stand the way he did and not everyone has the smarts or guts to defend the case like he did.

8)GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION ON MY ABOVE ANSWERS