Act 3

              The third act of the Twelve Angry Men is where they make the decision that the boy on trial is in fact not guilty. The process was very stressful and frustrating. As the jurors were deciding whether or not the boy was guilty, they had to make connections from each of the testimony and the life in general. For example, on page 61 to 62, juror eight said “ I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don’t think she’d put them on to glance casually out the window……I say that she only saw a blur.” He makes the connection that usually people with glasses can’t see that good and therefore could have saw a figure committing the crime and had assumed that it was the boy that murdered his father.

              People make connections daily without ever realizing it. For example, when a text shows up on your screen and you only see what the person texted you. You reply back making the connection of that person and the conversation you are having with that person. Another example would be when girls gossip. Girls would say someone’s name to another girl and that girl will make a connection from the name and anybody she knows of that name. People everywhere, whether it is in a book, a movie, or in person, make connections everyday to almost everything they encounter that day.




Are there any other connections in this story that you can see?

Act Two

      The Second Act of “Twelve Angry Men” is focused on the untold story of being jurors. Most people often think of jurors being a group of people that listen to a trial, then go into another room and decide whether or not the person being tried is guilty or not guilty. Although that is true, there is more to that. Jurors have to reason why they voted guilty or not guilty with the other jurors to try to get everybody on the same vote. This process may take from a couple hours to a couple days. 

        For example, the jurors started getting frustrated with each other because they kept changing their vote and why they changed it. On page 27, the beginning of the second act, you can already tell that the jurors are getting frustrated with each other when juror number Three said, "All right! Who did it? What idiot changed his vote?". 

Do you think the boy killed his father? Do you think someone else killed his father? If the old man misjudged on his timing and really did see the boy running down the stairs, do you think he was trying to escape or trying to chase the killer? 

Act One

The play "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Roses is a play about 12 jurors who are discussing whether the 19-year-old teenage boy who is accused of stabbing his father with a switch knife. The play starts with the judge talking in the background about what the jurors have to do. The play then goes on to the jurors settling into the room.

In the first act, we are told the background of the trial and the details that were given to help prove the case of being guilty or not guilty. The jurors all take a vote and 11 out of the 12 of them voted that the suspect was guilty. The 11 jurors that thought the suspect was guilty were explaining why they voted guilty to the juror that voted not guilty. As the one juror was listening he kept making points as to why they might have falsely accused the suspect, but never once tried to convince them that they had to change their mind.

By the end of the first act, the juror that pleaded not guilty had made many truthful statements, and had proven every one of them, as to why what the other jurors considered to be guilty could have been falsely accused. While making those statements, the other jurors began to take into consideration what the not guilty juror was saying and started to reconsider the vote they made. At the end of the first act, the not guilty juror convinced the other jurors to take another vote and that if he is still the only one that believes the suspect is not guilty, he would plead guilty too. If there is another person that thinks the suspect is not guilty, then they would have to look at all the facts closely and come up with an agreement as to what the verdict should be.

Has there ever been a time in your life where you were the only person that saw both sides of a story and were trying to get the other people to see the other side?