Twelve Angry Men CHARACTERS FOREMAN: A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and

handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged. JUROR NO. 2: A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken. JUROR NO. 3: A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. JUROR NO. 4: Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others. JUROR NO. 5: A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor. JUROR NO. 6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most. JUROR NO. 7: A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward. JUROR NO. 8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. JUROR NO. 9: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. JUROR NO. 10 An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him. JUROR NO. 11: A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.

Juror NO. 12: A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages graphs, and polls and has no real understanding of people. He is a superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow. Juror no.1 tries to impose order in his capacity as Leader(or Foreman). He plays the role of leader, A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror no.2 is a small, quiet man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued observer and meek information giver role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job he is an accountant. Juror no. 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that hes not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the aggressive, dominator and blocker roles. His personal baggage with his own son blocked or prolonged the decision-making. Yet this overbearing, angry and sadistic man finally deserved our sorrow. Juror no.4 is a self -assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. He obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, and he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, and the characters of the people involved in the case. No.4 played the role of the coldly, analytical information giver. He ticks off the facts in the case as if he were reading closing stock prices from the newspaper. His studious and ever stern glare cuts down those who disagree with his. Juror no.5 is a man under great emotional stress. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy with whom he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty he does not want compassion to influence him so ironically it does. Reacting strongly and defensive, No. 5 represents the emotional. Juror no.6 is a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake. Agreeing with everyone and talking even less, No. 6s role is the silent and conformist.

Juror no.7 is the only one who really has no opinion on the case he talks of baseball. Of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think its worth the bother. Failing to take the group seriously, No. 7 falls into the playboy and bored one roles. Juror no.8 is a caring man who has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best in the face of seemingly impossible odds. Both confident and nervous, as well as being under intense and hostile scrutiny, No. 8 states that he couldn't vote in that way for one simple reason; there is reasonable doubt in his mind. No. 8 acts as model person and nonconformist. Juror no.9 is a wise old man. With his great life experience he has quite a unique way of looking at the case. After the juror no. 8 had refused to go without discussion he is ridiculed by the fellow men and is forced to change his decision but he doesnt move. He says that they all will have a second round of voting in which he will not vote. If all other 11 men vote guilty, he will also vote the same and case can be closed.But this time Juror no 9 joins him and now it becomes 2 vs. 10.So now all have to sit and discuss the case. Juror no.10 is the most horrifying character in the film. He votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact hat he does so only because of the boys social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boys which makes him all the more eager to stress the difference. The repulsive and poisonous bigotry of No. 10 puts him in aggressive, debunker, and blocker roles throughout the film. Juror no.11, an immigrant watchmaker, is a careful analytical man, well mannered and soft spoken. He respects the right of people to have different opinions to his and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. He loses his temper only once horrified by the complete indifference of Juror No. 7. His role is that of group observer as well as opinion giver. Juror no.12 is a young business type perhaps he has his own opinions but is careful to hide them. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think. No. 12 works in advertising and views serving on a jury no more seriously than he would creating a laundry soap jingle. He is a smooth-talking but easily swayed young airhead who plays the role of conformist. Analysis: Eleven jurors take the defendants guilt for granted at the beginning of 12 Angry Men because the defense attorney has done so little to challenge the prosecutions narrative. Juror #8 alone has noticed this. Juror #8s performance as a surrogate defender is instructive with regard to the interlocking ideals of due process and a jury of ones peers.

The process of considering competing narratives on which Juror #8 insists leads to a recounting of the trial through the jurys deliberations. These begin, as the trial surely did, with the jurors impressions of the prosecutor: an expert with a lot of drive who hammered home his points, one by one, in logical sequence. The case this impressive man has made is reproduced primarily by Juror #3 (an excitable man certain of the defendants guilt for what turn out to be personal reasons) and Juror #4 (a coolly logical man certain of the defendants guilt for abstract sociological reasons) through what they call the facts. The case entails two eyewitnesses, a murder weapon, and motive, backed up, we are led to suspect, by assumptions based on the defendants class and ethnicity. Even without bias, however, as the prosecutions case is laid out, Juror #3s insistence that *y+ou cant refute facts seems correct. But Juror #3 has confused facts for proof. Juror #8s lawyerly method gradually induces the others to interpret the meaning of the prosecutors facts for themselves. The momentum of the deliberations begins to change when Juror #8 questions the motive offered by the prosecution (being hit by his father) when violence is practically a normal state of affairs for the defendant. He goes on to produce a knife identical to the murder weapon, undermining the prosecutions association of a particular weapon with the defendant, and to reenact the elderly witnesss testimony, showing the witness could not have seen the defendants face. In the process certain facts are revealed as social facts shaped by contexts and interpretations. Juror #8s masterly cross-examination technique only strengthens this point, as he gets jurors to contradict what they have already claimed to be unassailably true over and over again. An early instance is his challenge of Juror #10s reliance on the testimony of a witness when he had previously insisted that everyone of that witnesss ethnicity is a liar. When Juror #12 resists the idea that witnesses might be wrong, Juror #8 asks him whether he can know with certainty that they have not made a mistake. With his own imperfect knowledge implicated, Juror #12 is forced to concede that *t+his isnt an exact science. Later, Juror #8 baits Juror #3 into threatening to kill him, despite Juror #3s earlier claim that people making such threats always mean it. The jurys certainty, and the pro-conviction majority, begins to erode. In this part of the deliberations, Juror #8 does what the defense attorney failed to dohe tests whether the prosecutions case leaves room for reasonable doubt. Both the district attorney and the defense have, for example, apparently missed the physical characteristics of certain witnesses (a limp in one case, bad eyesight in another) that might have undermined their veracity. Once Juror #8 has established the possibility of reasonable doubt, the peculiar thing that juries do starts to happen: their individual experience and impressions begin to work together. Juror #11 wonders why the defendant would return to the scene of the crime. From what was presented at the trial the boy looks guilty, he observes, on the surface. But maybe if we go deeper . . . . Juror #2 wonders about the angle of the stab wound, a part of the prosecutors story that has been bothering me a little. Juror #9, an older man himself, explains why the elderly witness might have

exaggerated what he saw to be important. Juror #6 has been painting near an el track and knows the deafening sound of a passing train. Juror #5 grew up in a neighborhood like the defendants and can demonstrate the proper use of a switchblade knife. In this way, the film reveals the crucial role that the individual experiences and knowledge of jurors plays in what a jury does, as well as the collaborative process through which juries deliberate. By his initial not-guilty vote, Juror #8, insists that their task is to talk*+ about the evidence offered at trial. Discussing the evidence strikes proconviction jurors as a waste of time, but as the film unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that time and talk are the essential tools of a jury.Without actual deliberation there can be no fair trial. One is disinterest or impartialitythe sense that the deliberations ought not become personal. Another important value that emerges more slowly from the deliberations is integrity. Juror #8 explains his not-guilty vote in terms of integrityIts not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it firstas does Juror #9, when he changes his vote in support of Juror #8 out of respect for his motives. By the time that Juror #7 attempts to change his vote merely to expedite a verdict, the majority of the jury rejects the shift because it lacks conviction. A juror must believe in his vote. As the central importance of integrity is established in the group, its connection to the democratic values of dissent and independence also emerges. Each man has a voice as well as a vote, and the group enforces the mandate that no individual should be silenced. (The one exception is the exclusion of Juror #10 during his racist rantand the group here is rejecting Juror #10s position as not merely ignorant but undemocratic.) Deliberation: procedure puts the integrity of each juror very much on the lineas the group discovers when it attempts to employ a secret ballot on the second vote, *t+here are no secrets in a jury room. Each man has to own his position publicly. It is significant, however, that only those who vote guilty are required to justify their position. Just as the defendant is not required to prove his innocence, no juror with reasonable doubt must defend that doubt. Only guilt must be proved, and in this way the process the jury employs further reveals the job the jury must doto reach a verdict when it is not possible to know with certainty. The collaborative process of interpreting the evidence that begins once Juror #8 has successfully questioned the prosecutions narrative has two effects. One is to generate a sense of community among the group of strangers. In the breaks in the deliberation, moments of interpersonal intimacythe acceptance of an offered cough drop, the sharing of a personal anecdotereplace previously defensive and

hostile asides. By the time Juror #10 launches into his bigoted tirade, the jury moves in unison physically to isolate and reject him. And by the end of the film the formal process of voting has been woven informally into the conversation, indicating just how much the conversation has changed. The second effect of the groups collaborative interpretation of the evidenceexploring alternative narrativesprovokes pro-conviction jurors to accuse Juror #8 and others of inventing fables and stories and fairy tales, of manipulating the facts. Juror #6 articulates the danger starkly when he asks Juror #8, Supposing you talk us all outa this, and the kid really did knife his father? But as Juror #6 himself comes to recognize, ignoring these alternative narratives leads to the dogmatic certainty that ultimately reveals itself as destructive to personhood. Both Juror #10, whose bigotry breaks down into insecurity, and Juror #3, whose anger dissolves into heartbreak, embody the human cost of blind certainty. Blind certaintywhether it derives from sociological generalization or personal experienceis as much on trial in 12 Angry Men as the young man accused of killing his father. This trial of prejudicewhich first appears as a diffuse and dispassionate presumption of guilt uniting the jurors, but erupts into divisive and unproductive anger ends not in a verdict but in renunciation. Gradually, the members of the jury jettison their prejudices and assumptions as they confront the complexity and ambiguity of lived experience. In the process, the meek are empowered and the powerful are brought low. Leadership traits from 12 Angry Men (juror #8) Power & Influence: Influence others even when they lack formal authority Understand sources of power Find out how effective leaders create support and loyalty Understand why authority alone often wont get the outcomes you expect Most Common Characteristics of Great Leaders Honesty truthful, has integrity, is trustworthy, has character Competence - capable, productive, effective, efficient, thorough, humility Forward-looking - visionary, foresighted, concerned about the future, sense of direction Inspiring - uplifting, enthusiastic, energetic, humorous, cheerful, positive about the future Leaders excite followers with new options and ideas (vision)

Leaders prefer solitary activities (even though they relate to people with great empathy) while managers prefer working with others (but relate more superficially, according to defined roles). Leaders have a sense of self based on mastery of their world which separates them from their environment and from other people. Types of Power Legitimate Power Referent Power Expert Power Information Power Reward Power Coercive Power Leadership Styles Authoritative (autocratic) Participative (democratic) Delegative (laissez faire) Teaching (technical) Coaching (cheerleading) Charismatic Situational Charismatic Leadership Style and Information Power juror 8 The leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or team, and is very energetic in driving others forward. Inspires follower loyalty and creates an enthusiastic vision that others work to attain. Makes it difficult to find a replacement if the leader dies or leaves the organization.

Credibility Believability The very foundation of a persons source of power The most critical factor in being an authentic leader How juror 8 got it? 1. Being consistent in actions and statements. 2. Made decisions based on universally applied principles as opposed to personalities involved. 3. Followed through on promises. 4. Communicating openly and honestly. 5. Knew his job well. 6. Produced needed results. How juror #3 lost credibility 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inconsistency Personality based decision-making Unwarranted secrecy about decisions and operations Lack of communication Demonstrate a loss of mastery with respect to technical skills

Negative qualities exhibited by #3, #10: Prejudice Early on in Twelve Angry Men, Juror 10 says, Ive lived among em all my life. You cant believe a word they say. I mean, theyre born liars, as he refers to the young man on trial and all individuals like him. Throughout the play, various jurors present prejudices against not only the accused but also against other jurors. The play calls upon us not simply to judge others by their appearance or other preconceived notions we may hold, but rather to consider everyone equally as human beings.