Talk:12 Angry Men (1957 film)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to the12 Angry Men (1957 film) article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1Auto-archiving period:2 years  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 12 Angry Men (1957 film) received apeer review by Wikipedia editors, which is nowarchived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article has beenmentioned by a media organization:
|
It could also be added that the Dead Zone episode "Unreasonable Doubt" was a homage to the movie in the section where you list parodies and such.
It's obvious there have been many of these; as I type this I'm watching an episode ofVeronica Mars that involves scenes similar to this film.
I'd love to see a section (or even just a link to an external site) detailing the legal implications of the plot. Is this sort of critical review of the evidence by the jury typical, or are juries typically expected to only notice these kinds of inconsistencies when an opposing lawyer brings them up? Are there any particularly-egregious legal missteps in the deliberations, like direct handling of evidence?Jouster00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What goes on in the jury room is generally believed to completely vary between juries. In Canada discussions about jury deliberations are absolutely forbidden (unlike America where it is often profitable), but most people generally believe that the jury follows the judge's charge to whatever extent they want to and then go off on their own illogical and misguided assessment of guilt.
There are some things that could be said about the way this jury went about things though. It's generally not allowed for the jurors to bring in their own evidence, so the loudness of the el-train and the knife that Davis bought would have contaminated things--it should have been brought out during the trial by the defence so that the DA could cross-examine it. It's also improper for the jury to consider the accused's criminal record to determine guilt or innocence, only, in limited cases, to assess his credibility.Cromicus21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing up what has always bothered me about this film.The jury room scene with the two knives is great for a Hollywood film but completely unacceptable for a jury room. I accept the argument that a motion pictures is meant solely for entertainment purposes up to the point where advocates of a film push and lecture an audience with a political agenda while being factually inaccurate. That is when I object.— Precedingunsigned comment added by76.94.252.189 (talk)04:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."-- John Adams, 1771
".....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."-- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are in your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.-- Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972— Precedingunsigned comment added by104.218.69.39 (talk)17:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the play come first? And were the jobs even mentioned in it? And in the play it takes 8 thirty-nine seconds, not forty one.
I think thatJuror No. 2 should be added to the article wherever pertaining, because there are painstakingly similarities between the two, with even its directorClint Eastwood citing that maybe it could be considered as a spiritual sequel.[1][2]Eduemoni↑talk↓04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
