Character study in a small jury room.

Rating: Null/10 (16 January 2005)

This movie, currently ranked as #21 all time on the IMDb list, is a simple story of the deliberations of 12 men on a jury of a murder trial. We see nothing of the actual trial or the closing arguments. The story begins as the judge instructs the jury, in weighing the evidence presented, they must return a verdict of 'guilty' unless there is reasonable doubt. Although not made clear in the movie, a verdict of "not guilty" is not the same as 'innocent.' Not guilty simply means that the prosecution did not present a case strong enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case that we do not see or hear of first hand involves a son accused of murdering his father. One witness was an elderly man who claimed to have seen the boy running down the stairs from the apartment a few seconds after hearing voices and a body hitting the floor. Was this old man who shuffled along really able to get there in time? Could he really hear clearly over the noise of the passing train? Another was a woman who identified the boy as the one plunging the knife into the victim. But did she wear glasses, and did she have them on when she claimed she saw the murder 60 feet away through the windows of a passing train on elevated tracks (the 'el')?
First seated the jurors take a vote, and it is 11 to one in favor of conviction. There is a ball game that evening and many of the men are anxious to delivered a verdict and get home. One man (Henry Fonda) says he is not sure, the boy may in fact be guilty, but suppose he isn't. He just wants to talk about it. A boy's life is at stake. Don't they owe it to him to examine all possibilities? But the other 11 at first look upon their task as one to convince the lone juror that he is wrong.
As the 90 minutes move along, various jurors bring up points that they noticed, possibilities that neither the prosecution nor the defense attorneys had brought up. Others gradually join the 'not guilty' side, until it is only one for 'guilty.' Then there were none. Much of the dialog brought out prejudices certain men held, that were clouding their reasoning, and preventing them from seeing both sides of the argument. This is a story less about jury verdicts, and more about human nature.
The movie sets out to show that with reasonable doubt at hand, a verdict of 'not guilty' must be returned. Thus it is mostly an examination of how our personal prejudice can cloud our judgment. I suspect that this story was much more significant 50 years ago than it is today. There have been a number of very public trials (e.g. OJ Simpson) where most of the evidence appeared to point to guilt, but a jury returned a 'not guilty' verdict because of reasonable doubt. However it remains part of the foundation of our legal system, that a person is innocent until proved guilty, even if it means some guilty persons will go free.
Although only Lee J. Cobb stands out, as the angry juror who was the last hold out, this contained a fine ensemble cast. Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Ed Begley are others who are prominent in my mind.