Act 1 Twelve jurors retire to the jury room as a murder trial concludes. The accused is a youth from a poor urban area who is on trial for killing his father with a switch knife.
Plot[ edit ] In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an year-old boy  from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening's Yankees game, and 10 who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums.
Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only Twelve angry men plot witnesses, and the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade of which he possesses an identical copywas "rare". Juror 8 argues that reasonable doubt exists, and that he therefore cannot vote "guilty", but concedes that he has merely hung the jury.
Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain, and agrees to change his vote if the others unanimously vote "guilty". The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. An angry Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children.
However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the boy tell his father "I'm going to kill you".
Juror 5 then changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.
Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness' claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor, since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke.
An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6—6. Shortly after, a thunderstorm begins. Juror 4 doubts the boy's alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail.
Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the boy, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body.
Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors especially 11 for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the boy is not guilty.
Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum-born people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him.
When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence.
Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8—4. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glassesrealizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity.The two men manage to sway Jurors 5 and 11 to their side, for a total of four "not guilty" verdicts.
Juror 10 now explodes with anger over what he views as "nitpicking" and Juror 3 harasses Juror 11, an Eastern European refugee, for changing his mind. Plot: “Twelve Angry Men” is an interesting and exciting jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes strenuous as twelve strangers scuffle for answers.
The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men is. 12 Angry Men study guide contains a biography of Reginald Rose, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
We enter a courthouse and see twelve men sitting in a jury box. The judge gives them instructions to reach a ruling on a trial for first-degree murder.
The accused is an eighteen year-old kid who's been charged with murdering his dad, and all of the jurors seem pretty convinced that he did it. It. Jul 29, · Watch video · A full ten years after 12 Angry Men () () was released, it inspired a plot on the The Andy Griffith Show () (), in which Aunt Bee Taylor plays the lone holdout juror (exactly like Henry Fonda's character) who steadfastly votes "not guilty".
She repeatedly holds her vote even while up against the /10(K).