Who is the defendant in the Twelve Angry Men trial?

The defendant in Reginald Rose’s jury-room drama Twelve Angry Men doesn’t appear in the original 1954 teleplay or in the 1955 Broadway stage version. The playwright also doesn’t give the defendant a name. Many of the jurors repeatedly refer to the defendant as a “kid,” and he’s first described as having different ages in different adaptations.

There are a few references in the play to the defendant’s troubled home life and criminal background, but the playwright gives no other description of the defendant. The only descriptions of the defendant in the teleplay, Broadway, and film versions of Twelve Angry Men rely on the Jurors’ class biases and their racial, cultural, and ethnic prejudices:

Juror #3. I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.

Juror #10. Look, we're all grownups here. You're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.

Juror #7. Look at the kid's record. At fifteen he was in reform school. He stole a car. He's been arrested for mugging. He was picked up for knife-fighting. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm.

Juror #10. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how those people lie. l don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is. And lemme tell you, they—don't need any real big reason to kill someone either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Nobody's blaming them. That's how they are. You know what I mean?

Juror #8 is the only juror who expresses any compassion for “the kid,” and at the same time provides some insight into the defendant’s background:

Juror #8. 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. He's a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock 'em over the head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words.

Essentially, the description of the defendant is what the audience members see in their own mind, which might reveal their own biases and prejudices and their personal frame of reference.

Who is the defendant in the Twelve Angry Men trial?

In Twelve Angry Men, the defendant is a nineteen-year-old Hispanic youth from the slums who is charged with first degree murder of his father.

The jury is entirely composed of white men. Most of the jury is lower-middle to middle class men. Some are older, and they bring their individual biases and prejudices to the table. In fact, with the initial vote, only one juror votes "Not Guilty." This vote is made simply because Juror No. 8 feels that the case warrants discussion since the verdict will be so serious:

There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

As the men discuss the case, they realize that some of the testimony given was not true. And the so-called weapon is a knife that can easily be for sale in a few stores. Juror 8 proves this because he buys one easily at a local store.

Who is the defendant in the Twelve Angry Men trial?

The defendant is described by jurors as "a nineteen year old boy" who stabs his own father in the torso. Great deliberation takes place over his guilt or innocence, and in the end, it is decided that a hung jury will result. Stereotyping and generalizing language is used by the jurors to indicate that they see the defendant, at first, as someone of a "lower" status at this point in history. Those who believe the defendant is guilty keep referring to "they" and "them," as if the boy's race or socioeconomic status is a factor in their decision making.

In Twelve Angry Men, who are the protagonist and antagonist?

After being sequestered in the jurors' room, twelve jurymen are initially asked to vote upon a verdict on the Hispanic boy who has indicted for the murder of his father. The guard having locked them inside, the men take a vote upon the verdict of this young defendant. The vote is 10-1 "guilty"; Juror 8 has voted not guilty only because he has reasonable doubt and feels that the defendant deserves their close examination and discussion of the evidence. Clearly he is the protagonist, who desires justice for the defendant.

THREE. Somebody’s in left field. (To EIGHT) You think he’s not guilty?
EIGHT (quietly). I don’t know.
THREE. I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.
EIGHT. He’s nineteen years old.
THREE. That’s old enough. He knifed his own father. Four inches into the chest. An innocent nineteen-year-old kid. They proved it a dozen different ways. Do you want me to list them?
EIGHT. No.
TEN (to EIGHT). Well, do you believe his story?
EIGHT. I don’t know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t.
SEVEN. So what’d you vote not guilty for?
EIGHT. There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

Juror 3 is very opinionated; he is also accustomed to forcing his wishes upon others. He is the antagonist. At one point he says,

THREE: It’s these kids – the way they are nowadays.  When I was a kid I used to call my father, ‘Sir.’  That’s right.  ‘Sir.’  You ever hear a kid call his father that anymore?

At another point in Act II, as there is a secret vote without Juror 8 and one man votes guilty, Juror 3 demands to know who has changed his vote. Juror 11 opposes his bullying of the others.

THREE. Hold it? We’re trying to put a guilty man into the chair where he belongs—and all of a sudden we’re paying attention to fairy tales.

Another juror who is antagonistic is Juror Ten. He is a bigoted man who holds that the defendant committed the crime because he is one of those type of delinquents from the inner city. He, too, opposes the attempts of Juror 8 to disprove the defendant's guilt. In Act III, when Juror 3 argues against the defendant, saying that he has told his father that he was going to kill him, Juror 10 interrupts:

TEN. And how they mean it!
EIGHT. Well, let me ask you this. Do you really think the boy would shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood would hear it? I don’t think so. He’s much too bright for that.
TEN (exploding). Bright! He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English. (Ironically, neither does he)

But, finally Juror 10 is defeated as is Juror 3, and the men realize that there is reasonable doubt. Therefore, they cannot in good conscience, convict the boy.

In Twelve Angry Men, who was the jury's leader and why?

Over the course of the play, Juror #8 emerges as the leader of the group. Juror #8 is the first person (and initially the only person) to express doubt that the boy accused of murdering his father is guilty of the crime. The other jurors consider the evidence of the boy's guilt so definitive that they are shocked by his dissent. However, slowly and patiently, Juror #8 convinces the members of the jury that the boy is innocent (or, at least, he brings them each to a place where they have a reasonable doubt to his guilt). Juror #8 is a leader in the sense that he is able to convince people he is right, and rally people to his cause. His style is different from that of many other leaders: Juror #8 is respectful and deferential towards the other jurors, and listens carefully to their contributions. He is also is unfailing in his own beliefs and unafraid of being perceived by everyone else as wrong or crazy.