Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is about a jury of twelve men that deliberates the verdict for a young defendant. The jurors discuss the case and then, one by one, they change their votes as they are persuaded about the defendant’s innocence. Juror Number 8 helps the process by persuading the other jurors to reexamine some of the evidence. His character provides several examples of persuasive techniques.

First, with one piece of evidence, he provides visual proof to support his claim that the knife used in the stabbing could have been similar to the one the defendant had purchased while not being the same knife. Juror No. 4 asks No. 8, “Aren't you trying to make us accept a pretty incredible coincidence?”

No. 8 replies, “I'm not trying to make anyone accept it. I'm just saying it's possible.” Then:

No. 8 swiftly flicks open the blade of a switch knife and jams it into the table next to the first one. They are exactly alike. There are several gasps…

No. 8 also reminds them of the onerous task they have. He says, “It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” This convinces several of the others to debate the evidence in order to reach a just verdict. For instance, later on, No. 9 says that he can stay to discuss the evidence because “It's only one night. A man may die.” In addition, No. 11 tells No. 7, “I do not think you have the right to play like this with a man's life. This is an ugly and terrible thing to do.”

No. 6 is also able to effectively persuade the others of an incorrect piece of evidence by illustrating with an example: The alleged eyewitness claimed that she saw the defendant kill the victim. However, it was the middle of the night, and the eyewitness had gotten out of bed to watch the commotion outside. No. 6 says, “Look, stop me if I'm wrong. This woman wouldn't wear her eyeglasses to bed, would she?” Then jurors No. 11, No. 9, and No. 8 concur that her testimony was not as credible as it first appeared.

Juror No. 8 also is able to persuade the jurors that because the defendant comes from a low-income background and grew up in difficult conditions, he has had difficulties in life and is not necessarily a hardened criminal. He says, "Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That's not a very good head start."

Examples of tactics that do not move the other jurors include juror No. 3 just repeating that he “never saw a guiltier man in my life…The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.” This does not convince anyone, because he has no facts to support his statement. In a second example of No. 3 failing to convince the jurors, he asks about the eyewitness, “How do you know what she saw? Maybe she's far-sighted.“ The other jurors realize that this is pure conjecture and are not persuaded.

Another failed tactic is when Juror No. 10 leverages his prejudice to convict the defendant. He says, “I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.” Juror No. 9 asks him, “Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic?”

Another clear example of an approach that fails is No. 7’s attempt to end the debate because he has “tickets to The Seven Year Itch.” The others have already agreed that with a man’s life at stake, they owe the defendant a full and fair deliberation.