TWELVE ANGRY MEN BY REGINALD ROSE

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A dramatic two-act play originally written for live television in 1954, Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men takes us into the jury room as twelve men deliberate to reach a verdict in a capital murder trial. Through the tense and often combative proceedings inside the room, the characters of the jury members are revealed and disturbing questions about the American system of Justice are raised.

SUMMARY CONTINUED... The defendant is a sixteen-year-old boy accused of killing his father. Although the boy’s race is never identified explicitly, it is clear that he is a member of a racial minority. Initially, the jury quickly votes, almost unanimously, that the defendant is guilty. A single juror, however, is not convinced of the boy’s guilt; moreover he is deeply troubled by the others’ rush to judgment. Calmly pointing out the various questions he feels were not satisfactorily resolved during the trial, he motivates members of the jury to meet their responsibilities by actually examining the evidence offered to convict the defendant. As the men discuss the evidence, their various prejudices and internal conflicts are exposed and we see that supposedly objective facts are often colored by personal attitudes and experiences.

THINGS TO CONSIDER AS WE READ: The strengths and weaknesses of American trial by jury. The play as an allegory for a nation struggling with its long entrenched history of prejudice and racial injustice. The importance of social responsibility and the problems that result from putting individual needs ahead of obligations to society. The elusive, confusing nature of truth. The notion of reasonable doubt. The value of reason and logic. The fitness of ordinary individuals to judge their peers.

REGINALD ROSE Well-known American film and television writer. Born and raised in New York City. Known for writing controversial material pertaining to politics and social issues, particularly in the 1950s. Decided to write this play for television after serving on a jury that involved a murder case. He was initially reluctant to serve as a juror and found the situation somewhat annoying, but quickly changed his mind once he understood the gravity of the situation. “The moment I walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” - Reginald Rose

CHARACTERS Juror #1 – The foreman of the jury who is responsible for keeping the rest of the jurors organized. He works as an assistant coach. Juror #2 – A short man with a high voice who works in a bank. This quiet, meek juror raises reasonable doubt in the minds of others by pointing out that it seems awkward that the defendant, who was six inches shorter than his father, would stab him with a downward motion, as the fatal wound indicates. Juror #3 – An angry man with a son he doesn’t speak to. This juror is a forceful, intolerant bully who threatens to kill another juror. Juror #4 – A wealthy stockbroker. Juror #5 – This juror who has seen many knife fights in the slum where he lives, points out that an experienced knife fighter would use a switchblade underhand, stabbing upward rather than down. Juror #6 – A housepainter. This juror is more of a listener than a talker. He speaks up for two other jurors when they are rudely spoken to, and when he changes his vote he calmly explains his reasons for doing so.

CHARACTERS CONTINUED... Juror #7 – A man who is in a hurry to leave because he has tickets to a baseball game. Juror #8 – Mr. Davis, the man who persuades the others that the boy may not be guilty. Juror #9 – Mr. McArdle, an old man with keen eyesight. This juror is a very thoughtful, observant man who points out that the female witness at the trial, in an effort to look younger, omitted to wear the glasses that she habitually wore. Juror #10 – A highly prejudiced man. This juror's long speech about people from the slums being drunks and liars causes the others to walk away from him in disgust. Juror #11 – A watchmaker who is a refugee from Europe. This juror feels fortunate to be living in a country known for its democracy. He has great respect for the American judicial system so he takes his responsibility as a juror very seriously. Juror #12 – A tall, thin man with glasses who works in advertising. This juror does not have strong views about the defendant's guilt or innocence and despite being clever, he mumbles about the complexity of the evidence when asked to explain his reason for changing his vote to "not guilty".