12 Angry Men

[MacLeod]

It's been several years since I last saw this film. But with jury trials whilst you are supposed to go on the evidence presented within the trial, each member of the jury brings one other thing, themselves. Their experianes and knowledge.

For example someone on the jury could sell knifes in a shop, and the knife presented during the case is called rare, whilst that juror knows it's not because he sells them. Are they supposed to ignore that because it wasn't presented at trail?

It can be easy to critise the depictions as shown in this film of jury deliberations, but unless you've actually sat on a Jury you don't have a real frame of referrence.

For the record I have been a Juror on a several trails. Though by law I can't discuss the jury deliberations (UK law differs here from US)

From Memory (which may be wrong) I think from some of the Jurors I've heard speaking about US trails on which they sat as a Juror they based part of their decision not so much on the evidence but the witness/defendant. Did the defendeant not display the emotion they expected them to do so, because it's what they expected them to do. A more stoic person might not display emotion, and a Juror might look more negatively at them, than they would have had they displayed emotion.

 

[Starbreaker]

It's not like juries play by the rules anyway. My mom served on one last year over a drug case and one of the idiots (I mean IDIOT) in there with her said "It's our job to find her guilty. That's what juries do."

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Wouldn't this be Jury Tampering or some other way for the Prosecution to get a mistrial declared and retry the kid?

Not literally jury tampering, but it is against the rules. Technically, juries aren't supposed to consider anything not presented in court so the juror explaining how a switchblade really works is also not allowed. That being said, the knife is more egregious and could actually have resulted in a mistrial.

The Prosecution still couldn't retry him, though. Double Jeopardy would at least prevent that.

Anyway, it's an excellent movie. One thing I like is, if you consider everything together, I still think the kid was probably guilty. But the point always remained that probably isn't enough.

 

[Christopher]

That being said, the knife is more egregious and could actually have resulted in a mistrial.

The Prosecution still couldn't retry him, though. Double Jeopardy would at least prevent that.

No, normally when a mistrial is declared, there's a retrial. Since there was no verdict in the first trial, there was ultimately no jeopardy. Double jeopardy forbids the prosecution from filing charges for the same offense after getting a not guilty verdict. The idea is to make sure the state can't keep going after someone until they get the verdict they want. Double jeopardy only attaches after certain kinds of mistrial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States

The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith," i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial. If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.

Anyway, it's an excellent movie. One thing I like is, if you consider everything together, I still think the kid was probably guilty. But the point always remained that probably isn't enough.

Whereas my interpretation is that he was innocent and got railroaded because of his ethnicity/class. I think Jack Klugman's character (#5) convincingly demolished the prosecution's theory about how the defendant could've delivered a downward stab thrust, so it's likely that the actual killer was someone taller than the boy.

 

[E-DUB]

I remember an episode of a TV show, LA Law I think, where one witness testified who only spoke spanish. A juror who also spoke spanish noted a small but perhaps pivotal mis-translation by the courts interpreter. He pointed this out to his fellow jurors and was called out for supposed jury tampering. The judge ruled, after finding out that he was right on the merits of the issue, that the deliberations could proceed. Not totally relevant to 12 Angry Men but take it for what it's worth.

 

[Vanyel]

It's not like juries play by the rules anyway. My mom served on one last year over a drug case and one of the idiots (I mean IDIOT) in there with her said "It's our job to find her guilty. That's what juries do."

That is an idiot. Period.

Anyway, it's an excellent movie. One thing I like is, if you consider everything together, I still think the kid was probably guilty. But the point always remained that probably isn't enough.

Whereas my interpretation is that he was innocent and got railroaded because of his ethnicity/class. I think Jack Klugman's character (#5) convincingly demolished the prosecution's theory about how the defendant could've delivered a downward stab thrust, so it's likely that the actual killer was someone taller than the boy.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The kid was being railroaded. He had a PD who didn't seem interested in the case.