Prepared by:Parul Jain ( Roll no: 61)Prateek Gautam ( Roll no: Rajat Das ( Roll no: )Ramendra Goel ( Roll no: )Mohd. Rizwan Khan ( Roll no: )Kahan Gupta ( Roll no: )

Focuses on a jury’s deliberation where a 19 year old is on a trial for the murder of his father

Defendant- has a criminal record and circumstantial evidence

Defendant, if found guilty- would be sentenced a death penalty

11 of the 12 jurors cast “guilty” and only 1 juror cast “not guilty” as his vote

Juror 8 is the protagonist of the play and guides all others towards a verdict of “not guilty”

A 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city’s commuter train passed by.

An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell “I’ll kill you!” followed by a “thump” on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away.

Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder.

Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movie theatre at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the name of the film.

Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade the others. Here are some of the observations:

The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy’s voice while the train was passing by.

Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant’s neighborhood.

Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen.

The 45 year old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness

He is a small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. He is not overly bright, but dogged

Juror #1: Martin Balsam

He is a meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. He is easily swayed and usually adopts the opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken

Juror #2: by John Fiedler

Juror #3: Lee J. Cobb

He is a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a steak of sadism. Also, he is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.

He seems to be a man of wealth and position, and a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case and he is appalled with the behavior of the others.

Juror #4: E. G. Marshall

Juror #5: Jack Klugman

He is a naïve, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.

Juror #6: Edward Binns

He is an honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. He is a man who finds it difficult to create positive opinion, but who must listed to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most.

He is a loud, flashy, glad-handed sales-man type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper and equally quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. He is a bully, and, of course, a coward.

He is a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man– a man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. He is a man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done, and will fight to see that it is.

He is a mild, gentle old man, long since defeated by life, and now merely waiting to die. He recognizes himself for what he is, and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.

Juror #7: Jack Warden Juror #8: Henry Fonda Juror #9: Joseph Sweeney

He is an angry, bitter man– a man who antagonizes almost at sight. He is also a bigot (racist) who places no values on any human life save his own. Here is a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.

He is a refugee from Europe. He speaks with an accent and is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around him. He will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice.

He is a slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls, and has no real understanding of people. He is a superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow.

Juror #10: Ed Begley Juror # 11: George Voskovek Juror #12 Robert Webber

Group Think: At the Initial Stage of Movie we can see how thinking of majority influenced the decision of whole group.

Leadership: Henry Fonda shown the emergence of a leader who doesn’t not fear of rejection. He was Alone: physically and mentally and the only juror voting not-guilty which means he was going against the norm. He sucessesfully managed the conflicts and finally succeeded in convincing the whole group.

Bureaucratic Approach: Judge and foreman had bureaucratic point-of-view

Minority Effect: Minorities face a social influence challenge. They have relatively few members. Here, Fonda (minority) alone influenced the thinking of whole group.

Perceptual set: Thinking of Group that since boy belongs to slum area which is a place of criminals, boy must also be a criminal and killed his father.

Perceptual defense: 11 jurors think that boy is guilty without any justification. They defended their perceptual set by saying that boy is from slum area and it’s a birth place of criminals.

Autocratic Approach: Juror #3 & #7 had aggressive behavior & autocratic approach and wanted to convince everyone forcefully that the boy is guilty of killing his father

Biasness: Juror# 3, had problem with his own son, who left him. This made him think all sons can do same with their father. This thinking made him biased while taking decision and he was trying to prove that boy is guilty, forcefully.

Stereotyping: Jurors belong to different professions , thinking, values & race. Individuals were targeted on behalf of these characteristics. For ex, one Jury member who belongs to slum area was targeted indirectly during the discussion on characteristics of people from slum areas.

Confrontation: At the end of the movie 11 jurors confronted that Fonda was right and this lead to an effective decision making. This is the most important characteristics of a group.

Though the movie highlighted conflict in a group but finally ended with a fair decision

Expect few aggressive incidents, it may not be wrong to say that movie followed Tuckman’s stages of group development

Forming--- Storming--- Norming--- Performing

Thank you