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 5
Transcript of 12 Angry Men, Juror 5
Juror 5 is a respectful young man, but is shy and does not speak very much while the other jurors are talking. Quiet as he may be, he can be quite sensitive when it comes to personal matters and knows to speak up when he has something to say.
Although Juror 5 does not have a big personality everyone can remember, he did bring up a good point for the other jurors to think about. In Act III while the jurors are discussing the murder scene, Juror 5 suddenly realizes that the position of the switch knife is strange. Because of his knowledge of knife usage, due to living in a poor, violent neighborhood, he informs the other jurors that switch knives are normally used underhand, instead of overhand, like how the stabbing was done. Also in Act III when Juror 10 begins his racist talk, Juror 5 is the first to start the movement of turning his back on Juror 10. In Act II Juror 3 accused Juror 5 of changing his vote to not guilty after seeing his abrupt anger at Juror 10’s comments about how the slums are “…breeding grounds for criminals”. The other jurors do not seem to mind him very much.
Readers or viewers will be able to relate to Juror 5 because of his sensitivity of being stereotyped, as many people in this world are. He also isn’t as temperamental as much as the other jurors, which makes him more likable and easier to understand.
Identification Number: 555-555-555
“I’ve lived in a slum all my life…I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me…There is something personal!”
“ I was going to tell you, but you were so sure of yourself.”
After the trial, the Foreman led the other eleven jurors, including myself, into a small room. All the evidence pointed to the boy being guilty, so I voted “guilty” for the first vote, I mean, that’s what everyone else thought, too. Well, except for Juror 8. While trying to convince Juror 8, Juror 10 kept saying things like, “I don’t want any part of them,” offending me about my origins. However, even with the insults, I still voted “guilty” for the second vote. After all, I still thought the boy was guilty and just because of a few insults I wasn’t going to let a murderer out into the streets.
A couple of jurors were outraged and started yelling at me, asking why I changed my vote. But soon, Juror 9 confessed that he had, in fact, changed his vote. And, although Juror 3 apologized, I didn’t accept it, because he didn’t mean it, but it’s not like anybody noticed. Later, Juror 8 started to ask me questions about the slums, and since I’ve lived there, I felt very helpful. Soon, I realized that the boy was actually innocent, so I changed my vote to “not guilty,” changing the vote to 9-3, in favor of guilty. Then, they decided to bring in a diagram of the apartment because nobody remembered exactly where each apartment was specifically. After it was brought in, Juror 8 quickly proved that it was impossible for the old man to get up, go into the hall, go down the hall to the front door, open it, and look out, all within 15 seconds, by reenacting the scene, while Juror 2 timed it. Then Juror 3 said that when a person says they’ll kill someone, they mean it. However, he later got angry and shouts “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” making this own words backfire.
The guard came in after hearing the yelling, but quickly left, as the Foreman said that there was nothing wrong. As the arguing simmered down, Juror 11 reminded us that we are lucky to have even been able to decide the fate of the accused as a jury of twelve. We, then, had another vote to see where we were, in an open ballot, to Juror 3’s request. The Foreman, and Jurors 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 voted “guilty,” while Jurors 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and I voted “not guilty,” making the vote 6-6. After some more arguing, we decided to vote whether we are a hung jury, or not. And even on this, there was a 6-6 vote. However, Juror 4 decided he wanted to hear why the other jurors believe that the boy is not guilty, and changed his vote to “no, we are not a hung jury.” Then, Juror 4 started to talk about how the old man could’ve been wrong about just the timing, and then went on to the reconstruct the crime scene, which was 29.5 seconds, and if you add the time to climb down the staircase, it was definitely possible for the man to have seen the boy. This made me change my mind, swinging back towards “guilty.” I knew I was right the first time. Juror 8 asks me if I’ve ever seen a knife fight and flashes of dark streets, the glint of knives in the moonlight, dark shadows, and blood run through my mind.
33 years old
"12 Angry Men - GGCA English." GGCA English. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.
Karm, Bob. " ." JACK KLUGMAN ~ 89 YEARS OLD TODAY. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.
"Lebeau's Le Blog." Lebeaus Le Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.
"Out of the Past ~ A Classic Film Blog: I Heart Jack Klugman ~ 12 Angry Men (1957)." Out of the Past ~ A Classic Film Blog: I Heart Jack Klugman ~ 12 Angry Men (1957). N.p., n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.
Rose, Reginald, and Sherman L. Sergel. Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts. Chicago: Dramatic Pub., 1983. 21. Print.
Rose, Reginald, and Sherman L. Sergel. Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts. Chicago: Dramatic Pub., 1983. 28. Print.
Then, it dawns on me that an experienced knife fighter would never use a switch knife downward, but rather underhanded, so I tell him that, while I demonstrate with the switch knife that had been handed to me earlier. It was then that Juror 8 posed a curious question: “Is the kid smart or is the kid dumb?” He soon explains that at the moment of murder, which would have taken great hatred, the boy should have handled the switch knife as best as possible, but he handled it as an inexperienced knife fighter would, while he still remembered to wipe the fingerprints off, and even wait until an el train passed by. All the while, the boy was still dumb enough to do everything he could to associate himself with the switch knife. This caused me definite and final doubt and made me sure that the boy was not guilty. Soon, it was 9-3, in favor of “not guilty,” leaving only Jurors 3, 4, and 10 for “guilty.” Juror 10 starts to rant on about his beliefs, as the bigot he is. I became impatient with his racist comments and stood up and turned my back on him with several other jurors following me as well. However Juror 10 stopped when Juror 4 stared him down and threatened to split his skull. Soon, the woman across the street’s testimony is also proven wrong and thrown out, causing Jurors 4 and 10 to believe that the boy is not guilty, leaving Juror 3 all alone. Everybody walks out, except for Jurors 3 and 8, and in a few moments I hear Juror 3 say loud and clear, “Not guilty!”
One night at the age of five, Bart woke up to the sound of yelling, which wasn't unusual in the neighborhood he lived in. Right when he looked out the window, he saw the horrifying sight of his father being stabbed repeatedly by a stranger until his father fell to the ground dead. After the incident, Bart's mother never remarried and instead took various jobs in order to feed Bart and his older and younger siblings. Bart dropped out of high school to help raise money for his family after his mother was in an accident and was crippled, therefore no longer able to make any money. At the age of seventeen he and his family members moved to New York City in hopes of finding a better life there. He lived there for the rest of his life and now has a job as a garbage man.
By Jennifer Hwang and Chuan Nitta