ŷ������

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is our January 2023 Short Story/Novella Read.

This discussion will open on January 1

Beware Short Story Discussions will have Spoilers

I ordered a physical copy of this and have it ready to go. I plan on reading this.

I love the film both new and old and have watched countless times. Every time I go to jury duty I think of these films lol, so I definitely try to order this one or find at the local library and chime in.

I'll listen to it after I finish listening to my current non-fiction book. I might have seen the movie, but I remember the synopsis very vaguely

I’m starting it today!

I'm 3/4 through listening to the audiobook which is a recording of the play from a theater production in LA. It has a couple well-known actors in the cast.
Reginald Rose received an Emmy for his teleplay and an Oscar nomination for its feature-length film adaptation. No Tony noms apparently.
Originally 12 Angry Men was a 1954 TV drama/teleplay for the CBS Studio One anthology series, then was put on stage (not Broadway) then made into a well-known movie in '57 starring Henry Fonda and with Lee J. Cobb, which I watched 10 or 20 yrs ago. The movie was nom for best pic Oscar, also director (Lumet) and adapted screenplay- no wins as it was up against Bridge on River Kwai which won many of the Oscars that year.
A 2nd tv production in '98 starred Jack Lemon with George C Scott; both won Emmys along w director Wm Friedkin. James Gandolfini and Ossie Davis are also jurors. All the jurors are men again but the judge is played by a woman (Mary McDonnell)! You can rent this one from Amazon streaming for $6.
The 2004 Broadway revival (1st time on Broadway) was nominated for 3 Tonys, but had no wins.

I have watched two movie versions of the play and have also read the play twice. It is a good if not great showing of character types of men who had survived the war or who then had to cope with being outdated displaced because he had grown old or had not served in the latest world war.

I tend to think rather great show as I have watched/read 4 times :-)

I jumped the gun on this and read it last November when it was nominated. It is excellent. I saw the Henry Fonda movie years ago. Both on screen and in print the story is powerful.

Oh my! I just finished and am overwhelmed, in a positive way! What a good way to begin 2023!!

I'm so glad I finally got to this one! I, like some of you others, listened to the L.A. Theatre Works version, and it was amazing!
What an interesting, compelling, and powerful story. It was so fascinating following the interactions of the men on the jury, with their strong personalities and definite opinions. But how definite are they?

I had always heard of this book and the popular movie versions of it, but had never watched them. Now, I will most certainly watch the movie! I think I'm going for the Henry Fonda 1957 version :)

This one gets 5 stars from me!

Would you have the spine to be the 8th Juror? In the beginning it is him against the whole group.

I am around half way through. I saw the 1997 movie some month ago and will try to find the 1957 after reading.

This is really excellent. I am happy to read it and have the time to see the development in details.

In some ways this is a miniature condensation of society as a whole.

We need people like Juror number 8 for society so work.

People in the play:
* The key intelligence, first movers (8)
* The idiots (3: aggressive, 7: thinks only of himself and his ballgame, 10: racist in the broadest sense) and some borderline idiots (12)
* The rest.

I think the play has an important point that “the rest�� is not just a grey mass of “sheeps��. Juror number 8 would not have been able to do anything without the backing of this group.

I had also seen and loved the Henry Fonda movie version, but really enjoyed reading the play.

As J Blueflower says, I don't think many of us have what it takes to be the 8th juror. My jury experience was very similar to this play, in that I was shocked at how easy it was for some people to judge.

I thought maybe the author was a mystery writer, based on the plot, but no. I'm wondering if I will be able to find any of his other works--they look so interesting. He even wrote an episode of the Twilight Zone!

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Would you have the spine to be the 8th Juror? In the beginning it is him against the whole group."

I dont think in modern day times any prosecutor would put me on that jury. I am adamantly against the death penalty, because of exactly what this play shows us. Without a confession, there is always doubt. Is it reasonable doubt? Often, yes, and the jurors ignore that directive from the judge and vote to execute anyway due to biases and prejudices and “expert witness�� testimony from professionals who are no experts at all. How many stories have we heard of the fairly new DNA testing evidence exonerating people decades after they were sentenced to death row?

In my home state (Mississippi) there was a book written about some quack “medical experts�� —a coroner who did about 5x the number of autopsies per year that is allowed/recommended, and a dentist who helped pioneer the very questionable pseudo science of bite mark evidence. Together, their testimonies sent dozens of people to either death row or a life in prison without parole over many, many years. With DNA testing now, many of those men have been exonerated, some after 20-30 years in prison. Sadly, many of the men ran out of appeal options, so the MS Supreme Court only removed the death penalty and they remain with life in prison. Most of their lives simply lost. The book is The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in the American South if anyone is interested in reading more about this.

Paula W wrote: "....very questionable pseudo science of bite mark evidence."

Huuu?! I just spend 20 minutes reading about bite mark evidence. I had no idea.

Kathleen wrote: ".... I'm wondering if I will be able to find any of his other works-..."

Yes, definitely, for instance Thunder On Sycamore Street "brief story about human rights."

My local library can get me this one: Six Television Plays.

archive.org has it too:


Would it be worth trying to nominate one?

Just finished listening to this book and it is my first read with this fun group!

There is a lot of tension in the jury room, which makes for some great drama and a lot of self-revelation. I found it fascinating that these men learned a lot about themselves and each other during this extended forced time together. It's a good thing that no alcohol was allowed in there or there truly might have been another murder occurring.

I agree that it took a lot of courage for that one juror to start speaking out about his doubts and managing to stay reasonable and calm throughout. The social conformity demanded by the united group was collective bullying.

It felt strange reading about a jury of only one class, sex and race. The ideals of democracy are enunciated without anyone thinking about the power imbalance inherent in the choice of jurors.

Carol, imo I see it differently. After WWII, after men--and women--served in the war, they came back home as changed people and came back to changed country. Business was booming and more business types were needed. We see a salesperson, someone enjoying easier access to spectator sports, another who assumed leadership position due to new circumstances, the old-style distant somewhat elite man being less respected, and the old man no longer young or participant in WWII also being less respected. New types of people are gaining social clout, and old familiar types are losing social clout.

I am so glad to have read this!

I found the writing very powerful and thought it was a marvelous illustration of how the courage of one man can change the course of things. It did take a lot to stand his ground in the beginning, and it was disheartening to think how easily some of these men would have convicted a man to die without so much as considering the evidence against him.

The 1957 movie is excellent, and the movie script is almost word-for-word with the play. It was interesting to me that the young man on trial is 16 in the play, but he is 18 in the movie.

I accidentally read this in the beginning of December and loved it. It shows why the unanimous verdict is important when you're going to take away someone's life or liberty.

A few of us are reading The Ox-Bow Incident this month and I was wishing they needed a unanimous vote instead of majority vote. Making it unanimous helps to keep it from being a team sport with tyranny of the majority.

I agree with Carol that the jury should somewhat reflect the racial makeup of the community in a way that represents both the victim and the accused.

I loved how this brought out the unreliability of "eye witness" testimony. Another important point was bringing up the incompetence/or lack of resources with the public defender.

I've never been called to serve on a jury even though I was registered to vote as soon as I was able. I have friends who've been called many times. They never wanted to be called and I always wanted to. I've been told by others in my profession that they usually use their exclusions on people in my profession anyway. I do think I could have been one of those who would stand up. In fact, even if I agreed with all the others originally, I'd be a hold out to force at least some debate. I would have to go over the evidence close up.

I may be coming to a better understanding of what Carol says.

The play describes new hopes and developments in our society post-WWII. There is now some hope that black folks will enjoy better civil rights. From 1952 to1954 were the years The US Supreme Court heard and considered the case of Brown v Board of Education. 1954 was the year this play was broadcast in national network television.

I like this a lot. It is really a high intellectual level play, displaying all sorts of group dynamics and faulty thinking.

The only thing I am no too happy about is how fast Juror 3 gives in. Would he really admit being wrong about anything at all? I don’t think he is actually listening to any of the arguments made. He is busy attacking �� not number 8 �� but who ever appears to be the weakest on the other side.

I have seen the 1957 and 1997 movie. I don’t prefer one from the other. Both made some slight changes. The 1957 movie have Juror 3 talk about his son, “how he made a man of him�� and how they haven’t spoken for 2 years. We see him looking at a picture twice. Feels out of character and artificially added on to anticipate the ending. The 1997 movie introduced a few black persons. Unfortunately they introduced one of them as Juror number 10 �� the racist.

Juror #10: The kid's a punk, he don't even speak good English!
Juror #11: He doesn't even speak good English

Cynda wrote: "Carol, imo I see it differently. After WWII, after men--and women--served in the war, they came back home as changed people and came back to changed country. Business was booming and more business ..."

Thanks so much for your comments, Cynda! I find it very exciting to be part of a discussion. I feel like I've been reading in a vacuum for a very long time and also that I don't choose books that challenge me very much! I'm glad to find this group!

I don't know that much about the post WWII U.S., so my comments are not sufficiently historically contextualized. It is easy to forget the social context of a book when so many years have passed, and your understanding of the history is only partial. I took an American history course once, but that was a very long time ago! So, I appreciate your comments.

I liked how the story was also about self-revelation and bias. We become acquainted with each juror, bit by bit, as they reveal their own histories, experiences and viewpoints.
Also, I felt the suffocating feeling inside that room, with open doors only to washrooms. I was reminded of "No Exit," a bit, except that these characters had a purpose for being closed in together.

I admire you, Sue, for wanting to participate in a jury situation! I would dread it for many reasons, but I'm also in a profession that is not usually picked for juries.

The weeping juror at the end was pretty effective also. It was a great read!

Thanks for everyone's comments!

I'm just starting "A Confederacy Of Dunces" which is an incredibly unusual book!

I'm so glad Sue pointed out the unreliability of the eye witness account, and the sorry defense the boy received. This story shows why the jury system can be so good, that it can be a way to expose those faults using humanity and common sense.

I also love what Carol says about the suffocating feeling in the jury room. I remember this from my jury experience. During the trial, you feel set apart and anonymous. You're just observing. But in that room, around that table where you have to look the other jurors in the face, you are exposed. I've only done it once but it was an awesome experience--in the real sense of the word.

Carol wrote: "Cynda wrote: "Carol, imo I see it differently. After WWII, after men--and women--served in the war, they came back home as changed people and came back to changed country. Business was booming and ..."

Now as I get older, I don't really want to be on a jury.

No, Sue, me either. The responsibility is too great.

Kathleen wrote: "I'm so glad Sue pointed out the unreliability of the eye witness account, and the sorry defense the boy received. This story shows why the jury system can be so good, that it can be a way to expose..."

I agree, Kathleen about how this shows that the jury system can be so good. It often is, but they do get it wrong sometimes. Now if we could only fix the imbalance in representation.

I’m working on this one now and can’t wait to join this lively discussion! I’ll be back to read through everyone’s comments.

Sara wrote: " It was interesting to me that the young man on trial is 16 in the play, but he is 18 in the movie. ..."

I have only served on one jury, oddly it was a murder trial. The victim was a 16-year-old boy, and the accused boy was 18 or 19. I have always thought it strange that I was seated on a jury involving people so close to my own age. If you think about being judged by your peers, I was closer than any other member, I like them was male and at the time only 20 years old, no one else was close.

It was a sobering and nerve-racking experience. The books depiction of the tension in the jury room is spot on. Or opinions on guilt or innocence were not as one sided as in the book but were not at first unanimous. It took time and discussion of the evidence to decide.

Bob wrote: "Sara wrote: " It was interesting to me that the young man on trial is 16 in the play, but he is 18 in the movie. ..."

I have only served on one jury, oddly it was a murder trial. The victim was a ..."

Wow, what a first trial to get when you were so young, Bob. That would be a nerve-racking experience.

Cynda wrote: "No, Sue, me either. The responsibility is too great."

exactly, Cynda. When you're young you don't worry about that as much. Well until you're there like Bob was!

A few here have alluded to the different types of people on the jury. That's what I found most interesting. I talk about this a little more in my review, but I felt like Rose was giving us a kind of spectrum of skepticism. Number eight is the most skeptical. And then the flagrantly racist brute guy is the least skeptical. Then Rose lays out a spectrum of types in between. I haven't gone as far though as delineating all the types.

I will give a try. I saw the 1957-movie after reading the play, so if there are any differences, it may be because of that:

Foreman: Responsible, organised. Doesn’t actually argue that much (?)
2: Shy to begin with. Warms up during the discussion when he discovers he is “allowed�� to ask questions.
3: 100% biased. Aggressive denial. Completely blind to any argument. Attacking the weakest person on the other side rather than number 8 or the argument.
4: Stand alone strong. Focused on a single observation. Sticks with it until it is proven unreliable.
5: Feels personally attacked both due to his background and early wish to vote “not guilty��.
6: ??
7: 100% super egoist who just doesn’t care about the case or responsibility. It is all about getting out on time for the baseball game. For that reason votes with the majority.
8: Seeks the actual truth.
9: Thoughtful and a good listener. Notice he switch vote out of compassion with 8.
10: Racist. The boy is guilty because his is one of “them��.
11: Argue from rights and rules.
12: Not too bright. Is not concentrating on the case but his work.

What's so interesting about these types to me is that in all their diversity, there are two common threads. One is how easily they conform to the dominant voice. I think we all know how true this is in real life. But at the same time, we see minds can be changed.

It is depressing to think about what sheep we are. And you could argue that most of humanity's problems aren't fixed because it's hot in the room and we just want to get home.

So I found both hopeful and discouraging things in this story.

OMG, Bob. What a huge responsibility to take on at such a young age. I'm sure your perspective on juries changes when you have actually served on one, as some of you have done.

I also found hope and despair in this play, but Rose tips the balance to hope. I don't mean to discuss a different read here, but I coupled this with The Ox-Bow Incident, and I am having a very hard time not comparing the two outcomes and the different statements they make. So much hinges on the individual, who any one person is. Everything could have gone differently for this boy if Juror #8 had simply been replaced with another Juror #7 or #10. We ought to always try to remember that everything might hinge on us.

Paula W wrote: "J_BlueFlower wrote: "Would you have the spine to be the 8th Juror? In the beginning it is him against the whole group."

I dont think in modern day times any prosecutor would put me on that jury. I..."

Wow Paula, that story of what happened historically in Misissippi is really horrifying!!

I have served on juries a few times . . . thank God not murder trials, but it has struck me each time how it could have gone a different way with one different juror or with something slightly different. I think often juries do get things right, but the element of happenstance is disconcerting since the consequences are so vast and life-altering.

The last time I served, several jurors had misunderstood something so we had to get the transcript. After reading it again, most jurors flipped sides. It kind of freaked me out . . . what if that one juror had not requested the transcript? The public defender in that trial was quite bad at his job, and that also worries me. There's such a difference in quality of lawyers based on what people can afford.

I loved the play when I saw it on stage, and I hope to join everyone in reading it soon.

What you’ve said, Sara, to remember that everything could hinge on us if we are in this situation being on a jury, is what is so scary to me. I’ve never been on a jury although I was called but it was resolved prior. It is such an intimidating atmosphere (just from my perceptions) and I’m afraid I’d be so nervous about it. I’m not envious at all of those who have served especially on a murder trial, Bob!

I read the play in High School, longer ago than I like to think. I'm not sure whether it influenced my experiences on jury duty:, but I suspect it did.

Digression for those who without experience who may be interested in how a jury can function:.

One of the trials hinged on a question of official bias, but not racial bias per se. Just people seeing what they had been taught to expect.

Police officers called to an accident in a beach parking lot had observed that one of the drivers seemed to have had a couple of beers, and wrote up a report showing that he had caused the accident by driving the wrong way. Complete with a diagram, which was necessarily offered in evidence.

They admitted that this conclusion was in accordance with their training: They had been taught that drunk drivers are a major cause of accidents. This is a statistical truth, but not necessarily valid in any given case, even if one of the drivers was in fact drunk at the time.

And it didn't agree with the eyewitness account of the collision by the parking lot attendant, who had called them to the scene because he smelled beer on one of the drivers.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, the police insisted on the stand that their written report was accurate (you can get into big trouble for filing an inaccurate report).

The defense brought in the city employee who painted the lot, and he pointed out that the police diagram showed the lot with two entrances but no exit! He wasn't an eyewitness to the accident, but he was sure that if he had ever made that mistake, he would have been in serious trouble with his superiors, and might have lost his job.

For many of the jurors, this fatally damaged the reliability of the rest of the police testimony. Especially because it was clear that the other driver must have been going the wrong way, and caused the accident, ramming a car in the exit lane, as the parking lot attendant indeed testified.

It was clear to all of us that the original charge was bogus. He did not cause an accident "while driving on other than a public highway." in addition to driving while intoxicated. Which all sounds very serious.

Part of it had been withdrawn by the prosecution before trial, and we only learned of it because the report was part of the record.

In this instance we split on whether the police testimony that driver charged was legally intoxicated still could be accepted, or was another case of filling in the blanks with what was expected to be the case, and deadlocked.

Some of us wanted to trust the breathalyzer test, but during the trial there had been problems with the metal detectors in the courthouse giving false readings, resulting in people being checked for weapons. And one of the jurors made a living testing equipment for an aerospace firm, and was unimpressed by the reliability of breathalyzers in the hands of poorly or untrained personnel, like the typical police officer.

All of this really shouldn't have been considered by us as evidence, but some of us couldn't edit our memories, or"un-hear" something once it had been spoken.

Very interesting, Ian.

It is always so much more complicated than it might seem in the court room. A slick lawyer can turn evidence his own way sometimes. It is bad any time, but even more so when a life hangs in the balance. It is the best argument we have for no death penalty. Even an eye witness, which was one of the key elements in this story, can be wrong, confused or lying. I don't think Rose was saying it could be a perfect system, but I do think he was saying "take it seriously" and do your part.

I wish to thank whoever nominated this. I had seen a film version years ago but hadn't realized the depth of the writing. Rose manages to layer a lot of complex potential interpretations in this piece while maintaining a simplified melodramatic approach that would maximize viewership. I like how the focus is on definition of what it is the juror's are supposed to determine and the method upon which they are to arrive at a decision rather than the guilt or innocence of the individual.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "I will give a try. I saw the 1957-movie after reading the play, so if there are any differences, it may be because of that:

Foreman: Responsible, organised. Doesn’t actually argue that much (?)
2:..."

This is just a marvelous breakdown, J_Blueflower! I sensed that Rose might have been doing this but was too lazy to tease it out. Looking at your list, I can almost imagine Rose very deliberately having these personality types in his head. Probably at some point as he was revising and expanding earlier drafts he thought through each character very objectively and asked himself how they would react to this or that conflict among the men. Thanks for giving it so much thought.

I read the first third of the play tonight, and aside from the things others have already mentioned, one other thing struck me. When juror #8 goes on his own into the neighborhood and finds the duplicate knife to show to the other jury members, that's technically grounds for a mistrial I think. Jurors aren't allowed to investigate on their own and are supposed to rely solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. In fact, I remember we were strictly instructed not to do that kind of thing each of the times I was put on a jury. Juror #8 is definitely breaking the rules here, even though it's in the service of the truth and he might have prevented a terrible injustice by doing it.

But that got me thinking . . . in cases like this where the police and public defender are too overwhelmed with other cases or too distracted to seek out the proper information, things sort of fall apart. Here, the prosecutor presented the idea that the knife was unique based on the knife seller's testimony, but the public defender didn't have the attention or wherewithal to figure out if that was actually the case. I suppose in an advocate-based system, there will always be the problem of what happens when one side or the other has an incompetent or inadequate advocate. But it's a bit disturbing nevertheless.

John Dishwasher wrote: "This is just a marvelous breakdown, J_Blueflower! "

Thank you. I completely agree that Rose had these personality types in his head. Just look at there first line where the “introduce�� themselves:

7TH JUROR [to the 2ND JUROR]: This better be fast. I got tickets to a ball game tonight.

12TH JUROR: Mmm? Oh. [He holds up the doodle.] It’s one of the products I work on at the ad agency.

10TH JUROR [interrupting]: Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.

Greg wrote: " I remember we were strictly instructed not to do that kind of thing ."

I had no idea. I think it is mentioned in the play that it is illegal to sell that type of knife. It is also a bit funny how long #8 waits before he shows his knife. If it had been me, I would have voted “not guilty�� and right away put it on the table: “For instance, see here....�� But of course the dramatic effect of withholding it was better.

I am very surprised to hear how many of you have served as jury. Is it that common in the US? I had to look it up. In Denmark there are 12,000 “lægdommere�� (that is 0.2% of the population). It is something you actively volunteer for and is paid for when preformed.

Volunteering for jury duty would not be acceptable in the US: it would suggest that someone has an agenda in mind.

In California, for example, potential jurors are picked at random from those who have driver’s licenses or are registered to vote: some categories of people are automatically exempt. You can Google Jury Duty and the name of a state to find the current rules and procedures, which may differ.

Good points, Greg.

J - In the U.S. you are not allowed to volunteer for jury duty, you are called, but there is a minimal compensation for your time. The idea is to have an unprejudiced group (good luck) of strangers hear the case. Any volunteer could have any motive for wanting to sit on the jury. Almost everyone I know has been called to jury duty. I was only called once and literally could not serve at that time. If they called me now, I would be unable to serve, as I am sole caretaker for my husband. I regard serving as a responsibility that should be taken seriously, and I would not beg off without good reason.