12 Angry Men
In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an 18-year-old boy from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening's Yankee game and Juror 10, who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums. Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses and the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade (of which he possesses an identical copy), was "rare." Juror 8 argues that reasonable doubt exists and that he therefore cannot in conscience vote "guilty," but concedes that he has merely hung the jury.
Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain and agrees to change his vote if the others unanimously vote "guilty". The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. An angry Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children. However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the boy tell his father "I'm going to kill you". Then, Juror 5 changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.
Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness's claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor, since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke. An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes, tying the vote at 6–6.
Then, a rainstorm strikes the city, threatening to cancel the game for which Juror 7 has tickets. Juror 4 doubts the boy's alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the boy, who was more than half a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Next, Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of the debate until Juror 7 admits that he truly believes the boy is not guilty. Then, Jurors 12 and 1 change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Juror 10 vents a torrent of condemnation of slum-born people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him, except for Juror 4, who says to him 'sit down and don't open your mouth again' he then humiliatingly sit downs in a corner by himself.
When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8–4.
Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. Other jurors, including Juror 4, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep and points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn't have had time to put them on. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the boy to be guilty. He finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of him and his son, but suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous. Outside, Jurors 8 (Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.
murder