Juror Two

All the evidence given in court definitely makes this obvious. The boy is guilty, I… I mean, well, two witnesses saw him kill his father. The woman saw it. Well, she saw it through the el train, but she did see it. I don’t think she would lie right? Maybe it wasn’t exactly clear, but she claims to have recognized the boy… and… and the old man who heard the boy. He says the boy shouted “I’ll kill you!” then heard the body fall. He even saw the boy running down the stairs fifteen seconds after he heard the body fall. I think those two testimonies prove his guilt… its obvious isn’t it? We timed it, and it took more than thirty seconds. The old man was wrong right? He said only fifteen, but it took almost forty seconds. He must be wrong…. There’s no way he could have seen the boy run down the stairs. I don’t know, but I’m beginning to agree with Juror Eight. I… I think I’m going to change my vote. Juror Eight has made a lot of good points so far. What he says makes sense. Plus, the old man was wrong… he claimed to have taken fifteen seconds, when it was probably nearly forty seconds!

Juror 12, Act 2

 

            I can’t believe I am stuck in this room for this long. I am missing so much business. These people just do not understand what it is like to be as successful as I am. Juror 8 is trying to make things as slow as possible on purpose. Eleven people knew the kid was guilty and he took it upon himself to change all of that. Well as of right now, he is not changing my mind. The old man heard it and the women saw it. I don’t see what more anyone could ask for in a murder case. There was some talk about a knife, but that was a waste of time. It doesn’t prove anything. These jurors wouldn’t last one day in the advertising business. They can’t even make a simple decision. This whole mess is a waste of time and I’m losing money by not being at work. I try to say what I know to be right when I get a chance, but most of these guys are too stubborn to listen. Well, they are surely wasting their time trying to change my mind. Unless someone can come up with the best evidence ever presented, I’m sticking with guilty. 

Juror 7 Act #2

The boy is guilty. There is nothing you can do to change my mind. I do not really care what happens the boy I just want to get out of my dumb jury duty. Now if Juror eight wants to find all of the evidence in the world and try to declare the boy guilty he can do it, just without me. Juror three though is going a little overboard with trying the get out of here. Now I want to get out of here as fast as I can, but Juror three is just going to the extreme. Like I’m going to kill you dang that a little much for me.
I just think Juror eight is just trying to hard to show that this boy is guilty. One of these other Juror are going to actually kill him. There is nothing wrong with just sending this boy to jail for a while. Besides, I do think that he did kill his dad. I just want everyone to get out of here in one piece. Gosh, this whole Jury thing is just not worth it. This whole thing is getting out of hand. I just want to leave, I have to go to a Broadway show tonight.

Juror 5 Act2

In my view, Juror 8 is ten times more persuasive than the kid’s real lawyer. I mean right now, I’m the most convinced that the boy didn’t do it since the trial began. If I were the kid I’d hire a new lawyer immediately, he might as well plead his on case.

This is such a tough decision for me. I can sort of see where the kid is coming from. No! He didn’t grow up in the greatest of neighborhoods, but that is definitely no reason to sentence him to death. I’m not completely convinced by either side of this argument, Juror 8 has made some really good points on his innocence in this trial, but at the same time we have and old woman saying that she witnessed the murder! Both arguments are almost equal with me at the moment.

If I absolutely do have to choose a side, I plead…not guilty. I am not about to take a young boy, not even over the age of 20’s life because of a majority of the party is saying he is guilty. Before I sentence someone to the death penalty I want 100% authority that the facts/evidence is correct.

Juror Six Act Two

As I see it, this argument is being won by Juror Eight. He’s really fighting for this kids life. I actually admire that about him. His determination is very strong and inspiring.

Well, I don’t know about this Juror Three guy. All he’s saying is gibberish that doesn’t prove a thing. Then again, he has had his moments of telling what we want to hear. But he’s depending on Four to much. Just because Four is on his side still, doesn’t mean he has to give all the logical points! Three just can’t think on his own.

The case points that attracted me most was how Eight got so technical with the proved time that the man got to the door, compared to what the old man really said. An old geezer like himself couldn’t have gotten to the door from his bedroom is fifteen seconds. It’s just not possible. Even if you say adrenaline was in him, I dont think he could have reached the door to see the boy running. Fifteen seconds sounds more like a young man that ran to the door, instead of an 8o+ year old. He must have lied on court just to get attention from the press, which is a horrible choice if I do say so myself. And, even if he did get up, he wouldn’t have been able to hear the boy scream since the el train passed by the old man. I’m barely able to hear anything when those things go by.

Maybe I should change my vote. It sounds like the right thing to do at this point. Everything that Eight has proved adds up perfectly with the boys testimony. Three still thinks otherwise, but that’s his choice.

At first I completely and fully believed…

At first I completely and fully believed that the boy was guilty. I thought that this case took barely any thought at all. The boy said that on the night of the killing he was at the movies, yet he didn’t have a ticket stub, no one remembers he was there and the boy himself did not even remember what movie he saw! And the old man, that should have been the case closer! In his testimony, which he swore to, he said he heard the boy from the above floor yell, “I’m gonna kill you!” and even said he saw the boy running down the stairs!

But then Juror 8 brought up an interesting point. He mentioned that in his testimony the old man stated that it took him fifteen seconds to get from his bed, to the door of his apartment, and to get to the end of the hall. This was a distance of roughly forty feet. But Juror 8 brought up the question, how could an old man who has had two strokes and walks on two canes walk that distance in fifteen seconds.

Juror 8 set up an example of this walk and we had one of the other jurors time him as he slowly walked the distance at approximately the speed at which the old man would have been walking and it took him thirty-nine seconds! Thirty-nine seconds! Thirty-nine! Juror 8 may have been a little bit off on the speed that the old cripple moved at—but twenty-four seconds off…I just don’t know anymore. At first I was sure that the kid was guilty, but now…I’m not so sure anymore.

Juror Three Act Two

This is perhaps the biggest waste of time I’ve ever seen.  I mean, with all the witnesses there, it seems obvious that the kid should be sent straight to the chair, but this Juror Eight has to force us to stop and make us listen about this kid’s poor life in a slum.  Please!  That’s perhaps the greatest evidence there is!  He grew up in a place where criminals make their own laws!  Then there was the old man who heard the boy and the body fall, and the woman on the el train who actually saw the kid stab his father.  This kid even had previous trouble with the police for mugging!  Everything is pointing towards guilty, but Juror Eight just has to go over everything else again!  I’ve got better things to do than listen to a case that should have ended five days ago.

 

Okay, so maybe the old man said what he said to get a little attention.  I doubt that.  Of all the displays of dishonesty, that would be tops in my book.  Also, Juror Eight was way off when he attempted to imitate him going to his door.  He moved way faster than that!  When you hear somebody scream “I’m going to kill you” you’re going to move fast!  What makes that phrase different than when somebody uses it in every day life?  A man was murdered!  Hello?!  We have to stop this kid now, otherwise we’ll be letting a dangerous, deranged killer walk the streets!

Act 2

           Seriously?  This Juror 8 guy is driving me up the freaking wall!  Who does he think he is?  The kid is just plain guilty!  All of this evidence gets shoved up into his face, and he has the nerve to throw it all back!  You have to be kidding me!  All of these bogus arguments make me sick.  Do you want some arguments?  I’ll show you some!

 

            So what if the old man said it took fifteen seconds to get out of his door and down the hallway?  He heard a scream!  When someone’s adrenaline is pumping, their perception of time changes.  The old man had never experienced anything like that in his life.  What must have taken him “thirty-nine seconds”, as the gracious Juror 8 “proved”, might have felt like fifteen to him!  If he swore he saw the kid, he did.  He was under oath, for Pete’s sake!

 

             Don’t get me started on this whole movie theater thing.  First of all, no one even saw him there!  To make it even better, he didn’t even remember the name of the movie he saw!  You think that when you are on trial for your life, you would be able to remember the name of the movie you “sneaked”, according Juror 8’s theory, into.  Oh, and how his knife “fell out of his pocket”?  What a load of baloney!  It take a lot of pressure to push a knife out of a tight pocket.  He would had been trying to make it fall out.  That is one of the most lamest excuses I have ever heard!

 

            Now, Juror 8 says that the boy is “clever.”  How clever can an abused kid who lives in the slums be?  Again, Juror 8 says that he sneaks into theaters.  How clever can you be to sneak into theaters!  That’s just immoral!  If you are immoral enough to do that, you could be immoral enough to kill a man.  Also, if you can’t even remember the name of the movie you saw, you have to be pretty darn dumb!

 

            There you have it.  All of the most incriminating evidence in the whole world.  If this doesn’t downright convince you, I don’t know what will.  How do you like that, Juror 8?

Juror 4

If there was anything going for this man, I would change my vote to not guilty. Unfortunately, I’ve been convinced that this is a crime he committed. From the beginning, the evidence points to his guilt. First off, he couldn’t even recall which picture he saw the night of the murder, and no one at the theater could remember him. One of the most convincing testimonies is that of the woman across the street—the woman remembers every detail, up to the specific cars she saw the murder through. I would say that’s some pretty unshakable evidence. Some of Juror 8’s points have been interesting, to say the least, but I can’t say they’ve been convincing enough. I’m a little perturbed by the attitudes of the other jurors. Though I do agree with several of them on the guilt of the defendant, their lack of justification for their arguments simply make them look silly. The whole point of a jury is to use the facts to come to a conclusion, not to use personal emotions and stereotypes to do so. Nevertheless, I still maintain my stand on the case. For example, Juror 8’s argument that the old man wouldn’t have heard the scream over the el train just doesn’t hold up with me. The el train moves straight past the window and makes a low, rumbling noise. It only screeches when it goes around turns, so the old man could have heard the high-pitched scream clearly. Again, if I could find a significant and reasonable doubt, I would acquit him, but so far I haven’t found any.

Foreman Act 2

I believe the kid is not guilty.  With all of Juror 8’s logic and reasoning, he’s starting to convince me, and some of the other jurors I believe.  All I can say is that Juror 8 should be a lawyer.  He has brought out points of interest and importance that were unheard of during the actual trial.  I feel as if my integrity is on trial as he reasons and pleads for this boy’s life with us. 

 

The solution seems simple.  The boy came up with a cruddy alibi, and can’t keep his story straight. He must be lying!  But wait, lets take a closer look.  The boy is a restless, but bright youth who is too smart do something such as yell for the world to hear that he’s “Going to kill” his father.  According to the old man’s story, the old man was able to hear the boy yell “I’m going to kill you!” and get to his door in a matter of seconds to see the boy run away.  A man who has had two strokes in the last three years and used canes to walk couldn’t have been able to get to the door of his apartment that quickly. 

 

I wish I could express my ideas more freely, but I don’t want Juror 3 to jump down my throat.  My main job is to maintain the peace and balance here in the jury room.  A boy’s life is at stake, and I believe there is a reasonable doubt.  In my opinion, the boy is not guilty.

Juror Nine Act 2

I must say, changing my vote to “not guilty” turned the case around. I just had this feeling, down in my gut, that this kid wasn’t guilty. The facts just didn’t add up.The verdict of this case is up to us and I am taking the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” aspect seriously.

I don’t believe that the old man heard the boy scream “I’m going to kill you.” As old age is thrust upon us, our hearing goes. When I just take a train, the noise is loud. I can never concentrate on reading my paper. There is no way that old man, with bad hearing no doubt, heard the boy yell. On the other hand, I can understand if he convinced himself he heard it. I myself have been there once or twice. I have bad the mistake when talking to my colleagues, and I can still swear to this day that they said something unappealing. When I have asked them if they said it they have no idea what I’m talking about. Then there is the whole time issue of him running to the door. With a cane under 15 seconds, someone had to even help him into his seat in during the trial. The trial is coming along I believe. But I am NOT changing my mind on the boy being not guilty. Me changing my vote I think opened a few doors.

Juror 9 Act 1

 

Juror 9 is a polite man. He doesn’t say much, but when he does it is never to offend anyone. Juror 9 in a way is like an old conservative man. He talks slowly and doesn’t speak too much. He usually doesn’t try to cause a difficulty and seems to always say the right thing.  

The author gets straight to the point at the beginning on of the story to show that Juror Nine is polite. Juror Seven asks “ Chewing gum? Gum? Gum?”

Juror Nine simply replies with a “Thank you, but no” while Juror Two and Twelve shake their heads. It may not seem like a big deal but a “Thank You” can go a long way.

Juror Nine when everyone was talking about the weather, in the beginning of the act, made a simple statement “Yes, it’s hot.” Even though it’s a three word statement, Juror was doing the polite thing to take part in the current conversation.

 

Conservative old men stick by their morals, and don’t like to listen to others opinions. An unusually situation when Juror Nine did cause a little difficulty was when Juror Ten stated that the boy was given a fair trial and that they didn’t owe him anything. He also stated that the group can’t and shouldn’t believe a word the boy said. Juror ten very slowly replied “..what a terrible thing for a man to believe! Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic? You have no monopoly on the truth!” Juror Nine was frustrated at Juror Nines opinion and he didn’t want to take it. He thought that what that man said was dangerous. Juror Eight actually had to stop Juror Nine from ranting and remind him to relax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juror 5 act one

Juror 5 is a very quiet man. He doesn’t speak up much, because I think he is scared about what the other jurors will say about his opinion. Juror 5 is also very quiet because when it is his turn to talk about the case he decides to pass up his turn. He seems very secretive about his life, because he is offended very easily. Juror 5 also takes many arguments very personally. He does not seem to have a lot of knowledge about how most other people live outside of his neighborhood, because he hasn’t had any chances to experience any of it.

He is very sensitive person because when juror 10 and juror 4 begin to talk about what a slum the suspect lives in, he gets very offensive. He starts to say that he has lived in a slum all of his life and that he used to play in the backyards filled with garbage, and he gets offended because he finds nothing wrong with this. The other jurors try and calm him down by saying that it is nothing personal, but he responds to them “There is something personal”.

Juror Three

Juror Three is a hardheaded brute.  He doesn’t care about any other person except himself.  His temper is explosive, and his attitude is rude and sadistic.  When others don’t agree with his opinions, he forces his views upon them.  He is also extremely intolerant of his other juror’s opinions.

 

The personality of Juror Three is shown early in act one.  He often butts into other conversations, and he has never (ever!) wavered from his ideas that the kid is guilty of first-degree murder.  Juror Three seems disgusted by Juror Eight’s peaceful attitude, and it seems like Juror Three is willing to go out of his way to convince the other jurors that the kid is totally guilty.  He ignores evidence that the kid is innocent, and continues to rant about his guiltiness.

 

The play never goes for long without Juror Three’s interference.  Several conversations with other jurors are interrupted by Juror Three, interjecting his own opinions.  Being the main antagonist in this play, Juror Three often says negative things about the kid, anyone involved in the case, and his fellow jurors.

 

The playwright shows Juror Three’s lack of control at the end of Act 2.  Juror Eight accuses him of being an animal and a sadist, and that is when Juror Three snaps.  He goes completely berserk, lunging for Juror Eight in order to silence him.  Odds are if the other Jurors did not hold him back, he would have killed him.  Even at the end of Act Three, Juror Three threatens Juror Eight with a switch-knife.

Juror Two

Juror Two is a hesitant and meek man. Juror Two doesn’t speak much, but is easily convinced, and doesn’t really have his own opinion on the trial so far. He can be easily persuaded and sometimes takes another juror’s opinion as his own. Juror Two believes that boy is guilty in the first act, but doesn’t have reasons to back up his opinion. Juror Two shows his personality through his interaction with Juror Eight. When the Foreman asks for Two’s opinion, Two is very nervous about answering first. He states the boy is guilty. When Juror Eight begins to question Juror Two, he becomes unsure of his opinion. He has no major reasons as to why he is voting guilty. Eight explains the Fifth Amendment and Two is immediately flustered. Another aspect of Juror Two’s personality is shown through his interaction with Juror Eleven. Eleven is complaining about the wind blowing on his neck when he closes the window. Other jury members preferred that the window stay open, so they tell eleven to switch seats. Two immediately offers his seat up for Eleven. Juror Two doesn’t talk much throughout Act I, but his hesitant personality is revealed and it is also seen that he is more of a follower than a leader.