What are Jurors 4, 8, and 9's views on the case facts in "Twelve Angry Men"?

In Twelve Angry Men, twelve jurors deliberate a murder case, seeking to come to a unanimous decision about whether the boy on trial is guilty of killing his father. Juror 8 begins by saying he doesn't know if the boy is guilty but feels that the jurors owe it to him to discuss his case thoroughly. Some points of evidence he brings up are:

• The murder weapon was a switchblade knife that had a supposedly unique appearance, yet Juror 8 was able to purchase one that looks just like it. He brings it out during the deliberations to the surprise of the other jurors.
• The man in the neighboring apartment testified he heard the boy shout, "I'll kill you!" at his father just before the murder, but by comparing his testimony to that of the other witness, Juror 8 determines the man would have had to hear that shout over the sound of a passing el train, which he and other jurors believe would be impossible.
• The old man also testified that he saw the boy rushing downstairs, but Juror 8 re-enacts the timing of the shout and how long it would have taken the man, who dragged one foot, to get to the door. The timing casts doubt on the man's testimony.

Juror 4 is a very logical stockbroker. He finds most convincing two pieces of evidence: that the boy's alibi was flimsy because he could not remember the names of the movies he had seen at the time the murder was taking place, and the woman who lived across the el tracks said she witnessed the murder through the windows of the passing el train. He eventually comes to doubt the testimony of the eyewitness and realizes that stress could have caused the boy to forget the names of the films.

Juror 9, an elderly gentleman who is the second to vote "not guilty," seems less concerned with facts than feelings; nevertheless, his keen powers of observation become useful in damaging the reliability of the two key witnesses in the case. He notices that the elderly man wears a tattered coat and assumes this is the first chance he has had in his life to be really listened to, possibly causing him to embellish the importance of his role in the case. Juror 9 is also the one who remembers the eyewitness as having "those marks on the side of her nose" that could only be caused by glasses, suggesting that she would not have been able to observe the murder happening from so far away. He suggests her vanity kept her from wearing her glasses when she testified so that the attorneys did not think to pursue her eyesight as an issue.

Can you explain the verdict in Twelve Angry Men?

In Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men, an eighteen-year-old man is on trial for first-degree murder, accused of stabbing his father. The play focuses on the deliberations of the jury, twelve men who must decide the boy's guilt or innocence. If they declare him guilty, he will be executed.

On the first vote, eleven of the jurors decide that the young man is guilty, but one, Juror Eight, holds out. He has doubts, and with those doubts, he cannot in good conscience send anyone to certain execution. He demands a reexamination of the evidence, for he has noticed some gaps and unanswered questions.

The jurors proceed to discuss the various testimonies and evidence, and they do indeed find gaps and inconsistencies. The knife identified as the murder weapon, for instance, is not nearly as uncommon as it was portrayed. In fact, Juror Eight has one just like it in his pocket. The old man who said he heard the boy say that he would kill his father and then saw him run down the stairs may not have actually heard or seen anything. There are at least doubts. The angle of the wound is also questionable, especially considering that the young man on trial is experienced in knife fighting. The woman who said she saw the murder through the train windows must have seen only a blur, for she was likely not wearing her glasses at the time.

By this point, the vote is now eleven for not guilty and only one, Juror Three, for guilty. But Juror Three has a personal investment in a case like this. His own son once hit him in the face and then left home. By the end of the play, he realizes that his own anger and sense of betrayal are affecting his vote for the verdict, and he, too, decides that the defendant is not guilty.

The verdict of not guilty is finally unanimous, but it is the result of a long, tension-filled, even angry set of deliberations. It is also the result of a commitment to discovering the truth, first by one juror and then by others as well. Finally, it is the result of some deep soul searching by the jurors as they come to recognize their presuppositions, prejudices, and anger.

What evidence does juror five disprove in "Twelve Angry Men"?

Of the twelve jurors, Juror Five is perhaps the only one who has lived in the slums of New York City. Juror Five's social and economic background gives him a unique perspective on crimes that are similar in nature to the case in question.

Based on his own experiences and what he has witnessed growing up in the housing projects of New York, Juror Five questions the way in which the victim was stabbed. The victim, according to the medical examiner and the prosecutor, was stabbed with a downward motion. However, Juror Five suggests that someone from the slums who is experienced in handling knives would usually stab in an upward motion.

This piece of firsthand information from Juror Five further enhances the rest of the jurors' belief that the prosecution has presented false evidence and that the defendant is not guilty.

What idea or claim does Juror 4 advance in "Twelve Angry Men"?

Juror 4 is a rational, unflappable stockbroker. When asked by a fellow juror, he admits he never even sweats. One of the items of evidence he finds especially convincing against the accused boy is that he was not able to recall the titles of the movies he had seen when the police questioned him over his father's dead body. The boy's alibi was that he had been to the theater, and Juror 4 believes that alibi did not stand up to scrutiny. Juror 8 asks, "Do you think you would be able to remember the names of the movies you'd seen with your father lying dead in the next room?" Juror 4 replies that yes, he would be able to. Later during a lull in the discussions, Juror 8 returns to that line of examination. He drills Juror 4 about movies he had recently seen, and Juror 4 is unable to accurately name the title or actors in a film he had seen days previously. He actually begins to sweat while Juror 8 interrogates him. This seems to remove this piece of evidence as a barrier to him voting "not guilty."

Finally, the issue of the eyewitness account is addressed, and this is the piece of evidence that Juror 4 believes is incontrovertible. He suggests that they should deliberate only a short time longer and then inform the judge that they are a hung jury. While he is trying to get those words out, Juror 9 notices that Juror 4 is rubbing his nose where his eyeglasses rest. This reminds him that the woman who testified as an eyewitness also had "those marks on the side of her nose." Juror 4 realizes that a woman who wore glasses would not have been lying in bed at night with them on, so when she looked out her window, she could not have seen the murder taking place. This convinces him to vote "not guilty."

What was the trial in "Twelve Angry Men" about? What was the jurors' initial reaction?

Twelve Angry Men is a drama about twelve jurors who have to bring a verdict in a murder trial. A young man, a teenager, is accused of stabbing his father to death with a knife. The judge has instructed the jurors that they must be unanimous in their verdict, explaining that the death penalty is mandatory if they bring a verdict of guilty. When the jurors enter the jury room, it is very hot, and the jurors seem irritable, although some seem thoughtful. A few complain about the trial. After some brief conversation, the leader of the jury calls for a vote. At this initial vote, eleven men vote "guilty," and only one, Juror 8, votes "not guilty." There is some surprise and muttering toward him for being the only one who votes differently, and some jurors demand that he explain himself and even seem to ridicule or taunt him for his "wrong" opinion. Juror 8 explains that he doesn't know if the boy is guilty or not, but that he can't bring himself to be the final vote that will put the boy in the electric chair. He maintains that they should at least discuss the case before they sentence him to death.