Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
12 Angry Men: Juror 8
Transcript of 12 Angry Men: Juror 8
John Davis: Biography
Juror 8 was the protagonist in the play as he stood up for the rights and innocence of the boy. Juror 8 and Juror 3 were the characters that moved the plot along. Juror 8 made the most impact on the plot because he was originally the only one to vote "not guilty" and fought for his ideas relentlessly, never backing down from Juror 3's intimidating presence. In the beginning, some of the jurors didn't like Juror 8 because he voted against the rest of the group. But, as the deliberation went on Juror 8 gained support from the other jurors by bringing up thought provoking evidence. I think most readers would think of Juror 8 as the good guy that everyone likes, the person someone would go up to when asking for a rational and logical opinion.
Foreman: “Okay. Eleven to one. Eleven guilty, one not guilty. Now we know where we stand.”
12 Angry Men: Juror 8
Juror 8 Messaged You... (6)
By Grace Huang and Shuzo Katayama
1. Carpenter, Cameron. "7 Great Mysterious Strangers in Movies." WhatCulture 7 Great Mysterious Strangers in Movies Comments. WhatCulture, n.d. Web. 24 May 2014. <http://whatculture.com/film/7-great-mysterious-strangers-in-movies.php/5#jb0RISMuAEfjQXam.99>.
2."Inversecondemnation.com." 'inversecondemnation.com' Inversecondemnation, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 May 2014. <http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2013/09/what-the-heck-does-12-angry-men-have-to-do-with-inverse-condemnation.html>.
3. Rose, Reginald, and Sherman L. Sergel. Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts. Chicago: Dramatic Pub., 1983. Print.
"Twelve Angry Men." - Aveleyman.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2014. <http://www.aveleyman.com/FilmCredit.aspx?FilmID=20145>.
4. Twelve Angry Men. Dir. Reginald Rose. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley. 1957. DVD.
Juror 8 Updated His Status
August 6, 1957
Being an architect, I was always unsure of what my mistakes could lead up to. Small mistakes in calculation errors, minor details, and unintended flaws could lead to the deaths of many innocent people, with me at the fault.
As me and the other jurors got ushered into the deliberation room it seems that the decision has already been made, the kid is guilty. In the beginning I didn’t honestly or surely know yet. As the deliberation began I was the only one who voted not guilty. I felt unsure of the boy being guilty, and what a quick decision could lead to. Well, this does not come as a surprise, but the other jurors especially Juror 3 and 10 seemed angry at my decision. All I wanted to do was to talk and thankfully Juror 9 wanted to talk to. I think this started the real discussion. I brought up points about how the old man could not have possibly reached the hallway in time to see the boy, how the boy actions don’t add up. He is supposedly intelligent but some of his actions confuse me, which makes me wonder if he actually committed the crime. As the trial went on things got heated between me and Juror 3 which actually worked in my benefit. I guess I was making sense with my arguments as more and more jurors started to side with me. In the end, we let the boy go. I truly believe that he is not guilty but whether or not he is innocent is different question.
“You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?”
"Now is this kid smart or is he dumb?To say that he is guilty, you have to toss his intelligence like a pancake. There is doubt, doubt, doubt!”
“The murder was taking place as she looked out, and the lights went out a split second later. She couldn’t have had time to put on her glasses. Now maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father. I say that she saw only a blur.”
Juror 3, Juror 4, and Juror 10 commented
Brother, I've seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y'all come in here with your hearts bleedin' all over the floor about slum kids and injustice, you listen to some fairy tales... Suddenly, you start gettin' through to some of these old ladies. Well, you're not getting through to me, I've had enough.
I still think that the kid's guilty. I don’t understand you people. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how those people lie.
Hey look. Juror 8 all convinced us I'm sorry but there's a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Juror #8 is the open minded man who doesn’t just go with the crowd. He is not afraid to express his opinion and is not easily intimidated. Juror #8 stands his ground and has a talent for convincing others to see his view. Juror #8 is not biased or racist and speaks with the air of someone who knows what they are talking about. Throughout the deliberation, Juror #8 backed up his points with intelligent questions and evidence. This is a juror who is not easily swayed by others and is very firm in his position. He is calm in difficult situations, very smart, and notices details that other jurors don't pick up on. Some words to describe him are intelligent, thoughtful, unswayed, and logical.
lives in New York, NY
"The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it."
“Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”
Birth date: May 17
Birth year: 1911
Birth place: New York, NY
Work and Education
Graduate: Barnard College
Ethnicity: White American
Backgroud: married man with two kids. He lives in New York.
Juror 3, Juror 10.