12 Angry Men
Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men: Background Information
Reginald Rose
Twelve Angry Men, by the American playwright Reginald Rose, was originally written for television, and it was broadcast live on CBS's show Studio One in 1954. The fifty-minute television script can be found in Rose's Six Television Plays, published in 1956 (out of print in 2005). Rose expanded the play for the stage, and a new version was published in 1955 (Dramatic Publishing Company; in print). Two years later, in 1957, Rose wrote the screenplay for a film version, which he co-produced with the actor Henry Fonda. The play has subsequently been updated and revived; for example, in a production at the American Airlines Theater in New York City in 2004.
The play was inspired by Rose's own experience of jury duty on a manslaughter case in New York City. At first, he had been reluctant to serve on a jury, but, he wrote, "the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed." Rose was greatly impressed by the gravity of the situation, the somber activity of the court, and the "absolute finality" of the decision that he and his fellow jurors would have to make. He also thought that since no one other than the jurors had any idea of what went on in a jury room, "a play taking place entirely within a jury room might be an exciting and possibly moving experience for an audience" ("Author's Commentary" on Twelve Angry Men in Six Television Plays). The result is a taut, engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the defendant in a capital murder trial is guilty, while one juror stands up courageously for what he believes is justice and tries to persuade the others to his way of thinking.
http://www.enotes.com/twelve-angry-men
The play was inspired by Rose's own experience of jury duty on a manslaughter case in New York City. At first, he had been reluctant to serve on a jury, but, he wrote, "the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed." Rose was greatly impressed by the gravity of the situation, the somber activity of the court, and the "absolute finality" of the decision that he and his fellow jurors would have to make. He also thought that since no one other than the jurors had any idea of what went on in a jury room, "a play taking place entirely within a jury room might be an exciting and possibly moving experience for an audience" ("Author's Commentary" on Twelve Angry Men in Six Television Plays). The result is a taut, engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the defendant in a capital murder trial is guilty, while one juror stands up courageously for what he believes is justice and tries to persuade the others to his way of thinking.
http://www.enotes.com/twelve-angry-men
12 Angry Men Essential Questions:
1. How easy is it to persuade someone?
2. How easy is it to persuade with writing?
3. How does it feel to stand alone with your beliefs?
4. What does it mean to “adjudicate”?
5. What does it mean to stereotype? To discriminate against?
6. What is the meaning of bigotry? Of pejoratives?
7. How do we oppress, suppress, and repress?
8. How do we “disenfranchise” people—especially young adults.
Here are a few questions to discuss and debate:
2. How easy is it to persuade with writing?
3. How does it feel to stand alone with your beliefs?
4. What does it mean to “adjudicate”?
5. What does it mean to stereotype? To discriminate against?
6. What is the meaning of bigotry? Of pejoratives?
7. How do we oppress, suppress, and repress?
8. How do we “disenfranchise” people—especially young adults.
Here are a few 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?
Legalize
Prosecution:
Plaintiff:
Defense:
Defendant:
Civic Duty: The responsibility of each citizen toward everyone else in society to act in a
reasonable and safe manner.
Indictment:A formal accusation of a crime, made against a person by a grand jury upon the
request of a prosecutor
Oath: Formal swearing that you are bound by conscience either to tell the truth or to
faithfully do something.
Perjury: Lying under oath
Summons: A written notification that one is required to appear in court either as a witness or for
jury service
Voir Dire: The process in which opposing lawyers question prospective jurors to get as
favorable or as fair a jury as possible.
Peremptory Challenges: Part of the pretrial jury selection. This allows each side to dismiss a certain number of possible jurors without giving any reason (except to discriminate upon race).
Petit Jury: The trial jury, usually consisting of twelve persons, who decide questions of fact.
Grand Jury: Twenty three persons who receive complaints and accusations of a crime, hear preliminary evidence on the complaining side, and make formal accusations.
Jury Instructions: Direction given to the jury by the judge explaining how they should go about deciding the case. This may include a summary of the questions to be decided, the laws that apply, and the burden of proof.
Deliberations: Careful consideration and discussion towards forming an opinion or making a decision
Foreperson: The leader of a jury who speaks for it.
Verdict: The finding or decision of a jury on one or more matters submitted to it in trial that ordinarily in civil actions is for the plaintiff or for the defendant and in criminal actions is guilty or not guilty.
Hung Jury: A jury that cannot reach a verdict because of a strong disagreement among jurors.
Mistrial: A trial that ends prematurely and without a judgment, due either to a mistake that jeopardizes a party's right to a fair trial or to a jury that can't agree on a verdict
Judgment not Withstanding the Verdict: The reversal of a jury's verdict by the trial judge when the judge believes there was no factual basis for the verdict or it was contrary to law.
Nullification: The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact; most likely to occur when a jury is sympathetic toward a defendant or regards the law under which the defendant is charged with disfavor.
Plaintiff:
Defense:
Defendant:
Civic Duty: The responsibility of each citizen toward everyone else in society to act in a
reasonable and safe manner.
Indictment:A formal accusation of a crime, made against a person by a grand jury upon the
request of a prosecutor
Oath: Formal swearing that you are bound by conscience either to tell the truth or to
faithfully do something.
Perjury: Lying under oath
Summons: A written notification that one is required to appear in court either as a witness or for
jury service
Voir Dire: The process in which opposing lawyers question prospective jurors to get as
favorable or as fair a jury as possible.
Peremptory Challenges: Part of the pretrial jury selection. This allows each side to dismiss a certain number of possible jurors without giving any reason (except to discriminate upon race).
Petit Jury: The trial jury, usually consisting of twelve persons, who decide questions of fact.
Grand Jury: Twenty three persons who receive complaints and accusations of a crime, hear preliminary evidence on the complaining side, and make formal accusations.
Jury Instructions: Direction given to the jury by the judge explaining how they should go about deciding the case. This may include a summary of the questions to be decided, the laws that apply, and the burden of proof.
Deliberations: Careful consideration and discussion towards forming an opinion or making a decision
Foreperson: The leader of a jury who speaks for it.
Verdict: The finding or decision of a jury on one or more matters submitted to it in trial that ordinarily in civil actions is for the plaintiff or for the defendant and in criminal actions is guilty or not guilty.
Hung Jury: A jury that cannot reach a verdict because of a strong disagreement among jurors.
Mistrial: A trial that ends prematurely and without a judgment, due either to a mistake that jeopardizes a party's right to a fair trial or to a jury that can't agree on a verdict
Judgment not Withstanding the Verdict: The reversal of a jury's verdict by the trial judge when the judge believes there was no factual basis for the verdict or it was contrary to law.
Nullification: The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact; most likely to occur when a jury is sympathetic toward a defendant or regards the law under which the defendant is charged with disfavor.
The Twelve Jurors
Foreman
A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.
|
Juror 2
A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken.
|
Juror 3
A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.
|
Juror 4
Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others.
|
Juror 5
A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.
|
Juror 6
An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most.
|
Juror 7
A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward.
|
Juror 8
A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is.
|
Juror 9
A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.
|
Juror 10
An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.
|
Juror 11
A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.
|
Juror 12
A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages graphs, and polls and has no real understanding of people. He is a superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow.
|