12 Angry Men Character List Discussion Questions PDF
12 Angry Men Character List Discussion Questions PDF
Defendant: Teenage boy who “allegedly” stabbed his father and killed him (mandatory death sentence if found guilty)
Foreman #2 #4
#3
#1
#12 #5
#11 #6
#8
#10 #7
#9
NG
Juror Description
vote
An architect and the first to vote "not guilty". He mentions that he has three children. At the
1st 8 end of the film, he reveals to Juror #9 that his name is Davis, one of only two jurors to reveal
his name; played by Henry Fonda.
An observant senior who respects juror 8’s passion and sense of justice. He is the second to
2nd 9 vote "not guilty". At the end of the film, he reveals to Juror #8 that his name is McArdle, one of
only two jurors to reveal his name; played by Joseph Sweeney.
A man who grew up in a violent slum, and does not take kindly to insults about his
3rd 5 upbringing. A Baltimore Orioles fan, he is the third to vote "not guilty"; played by Jack
Klugman.
A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen who demonstrates strong
4th 11 patriotism. He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the
fourth to vote "not guilty"; played by George Voskovec.
A meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax
5th 2 builds, so does his courage. He is the fifth to vote "not guilty"; played by John Fiedler.
A house painter, tough, but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to vote "not guilty";
6th 6 played by Edward Binns.
A wisecracking salesman and sports fan. He is the seventh to vote "not guilty". Throughout
7th 7 the film it appears that he cares little about the arguments being made; his greatest concern
is get to a verdict in time to make it to the evening baseball game; played by Jack Warden.
A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the only juror to change his vote more
8th 12 than once during deliberations, initially voting "guilty", and changing three times. Ultimately,
he is the eighth to settle on voting "not guilty"; played by Robert Webber.
An assistant high school American football coach. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat
9th 1 preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others. He is the ninth to vote
(foreperson) "not guilty", never giving the reason for changing his vote; played by Martin Balsam.
A garage owner; a pushy and loud-mouthed bigot. He is the tenth to vote "not guilty"; played
10th 10 by Ed Begley.
A rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with
11th 4 the facts, and is appalled by the bigotry of Juror 10. He is the eleventh to vote "not guilty";
played by E. G. Marshall.
A businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful and stubborn with a temper.
The main antagonist and most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict throughout the film,
12th 3 due to having a poor relationship with his own son. He is the last to vote "not guilty"; played
by Lee J. Cobb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
12 Angry Men Discussion
Description: When a jury begins to analyze the facts of a case, the application of twelve minds to a set of circumstances
is an amazing and awesome process. Attorneys who have often worked on a case for years will miss facts brought out by
the jurors. Jurors often find that their original positions are changed by the discussion during deliberations. The film is true
to life. On rare occasions, a position that was held by only one dissenting juror has eventually been adopted by the rest of
the jury, as occurs in this movie.
This movie depicts jury deliberations in a murder trial. The first vote is 11 to 1 to convict but through rational argument and
persuasion, bias and prejudice are overcome and justice is done.
Objectives: Students will be introduced to the inner workings of the American jury system introduced the concept of due
process in the legal system.
Class Discussion Questions – read these before you watch the movie to prepare for an online
discussion activity after the movie.
1) The dissenting juror may have suspected that the young man actually did kill his father. Why does he still
argue that the young man should be acquitted of the charges?
2) What are some of the policy reasons underlying the requirement that before a person can be convicted of
a crime, every member of a jury vote for conviction? Do you think it is a good thing to require?
4) What would you think about due process if a member of your family was killed and the killer was acquitted
because the prosecutor made mistakes and did not prove his case?
5) Since it is against the rules for a juror to investigate a matter under deliberation on his own, and the
dissenting juror discovers significant information in this manner, what would you have the man do that
could be as persuasive as dropping the knife onto the table yet remain within the rules?
6) One juror was prejudiced. Another juror wanted to get to a baseball game. Yet another juror was angry at
his own son and, at first, wanted to take that anger out on the young defendant. How do the requirements
of a unanimous verdict and proof beyond a reasonable doubt relate to the personal concerns that some
jurors will bring to the jury room?
7) After watching this movie, do you agree that verdicts in criminal trials should be unanimous and that jurors
should vote for guilt only if they are convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
8) Do you think the boy on trial received "due process of law" during his trial? How do you think the presence
or absence of due process affected the outcome and what could have changed? Give examples in your
explanation.
9) Do you think that the dissenting juror (juror #8 – the first one to say not guilty) planned all along to try to
convince the others? What were his methods of persuasion?
10) Do you think that the jurors thought that the boy probably had killed his father? Should they have voted to
convict if they had that belief?