12 Angry Men

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men was co-produced by and starred the Academy Award winner Henry Fonda (1982, Best Actor, On Golden Pond).  Among the other fine actors in it were Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, E. G. Marshall and Jack Warden.  The American Film Institute (AFI) listed it as the second best courtroom drama (behind only To Kill a Mockingbird).  It was nominated for three Academy Awards:  Best Picture, Best Director (Sidney Lumet) and Best Writing of Adapted Screenplay (Reginald Rose).  All three were won by The Bridge on the River Kwai.    

In the film Fonda is one of the 12 jurors who are charged with deciding if a teenage boy accused of murdering his father is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Initially, when the 12 are in the jury room, before any deliberations, all but Fonda vote guilty.  He insists they talk about the case before sending the boy off to be executed (mandatory punishment under state law with a guilty verdict).  

Over the next hour and a half, Fonda convinces all the others that there is a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty.  However, during that time, the 12 vehemently argue over the evidence in the case.  Hence, the title, 12 Angry Men.

Whenever I see this excellent movie I am reminded of my own personal experiences being on juries many years ago in Queens County, New York.  The first was a case of burglary (entry into a building illegally with the intention of committing a crime).  The defendant was accused of climbing a ladder to the bedroom window of a residence where, immediately after entering, he was confronted by the homeowner.  He escaped using the same ladder and fled the area.  He stole nothing.  The police, with the homeowner's identification, captured the man later the same evening.

I was not entirely convinced of the guilt of the accused while the prosecution presented its evidence.  There was only one witness and nothing was stolen.  However, the defense put the accused on the stand and he came across as a terrible liar.  The accused accused the homeowner of holding a grudge against him as he was allegedly having an affair with the homeowner's wife.  She believably testified that the story of an affair was a lie.

It did not take us (the jury) long to vote for a conviction.  I think the decision of the accused to testify (not required under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution) was a mistake.  Some time afterwards I saw the defense attorney shopping in my neighborhood and was tempted to discuss the case with him, but didn't.

Years later, I was again on a jury, this time two brothers were accused of assaulting two police officers.  Eventually, it came out during the testimony that the police officers arrived on the scene after receiving a report drugs were being sold.  They confronted one brother who denied he was selling drugs.  A fight broke out and the second brother (who was some distance away) joined the fray.

The court heard about the fight from the two police officers and from eyewitnesses who were friends and family of the accused.  The testimony from the two sides was contradictory but convincing.  I couldn't tell who was lying and who was telling the truth.  Or maybe they were all lying.  

We started deliberating near lunch time and were asked for our food choices.  One juror asked "How do you spell filet mignon."  It was not on the menu.  

In both of the juries I served on I was impressed with my fellow-jurors (average New Yorkers) in that we all took our responsibilities very seriously.  If I were on trial, I would want one of those juries deciding my fate.  

After deliberating for some hours, we were sequestered at a hotel near the JFK Airport for the night.  Before retiring to our rooms, we had dinner together, 12 jurors plus 4 court security officers.  I asked if we could attend the Halloween party that was going on at the hotel.  Request denied.  We had to stay in our rooms, but were protected by the security that remained in the corridor all night.

We reached a compromise verdict the next morning.  The first brother was found guilty, while the second was not.  It was considered that he was only doing what a brother might reasonably do when seeing his sibling in a fight, especially two against one.  When the verdict was announced, there was tension in the courtroom.  Numerous security guards surrounded the accused.  All the many spectators were their friends and family.  

After the verdict was announced, the jury was brought into the judge's chamber where she thanked us for our service.  She also arranged for taxis to take all 12 of us to our homes.  I was nervous about walking to the subway past the friends and family who might want to take revenge against us for the conviction we voted for.  It is not easy to serve on a jury, but it is a necessary public service.  Recently former President Obama reported for jury duty in Chicago.

For the record, in Brazil "jury trials are reserved for crimes against life that involve criminal intent or recklessness."  In such trials, seven jurors will hear the evidence and vote whether they believe the accused is guilty or innocent (not the same as not guilty in the USA).  Only a simple majority is necessary to reach a decision.  In a non-jury trial, a sole judge decides the case.