Distortion of jury system

Rating: 8/10 (21 February 2002)

This movie starts off by not defining the concept of reasonable doubt as opposed to any doubt at all. Having been a grand juror, I can state that reasonable doubt means that the evidence cannot point to guilt and only guilt. Gut feelings and emotion have no place in this. I give it an eight because it is still great drama.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD
Fonda's character says that they must be sure. He presents gut feelings and supposition. Eyewitness testimony is dismissed because witnesses may be lying even though no evidence is presented to support them lying. Fonda's character accepts anything that suggests without evidence that facts are not as they seem. If one dismisses facts without evidence just because people may be mistaken - with no evidence that they are - no one can find anyone guilty and we have no jury system. As for the movie, it has every cliché in the book. Supposition are created almost out of thin air, to support doubt. No evidence is presented for this. If one forgets the clichés and is ignorant of our jury system, the movie can be riveting, and make perfect sense. If you examine the movie, it makes a case for never finding anyone guilty. I loved this movie until I actually served on a jury.