Henry fonda jury movie Video
12 Angry Men (10/10) Movie CLIP - Not Guilty (1957) HD henry fonda jury movie.Henry fonda jury movie - shoulders down
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Background 12 Angry Men , or Twelve Angry Men , is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the 'facts' in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant with a criminal record whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury and the American judicial system with its purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias. Alternatively, the slow-boiling film could also be viewed as commentary on McCarthyism, Fascism, or Communism threatening forces in the 50s. The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt.Plot[ edit ] In the overheated jury room of the New York County Courthousea jury prepares to deliberate the continue reading of an year-old impoverished youth accused of stabbing his father to death. The judge instructs them that if there is any reasonable doubtthe jurors are to return a verdict of not guilty; if found guilty, the defendant will receive a death sentence. The verdict must be unanimous. At first, the evidence seems convincing: a neighbor testified to witnessing the defendant stab his father from her window.
Another neighbor testified that moviie heard the defendant threaten to kill his father and the father's body hitting the ground, and then, through his peephole, saw the defendant run past his door.
12 angry men
The boy has a violent past and had recently purchased a switchblade of the same type as was found at the murder scene, but claimed he lost it. The knife at the scene had been cleaned of fingerprints. The jurors at first seem to take the decision lightly. Juror 7 in particular is anxious to catch his tickets to the baseball game. In a preliminary vote conducted by Juror 1, all henry fonda jury movie vote guilty except Juror 8, who believes that there should be some discussion before the verdict is made.
He says he cannot vote guilty because reasonable doubt exists. With his arguments seemingly failing to convince any of the other jurors, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain; if all the other jurors still vote guilty, he will acquiesce. The ballot reveals one not guilty vote. Juror 3 immediately accuses Juror 5 who previously said he grew up in the slums like the defendant.
The Criminal Justice System In 12 Angry Men By Reginald Rose
As the two bicker, Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote, respecting Juror 8's motives and agreeing there should be more discussion. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the threat the second witness claimed to have overheard. Juror 5 changes his vote, as does Henry fonda jury movie 11, who believes the defendant, had he truly killed his father, would not have returned to the crime scene several hours later to retrieve the murder weapon as it had already been cleaned of fingerprints.
Juror 8 points out that people often say "I'm going to kill you" without literally meaning it. Jurors 5, 6, and 8 further question the second witness's story.
Juror 3 is infuriated, and after a verbal argument, tries to attack Juror 8, shouting "I'll kill him! Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes; the jury is now evenly split. Juror 4 doubts the defendant's alibi, based on the boy's inability to recall certain details regarding his alibi. Juror 8 tests Juror 4's own memory. He is able to remember events from the previous week, with difficulty similar to the defendant. Jurors 2, 3, henrj 8 debate whether the defendant could have stabbed his much-taller father from a downward angle, eventually deciding it was henry fonda jury movie possible, though awkward. Juror 5 points out that someone who knew how fondz use a switchblade would have instead stabbed underhand at an upward angle. Juror 7 half-heartedly changes his vote, leading to an inquisition by Juror Under duress Juror 7 sloppily says he thinks the boy is not guilty.
After another vote, Jurors 12 and 1 also change their votes, leaving only three guilty votes. Juror 10 erupts in vitriol regarding the defendant's ethnicity. The rest of the jurors, except Jurors 4 and 7, stand up to go here their backs to him. When he bemoans that nobody is listening to him, Juror 4 states that he has, and tells him to sit down and be quiet. Juror 10 then walks over henry fonda jury movie a desk in the corner, now isolated. Juror 8 makes a statement about reasonable doubt before having the rest of the jurors return to the case.]
Quite right! I think, what is it excellent idea.
Thanks for an explanation.
In my opinion you are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
Absolutely casual concurrence