Appropriately, the day after I discussed jury duty, 12 Angry Men was on TCM. The movie was referenced recently since Jack Warden (who recently died) was in the cast, one of many excellent actors in it -- again, character actors made the movie ... we aren't talking one, two, or three angry men here. Seeing Jack Klugman as a nebbish sort was amusing. And, it seemed like it took place in the Bronx Courthouse ... Yankee Stadium is just a few blocks away, and Warden does want to see a game. You know, with some of the money he earned selling marmalade.
Now, these days, the bit with the knife would have been harder to do. Yes, there is the fact that jurors are not supposed to go to the scene of the crime and do their own investigating, but then again it was noted that he bought the knife illegally anyway. No, now they check for weapons at the door, so it is unlikely such a dangerous instrument would be allowed through. I find it a bit strange -- though mention was made about "kids today" being so unruly (is there ever a time when adults are not nostalgia for better days in that department? 17th Century Puritans spoke of the old days when people were more holy.) -- people weren't checked even in the 1950s. Or, was it a bit of dramatic license? It was Sidney Lumet's first film and all.
Many of the men were quite "angry," though one was firmly rational throughout until the old man broke through his assurance with the bit about the main witness wearing (or, rather, not) glasses. This was in part because a few had clear biases which led them to be emotionally against the young poor slum defendant (white -- we get a quick look of him in the beginning). Two in particular, including Fonda's main nemesis. We all have biases though, including jurors, even if not so blatant. I also saw such things come out, troublingly so, in my second jury stint [was not called when I went the third time, the first was a typical buy/bust deal in which a white suburbanite mom looking sort was the most dubious and led to half the charges being dropped].
One woman eventually noted she was abused in a comparable way to the alleged crime at issue. A heinous one. Another basically saw the young victim through the eyes of his own daughter. It is hard to imagine that jurors do not in some fashion have a "by the grace of god go I" sentiment, one that many suggest is a good thing when they step into the shoes of the defendant. But, one reason for a jury is that a diverse group also should do this for each member of the case, the witnesses and victims included.
You have to take the good with the bad ... up to a point, of course, but still. Thus, a juror here had a certain perspective as an old man, but this very well can cloud judgment too. Such is the value of twelve and unanimity. OTOH, when you are a victim of the very crime, especially an emotionally tinged one, I find it problematic. Some of the other jurors voiced their sympathy. Did any, like I, feel annoyed (or at least concerned) she was on the jury?
Henry Fonda noted that various things were not brought up that he felt should have been. He suggested this might have been because a young court appointed lawyer was involved. I'd first note the thing about the knife (it turns out not to be so rare after all) underlines the complexity of a case -- every piece of evidence must be investigated. This underlines the problem of overworked public defenders. Also, it brought to mind my big case as well. I too felt various things were not offered or clarified. In fact, a previous case of abuse was briefly mentioned, and only confused matters. Finally, I too wondered ... about the prosecutor. Many on the jury liked her, but she seemed a bit green, a bit overmatched by the older craftier defense attorney, who was once a prosecutor (I believe).
One of the jurors early on made a telling point that made the Fonda character think -- what if you convince all of us and he turns out to be guilty? Sure, the idea is "reasonable doubt," but it is important to understand what this means. It does mean that sometimes a factually guilty person will be let go. But, the system is not cost-free ... safeguards tend to have their liabilities. The extra time and effort (and money) spent might cause problems. Nonetheless, there is a "lose the battle, win the war" sentiment involved here. The net result is thought to be good -- protecting the innocent, furthering better prosecutions, securing important rights, valuing the worth of the jury, and so forth. So, admitting that one could be wrong -- a point made -- does not end matters. Some, however, I thinks it does, especially in certain cases.
The conclusion is that the doubts of one led to the doubts of all, a decision for the defendant. This is not very likely, but the movie obviously had a broader point to make. It is not too unlikely to assume that sometimes there really are only a few jurors firmly believing someone is innocent, but they are enough to acquit, even if only for some of the crimes alleged. [This "compromise" verdict in fact often occurs, even if it might seem unethical to some people. It just underlines how real life tends to be messy.]
Note this very case -- he was charged the murder that had a mandatory death sentence (this made it easier to vote for acquittal), which would not occur these days. The facts seem to suggest perhaps he was guilty of a lesser sort of homicide, perhaps not death eligible at all. A few doubters, maybe even one firm one, might lead to this different result. Same overall principle would apply for convictions that might result in serious differences in prison time.
It just might be time for another movie that in some major part focuses on a jury. One of the Law & Order shows ... the one that finally failed ... did in part. But, most of those police, lawyer, or prosecution shows do not. I guess it is cheaper just to pay for extras. Maybe, one of the new ones will. I recall a Picket Fences episode that actually did focus a bit on the jury room. Pretty good episode.