12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose

TWELVE ANGRY MEN

by

Reginald Rose

Name ______Period _____

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose

Background Information

12 Angry Men, by the American playwright Reginald Rose, was originally written for television, and it was broadcast live on CBS's show Studio One in 1954. The fifty-minute television script can be found in Rose's Six Television Plays, published in 1956. A few years later, in 1957, Rose wrote the screenplay for a film version, which he co-produced with the actor Henry Fonda. The play has subsequently been updated and revived; for example, in a production at the American Airlines Theater in New York City in 2004.

The play was inspired by Rose's own experience of jury duty on a manslaughter case in New York City. At first, he had been reluctant to serve on a jury, but, he wrote, "the moment I walked into the courtroom … and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed."

Rose was greatly impressed by the intensity of the situation, the somber activity of the court, and the "absolute finality" of the decision that he and his fellow jurors would have to make. He also thought that since no one other than the jurors had any idea of what went on in a jury room, "a play taking place entirely within a jury room might be an exciting and possibly moving experience for an audience" ("Author's Commentary" on Twelve Angry Men in Six Television Plays). The result is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the defendant in a capital murder trial is guilty, while one juror stands up courageously for what he believes is justice and tries to persuade the others to his way of thinking. Along the way he battles the play’s themes of STEREOTYPE AND PREJUDICE!

Legal Notes 101:

1. The decision of the jury must be unanimous.
2. The decision of the jury is either guilty or not guilty.
3. If the jury cannot agree, it is called a “hung jury.”
4. In order to be guilty, there can be no reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is uncertainty as to a criminal defendant's guilt; the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime.

LEGAL TERMS

HUNG JURY: A jury that is unable to reach a verdict which, if it persists, usually results in a mistrial being declared by the court.
In such a situation the case may be retried, generally at the discretion of the prosecution if criminal. In such a situation a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy.
In the interests of justice and judicial economy most courts will attempt various means to allow/persuade a jury to continue deliberating and only declare a mistrial when certain the jury is incapable of reaching a verdict.

REASONABLE DOUBT: The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY: The phrase "double jeopardy" stems from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is intended to limit prosecutorial abuse by the government in repeated prosecution, for the same offense, as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in harmony with the common law concept of res judicata, which prevents courts from relitigating issues and claims that have already been the subject of a final judgment.

There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.

This law is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality, because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. For example, were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted, there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again.

Though the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well, through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment. Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial once the jury and alternates are empaneled and sworn in. Jeopardy attaches in a non-jury trial once the first evidence is put on.

EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY:As double jeopardy only applies to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilt or innocence.

BEFORE READING:

1. Think of a time when you were against the majority, and you felt like you were standing all alone on a particular subject. What was the subject? How did you feel? Did you stand by your idea, or did you give in to the crowd? Why/why not? How did you get others to go along with you? Did you persuade them by words, or did you bully them?

2. What is a stereotype? What examples of stereotypes have you heard?

3. What does it mean to be prejudice? What examples of prejudice have you heard?

After watching What Would You Do: Bike Theft (black guy, white guy, pretty girl)—

1. Identify the prejudices and stereotypes displayed in the video.
2. Explain your reaction to how each actor was treated.

Remember to rephrase the prompt and use complete sentences.

Homework:In the spaces provided, you will write down comments that you hear on both TV and the Internet as well as by people around you. You will keep track of what is said and categorize it by the group, gender, culture, race, religion or other ways the people on the other end of the comment are classified.

1. As you watch your favorite television shows, tally the number of time you hear /see stereotypes and prejudices.

NAME OF SHOW / AGE / GENDER / RACE / SEXUAL
ORIENTATION / RELIGION / OTHER
SHOW 1
SHOW 2
SHOW 3

1. In this space, write quotes or comments from the observations made in the columns above.

1. Use this space to write down all of the stereotypical comments and prejudice that you may encounter around you. This can happen in the cafeteria, the locker room, the classroom, the halls, at practice, at the bus stop, on the bus, around family and friends- ANYWHERE!

Location / AGE / GENDER / RACE / SEXUAL
ORIENTATION / RELIGION / OTHER
1
2
3

1. In this space, write quotes or comments from the observations made in the columns above.

LIFE RAFT EXERCISE

INSTRUCTIONS: Imagine that an airplane has gone down in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. There are twenty survivors and only one life raft. The life raft will hold seven people. Your group must decide by consensus who will be saved. Review the information below and think carefully about your decision.

1. SALESMAN (F) – 56; MARRIED; FIVE CHILDREN AGES 9-17: GOING TO ISRAL TO HELP WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: A LEADER IN HER COMMUNITY.

2. DOCTOR (M) – 63; MARRIED; THREE CHILDREN OVER 21: GAVE UP LUCRATIVE PRACTICE BECAUSE HE BELIEVES HE HAS DISCOVERED A CURE FOR AIDS.

3. WOMEN’S LIBERATION LEADER (F) – 34; SINGLE; GOING TO FRANCE TO ADDRESS INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF ADVOCATES OF HER CAUSE.

4. STEWARDESS (F) – 22; SINGLE; FORMER MISS AMERICA.

5. GAMBLER (M) – 47; SINGLE; RISK TAKER; FORMER SEA CAPTAIN; EXCELLENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE SEA

6. MUSICIAN (M) – 41; BLIND PIANIST; BORN IN JAMAICA; EN ROUTE TO EUROPE FOR CONCERT TOUR

7. NUN (F) – 28; SINGLE; SPECIALIZES IN TEACHING MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN.

8. FARMER (M) – 50; MARRIED; ON HIS WAY TO AFRICA TO WORK WITH AIDS VICTIMS; EXCELLENT HUNTER AND FISHERMAN; FORMER MARINE; SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK TWO YEARS AGO.

9. COUNSELOR (M) – 36; SINGLE; FORMER DRUG DEALER; SERVED 2 YEARS IN PRISON; FOUNDER OF REHAB FACILITY FOR DRUG ABUSERS.

10. RAPPER (M) – 28; SINGLE; RECENTLY ARRESTED FOR WEAPONS OFFENSES; AWAITING TRIAL FOR ASSAULT; SIGNED RECORD DEAL WORTH MILLIONS.

11. NURSE (F) – 29; SINGLE; HAS ENTERED NEW PROFESSION DURING THE LAST YEAR TO MAKE MORE MONEY; FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT

12. CIA AGENT (M) – 36; MARRIED; TWO CHILDREN AGES ONE AND TWO; ABOUT TO LEAVE GOVERNMENT WORK; HAS MEMORIZED VITAL INFORMATION CONCERNING A GOVERNMENT SCANDAL INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT

13. FUGITIVE (M) – 34; SINGLE; FORMER COLLEGE PROFESSOR; ESCAPED FROM PRISON WHERE HE WAS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING; SEEKING ASYLUM IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHERE HE WILL RENOUNCE HIS U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

14. MINISTER (M) – 43; MARRIED; NO CHILDREN; A PROMINENT CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER WHO IS GOING TO EUROPE TO RECEIVE AN AWARD.

15. TEACHER (F) – 26; SINGLE; ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO STUDY IN PARIS; GREAT WRITING POTENTIAL; A LEADER IN INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROJECTS.

16. INTERIOR DECORATOR (M) – 40; HOMOSEXUAL; REPUTATION AS BEING THE BEST DECORATOR IN AMERICA; HAS OWN TV SHOW.

17. STUDENT (F) – 11; FLYING TO BOARDING SCHOOL IN FRANCE; VERY WEALTHY FAMILY; CRIPPLED FROM BIRTH; NEEDS TO USE A WHEELCHAIR.

18. BAKER (M) – 43; SIX CHILDREN, AGES 10-21; APPEARED ON TV SHOW SURVIVOR; WIFE HAS CANCER.

19. WIDOW (F) – 66; EN ROUTE TO ITALY TO FULFILL PROMISE TO HUSBAND THAT SHE WOULD VISIT THEIR OLD HOME ONCE MORE; USED LIFE SAVINGS TO PAY FOR TRIP.

20. PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE (M) – 26; STARTING RUNNING BACK FOR THE CHICAGO BEARS; ALL PRO IN FIRST SEASON; DONATES MONEY TO VARIOUS CHARITIES; SUSPENDED TWICE FOR STEROID USE.

SOME JURIES HAVE PENALIZED GOOD DOCTORS TO HELP OUT FAMILIES
Pittsburgh Post - Gazette; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Mar 29, 2002

Jay N. Silberblatt's March 10 Forum piece ("Medical Malpractice Insurance Reform: To Your Health?") regarding malpractice law reform in Pennsylvania is replete with the word "jury" and egregious examples of isolated examples of pure malpractice. I know of no physician who would contest a large settlement for removing the wrong foot or lung. On the other hand, when a procedure carries a small risk of failure or even death and is done by the best of hands and care and fails, a suit often follows.

Increasing numbers of dramatic television ads for malpractice lawyers invite frivolous litigation. The jury system for settling these issues is flawed by courtroom theatrics that beg not the juries' intellect, but their subjective feelings.

I remember well a case in which I was an expert witness, the patient having died after clearly competent care. Day after day, the widow sat in the front row crying. The jury found for the prosecution. I chatted with the jury afterward, and the members said, "We didn't think the doctors did any wrong, but we felt sorry for the widow and wanted to give her something." A malpractice attorney never asks for a nonjury trial.

ROBERT W. HILBERG, M.D.

Should a juror rule with his heart or his head? Why is this difficult?

MAULING IS MURDER, JURY SAYS; S.F. DOG OWNERS ANGERED PANEL WITH LACK OF REMORSE AT DEATH
Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash.; Mar 22, 2002; Anna Gorman and Steve Berry;

LOS ANGELES -- A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found a San Francisco lawyer guilty yesterday of second-degree murder in the gruesome dog mauling of a neighbor, believed to be only the third time a U.S. dog owner has been convicted of murder in such a case.

Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, also were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and of keeping a mischievous dog that killed a person in the 2001 attack on lacrosse coach Diane Whipple.

Knoller, 46, could serve 15 years to life in state prison for the murder charge. Noel, 60, faces a sentence of four years in state prison. Sentencing is scheduled for May 10 in San Francisco.

As the murder verdict was read, Knoller, who had testified on her behalf, sighed heavily and started to cry. Her husband, who did not testify, stared ahead.

Whipple's partner, Sharon Smith, placed her head in her hands and wiped tears from her eyes. "There's no real joy in this, but certainly some measure of justice was done for Diane today," she said.

Jurors said Knoller and Noel clearly were responsible for allowing their two large PresaCanario dogs to attack Whipple.

"In our point of view, (Knoller's) testimony was not believable," jury foreman Don Newton said. "That was crucial to our decision in coming to second-degree murder."

Newton said jurors disliked Noel, but that they based their verdict on carelessness with the dogs.

"Robert Noel does not seem to be a very nice person," he said.

The case appears to break legal ground in assigning responsibility for the actions of dangerous pets, and animal advocates praised the verdict as a signal to those who would use pets as weapons.

At the same time, the facts, as well as the behavior of Knoller, who appeared before the trial to blame Whipple for her death, made this an unusual case.

"One lesson from this case may be that, if a tragedy happens, taking responsibility is better than attacking the victim," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former prosecutor.

Assistant District Attorney James Hammer said: "This jury did justice. ... This was the right thing to do, but it was a tough fight. Hopefully, Diane Whipple's death will prevent other people from dying, and that will be one small part of her legacy."

Knoller's parents and her defense attorney Nedra Ruiz declined to comment. Ruiz repeatedly reassured Knoller's mother that she would appeal.

Knoller and Noel's dogs attacked Whipple, 33, in the hallway outside her upscale apartment on Jan. 26, 2001. Whipple was trying to enter her sixth-floor unit when the dogs, each weighing more than 100 pounds, charged her.

Bane, the larger of the two, knocked Whipple down and bit and scratched her from head to toe. Bane tore at Whipple's throat while the second dog, Hera, chewed at the woman's clothes.

Knoller testified that she tried to save Whipple by yanking Bane's leash, yelling at the dog and lying on top of the victim. When police arrived, they found Whipple naked, covered in blood and trying to crawl toward her door. She died from blood loss and asphyxiation.

Whipple's death initiated a statewide debate on the responsibility of dog owners and landlords. Wrongful-death civil cases are pending against Knoller and Noel and the building owners.

The case was moved to Los Angeles because of intense publicity in the San Francisco area. The two dogs were destroyed.

At trial, neighbors, dog walkers and postal workers described terrifying encounters with the dogs. Smith also testified that Whipple was bitten by one of the dogs one month before the fatal attack.

Prosecutors contended that Knoller and Noel were involved in a scheme with an imprisoned member of the Aryan Brotherhood gang, whom they adopted, to breed and train attack dogs and they knew that the PresaCanarios they owned were capable of killing. Hammer, the lead prosecutor, said in his closing arguments that the couple picked that breed because it is "tougher, stronger and meaner than a pit bull."

The seven-man, five-woman jury began deliberating Tuesday morning and asked to rehear statements Noel made to the grand jury about the dogs' aggression before reaching verdicts on four of the five counts Wednesday.

The jurors reached a decision on the final count -- second- degree murder for Knoller -- yesterday morning.

Jurors said they were repulsed by the interview the defendants gave shortly after the attack on "Good Morning America." In contrast to Knoller's tearful testimony in the trial, she spoke calmly about the mauling during the interview.

"It showed no remorse," said juror Shawn Antonio, 27. "And it was two (weeks) after it happened ... and there was no kind of sympathy, no kind of apologies."

Peter Keane, dean of Golden State University law school, said he thinks an appellate court would question whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a murder verdict. But he added that Ruiz presented a poor case.

"The defense attorney never gave the jury a reason for why the incident was not a second-degree murder," he said.

Keane said verdicts on the lesser counts were correct.

"This was an easy one for the manslaughter and the mischief-dog verdicts," he said.

Do you agree with the jury’s ruling? Why or why not? What makes this case difficult?

JURY BACKS PHILIP MORRIS IN LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY FAMILY OF SMOKER
Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Mar 22, 2002;

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A federal-court jury returned a verdict in favor of cigarette maker Philip Morris Cos. in a case brought by a dead smoker's family.