Subject: Business Communication
Case study on 12 Angry Men
Submitted by:
Pankaj Jindal
Roll No. 23 (EMP OCT’19)
Movie Outline:
The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if
a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut
case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating
doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the Jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial,
the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the
jury room.
Juror 1:
He is a soft-spoken person who's willing to assert himself when he needs to. He makes a
decent effort at trying to keep the other Jurors in order because as Juror #1, he is also the jury's
foreman and is responsible for keeping the group under control.
Juror 2:
He is a kind of a squeaky voiced dude who's pretty shy about sharing his opinions. He tends to
vote with the group and isn't very good at explaining himself whenever he's put on the spot. So
his decision making was same as of the majority.
Juror 3:
If you have to pick a main antagonist for this movie, Juror #3 is your man. We can tell from early
in this movie that #3 is a guy who's rigid in his opinions and not used to having people disagree
with him. His relationship with his son affected his decision making.
Juror 4:
Of all the jurors, #4 is the nearest to a robot. The guy doesn't even sweat when all the other
guys have made their shirts see-through. He's pretty convinced of a Guilty verdict in the
beginning, but only because he believes in the power of evidence, while the others who cling to
a Guilty verdict tend to have some personal bias against the defendant.
Juror 5:
The main thing we know about Juror #5 is that he grew up in a slum—and he's not especially
fond of people who think everyone who comes out of a slum is a thief or a murderer. He's quick
to defend himself against these types of people when he tells the other jurors. Initially he was a
follower of the group but with time his sympathy grew for the defendant.
Juror 6:
Juror #6 is probably the most invisible juror of the entire bunch. He only has a handful of lines in
the movie, and he tends to come across as a guy who's willing to change his mind if people can
convince him.
Juror 7:
The most important thing to know about Juror #7 is that he doesn't really care about justice and
wants to reach a verdict at the earliest so that he can get to a baseball game.
Juror 8:
Juror #8 is a dude who cares about justice and is willing to stand up against a crowd to do what
he thinks is right. In other words, this guy thinks that the defendant deserves a little sympathy
and discussion before the twelve jurors send him off to die. But we sort of already know that
he's just biding his time and angling to change some of the jurors' minds.
Juror 9:
The wise old man firstly decides that kid was guilty but after listening to viewpoints and
clarification given by Juror 8, he changes his verdict into not guilty. He was very open to have
discussion.
Juror 10:
The main things you need to know about Juror #10 are that he has a bad cold and that he's a
total racist. He tends to think that he was the only one who is right. His behavior lead to many
heated arguments with other juror.
Juror 11:
Most of the times acted as an observant. During the later part he also tries to give his opinion
and gave a question for everyone to think. He seems to appreciate their democratic rights and
freedoms more than anyone else.
Juror 12:
Even though he might have good ideas, Juror #12 isn't used to expressing himself in a really
forceful way; he's really more of a brainstorming type. Maybe for this reason, he tends to be
easily swayed by the opinions of others.
