RESPONSIBILITIES OF JURORS

12 Angry Men pre-reading

Pre-Reading Questions

1. What is the role of a jury in a criminal trial?

2. How many jurors must agree in a criminal trial in order to reach a verdict?

3. What other things did you learn about juries and trials from the library assignment you completed yesterday?

Definitions

Jury: a group of 12 people who listen to the details of a case in court and decide whether someone is guilty or not

Prosecutor: lawyer trying to prove that someone is guilty Judge: official in a court of law Defendant: person accused of doing something illegal Plaintiff: person who accuses the defendant Civil case: deals with disputes between organizations or

individuals in which compensation (money) may be awarded to the victim

Criminal case: deals with serious crimes for which the state or federal government provides certain consequences Depending on the offense, consequences may include

execution, jail, government supervision (parole), or fines

The way a jury functions

Founded upon the idea that each juror possesses intelligence, integrity, sound judgment, and complete impartiality (neutrality, no bias)

Differ from members of the public because they have heard all of the evidence concerning a case firsthand and have promised to find a verdict that each one believes to be true

Juror’s job

Sole judge of the facts Determine whether laws were broken based on the

facts Decide upon the believability of the witnesses and

the importance of the witnesses’ testimonies Cannot hesitate to find a person guilty if guilt is

established beyond a reasonable doubt Before the jury makes its decision, the judge

instructs it on the correct “standard of proof”: innocent until proven guilty, suspicion, preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt

Standard 1: Innocent until proven guilty (civil & criminal cases)The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the offense charged

Presumption of innocence goes with the defendant through the entire case This is the reason defendants are said to have “allegedly” committed crimes

Standard 2: Preponderance of evidence (civil cases) Plaintiff in a civil case must prove, by a

preponderance of evidence, that their version of the facts were more likely to occur than the defendant’s version

Leaves more room for doubt than in a criminal case

Jury should find the evidence presented by the plaintiff to be more credible and convincing than the defendant’s

Standard 3: Clear and convincing evidence (criminal & civil) Used in some civil cases Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing

evidence that his/her version of the facts is much more likely to be true than the defendant’s version

Falls between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt

_____________________________________________*When the jurors retire to consider the verdict, the

first task is to select a foreperson Guides the discussion, writes down the verdict,

signs it Participates in the discussion and votes as part of

the jury

Standard 4: Beyond Reasonable Doubt (criminal cases) Definition: Proof that leaves a person firmly

convinced of the defendant’s guilt (and few things are known with absolute certainty) In criminal cases, the law does not require proof

that overcomes every possible doubt If a jury is firmly convinced that the defendant is

guilty of the crime charged, it must find the accused guilty

On the other hand, if the jury thinks there’s a real possibility that he/she is not guilty, the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt and found not guilty

Test Case: Who Stole the Cookies?

The cookies are missing!

With this “crime” in mind, you will look at the evidence on the following slide and

determine which pieces of evidence fit each of the terms below:

General Suspicion Preponderance of evidence Clear and convincing evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt

Who Stole the Cookies?

1. Your 4-year-old brother, Billy, is seen in the kitchen. Suspicion

2. Billy is sitting at the table with a glass of milk and a happy face.

Suspicion3. Billy, with a glass partially full of milk, cookie

crumbs on the table near his glass. Preponderance of evidence

4. Billy, with a glass partially full of milk, crumbs on his shirt and lap.

Clear and convincing evidence5. Same, but you can see the cookie in his mouth.

Beyond a reasonable doubt

12 Angry Men Vocabulary: List #51. Premeditated (adj) –

previously planned

2. Unanimous (adj) – describes a situation where everyone agrees

3. Verdict (n) - a decision as to whether someone is guilty or not guilty of a crime

4. Convict (v) – to decide someone is guilty

5. Acquit (v) – to determine someone is innocent

6. Circumstantial (adj) – describes evidence that is based on inferences, not facts

7. Abstain (v) – to voluntarily stay out of a situation

8. Bigot (n) – someone stubbornly attached to certain opinions in a way that discriminates against others

9. Sadist (n) – someone who takes pleasure in cruelty

10. Sheepishly (adv) – shyly; cowardly

11. Subservient (adj) – useful in an inferior way

12. Rapport (n) – positive dynamic between people; good relationship

Assigned Roles: Period 4

Foreperson: Rhett Juror 2: Trevor Juror 3: Mitchell P. Juror 4: Julie Juror 5: Daniel S. Juror 6: Ryan Juror 7: Elijah Juror 8: Devyn Juror 9: Cameron S. Juror 10: Sammie Juror 11: Rachel

Juror 12: Jordan Guard: Ben Guilty Arguments: Nicole

K., Atlan, Joseph and Noah

Innocent Arguments: Kailey, Diego, Blake, and Daniel H.

Description and facts about the defendant: Mitchell C., Sanaz, Stephanie, and Eric (Clerk)

12 Angry Men Vocabulary ½ Sheet With a partner, write a vocab. story

using any combination of 6 words from your list to fit with one of the below topics:

A prediction regarding what you think this play will be about.

A synopsis of a movie/television show you have seen.

Journal #34Topic: 12 Angry Men Juror Vote #2 Discuss and come up with who you think

the juror is who votes Not guilty in the anonymous vote. Look back through Act I and your juror notes

to make an informed and supported assertion as to who you think the juror might be.

Make sure to have at least 2 Quotations (with page and line numbers) from Act I that support your decision.

Journal #35Topic: Vote #3 Predictions This Vote the Jury will be split down the

middle: 6 Not Guilty, 6 Guilty. Jurors 8, 9 and 5 have already committed to a

Not Guilty vote. Look back through your Juror notes and Act II and make an informed and supported assertion as to who you think the additional 3 jurors will be who change their minds

Make sure to have at least 1 Quotation/description (with page number) that supports your decision.

12 Angry Men ½ Page Response

Imagine you were on the jury, and reflect back on your opinion through the drama.

1. How do you think you would have voted initially? Why?

2. Would you have joined the jury in acquitting the defendant at the end? Why?

3. What arguments would you have found most persuasive?

4. What role could you see yourself playing on the jury? Juror #? Why?

12 Angry Men In-Class Writing Prompt: Body Paragraph (20 points)

 In a well-written body paragraph, conduct a character study of one of the jurors. How do his characteristics as explained in the profile on pp. 4-5 impact his actions and comments throughout the play? How does he impact the plot of the play overall?

 This should be in correct body paragraph format, so minimum requirements are: TS, CD, CM, CM, CD, CM, CM, CS. (8 sentences minimum)

At least one CD must be a quote from the play, correctly cited.

Do not write in first or second person.

*Make sure to identify the # of your juror in the TS.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 is portrayed as a fair-minded man with a commitment to justice. For example, at the beginning of the play, he exclaims to the other jurors: “It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (317). He says this in response to the attitude of the other jurors, who seem to assume that the boy on trial is guilty and want to reach a verdict as quickly as possible. Juror #8 is the only one who understands that his responsibility as a juror is to determine that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the consequence for the accused would be execution. He values human life and places importance on the life of a boy which others easily discard. In addition, at various points in the play, Juror #8 is the one who examines the evidence carefully and brings to light many discrepancies and fallacies that the other jurors mindlessly accepted when presented by the prosecution. Among these incidents include the calling into question of the female eyewitness’ impaired eyesight, and the speed (or lack thereof) with which the old man in the apartment above reached the hallway the night of the murder. Throughout the course of discussing these incidents, Juror #8 not only makes the other jurors think more logically, but forces prejudiced jurors such as #10 to challenge their preconceived notions about race and socioeconomic status. Juror #8 approaches the bigotry and ignorance of the other jurors in a methodical way, and this largely transforms a group of angry, combative men into more compassionate and tolerant individuals by the play’s end.