High drama in a New York City courtroom with a man's life hanging in the balance

Rating: 8/10 (18 November 2004)

***SPOILERS*** Given what at first glance seems to be an open and shut case by The State of New York vrs George Savoca in the murder, by Mr. Savoca stabbing, of his father. As the foreman of the Jury juror #1 Martin Balsam takes a vote from the 12 jurors including himself he gets an 11 to 1 vote for the conviction of Mr. Savoca. The lone dissenter is Juror #8 Henry Fonda who wants the defendant, who if convicted automatically gets the death penalty,to at least have his case reviewed and debated before he and the rest of the Jurors make a decision that may very well cost Mr. Savoca his life.
At first the debate goes nowhere until it becomes clear that the switchblade that Savoca was accused of using to murdered his father was not that unique. The fact that Juror #8 produced an exact same switchblade that he bought in a store some two blocks from the Savoca's home changed all that. Slowly one after another the men on the jury change their vote with Juror #9 and #5 Joseph Sweeney and Jack Klugman being the first two to change their vote from conviction to acquittal. The entire murder case hinged on the two eye witnesses, a lame old man and a near-sighted middle-aged woman, to the murder who lived across the street from the building where the murder was committed. The witnesses testimony was taken apart by both juror #8 and #9 when it was discovered that the old man couldn't have gotten, as he testified at the murder trial, as fast to the window to see the murder committed. As for the woman who was asleep, the murder was committed after midnight, she could not have gotten out of bed and seen, from some 60 feet away, through the windows of a passing fast moving subway train the killing without having her glasses on.
The film "12 angry Men" ends with the only holdout of the jurors to acquit Juror #3 Lee J. Cobb breaking down and finally voting to acquit Mr. Savoca. Fine courtroom drama that is as thought-provoking now as it was back then on the screen in 1957 with every one involved giving Academy Award caliber performances even though there were a number of factors that were overlooked by the jurors that may well have proved Mr. Savoca guilt. The knife that killed Savoca's, the same kind of knife that Savoca said that he had but lost the night of the murder, father was found on the street outside his apartment. Even though Juror #8 bought an exact copy of the switchblade knife, that Savoca was said to have used, in a store not far from him home it still didn't prove his innocence. The fact that Savoca couldn't explain where he was convincingly the time that his father was murdered, he claimed he was in a movie-house where no one working there or any customer could identify him. Being the one and only suspect in his fathers murder with a motive to boot, he got into a fierce fight with his father and said that he was going to kill him a few hours before Savoca's father was murdered. It was the eye witness testimony that failed to convince the jurors that had them vote to acquit him.
As convincing as the movie was in the jury acquitting Savoca in real life the jury would have in all probability have ended up by not coming to a verdict and ending up a hung jury. Two of the jurors #10 and #7 Ed Begley, Sr. and Jack Warden were more or less motivated to vote for acquittal by being intimidated and pressured by their fellow jurors then by the testimony. Juror #3 Lee J. Cobb was so unstable and emotionally screwed up that it's a wonder that he ever got on the jury in the first place unless he was such a good actor that he fooled the State prosecutor when he was paneled by him.