Review of the Decision by the jury in 12 Angry Men

Lozares, Lee Derek L.

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but
on the basis of what they find attractive” – Arthur Conan Doyle, The
Boscombe Valle Mystery
A lone jury, who believes in his own attractive ideas, seems to deconstruct the
plausibility of the evidences provided to affirm his beliefs.
An unnamed 19-year-old teenager was charge with the murder of his father
and was a subject of jury deliberations. Upon deliberation, the juror gave a
not-guilty verdict to the accused, hence, a review of this case.
The facts
At around 7:00 p.m., the accused and his father had an argument and that the
father hit the defendant at least twice. It was establish that the father has been
maltreating the accused prior to the night of the murder. After the altercation,
the accused walked away angrily, went to a store and bought a switchblade
knife, meet his friends and showed it. The storekeeper was arrested the
following day when he admitted selling it to the boy. It is a very unusual knife.
The storekeeper identified it and said, it was the only one of its kind he had in
stock. A witness, who happens to live near the apartment of the accused, said
she saw a man stabbing the father in the chest and the lights went out in the
apartment immediately after the attack. The woman then called the police and
identified whom the assailant was which she points to be the accused. Another
witness, an old man who lived in the apartment below the apartment testified
at ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing he heard loud noises in
the upstairs apartment. He said it sounded like a fight then he heard the
accused yell the words “I’ll kill you” and a second later, he heard a body hit
the floor. The old man ran to the door of his apartment, looked out, and saw
the kid running down the stairs and out of the house. At 3:00 am in the
morning, the accused returned to his father’s apartment where the police
questioned him in the kitchen. In the course of interrogation, the accused
claimed that he had gone to see some friends shortly after leaving the
apartment following the 7:00 p.m. argument with his father and claims that he
went to the movies alone at about 11:00 p.m but could not remember the
movie. The accused also claims that the switch knife slipped through the hole
of his pocket and lost it. Looking at the deceased, the direction of the stab
wound on the chest was downward. Based on the records of the accused, at
fifteen he was in reform school, stole a car, and was arrested for mugging. The
accused was also involved in a knife fight.
The facts and evidences given by the prosecution as well as the record of the
accused, constitutes to the decision of the majority of the jury to place a guilty
verdict, however, one of the jury placed a not guilty verdict identified flaws
on the statement given by the witnesses. The lone jury slowly gained the
support of his co-jury upon persuading that there is a reasonable doubt that
gave the accused a not-guilty verdict.
The arguments why the accused is not guilty are the following:
1) The lone jury found and bought a switch knife similar to the murder
weapon and claims that it is not an unusual and unique knife and that
the accused the switchblade knife slipped through the hole of his pocket
and lost it on the night of the murder.
2) The woman could have a poor eyesight that cannot distinguish the
assailant accurately.
3) The old man living underneath could not possibly hear what was
happening due to the noise coming from the train and those fifteen
seconds is not enough to run to the door and see the accused running
down the stairs out of the house.
4) The inability of the accused to remember the movie he saw when the
police questioned was a product of the highly charged emotional
setting.
5) It is impossible for the accused to stab his father on a downward thrust
because of the height difference. In addition, one of the juror claims
that a switch knife can only be use in an upward thrust.
6) No fingerprint was found
Discussions
The jury #8 has given good points in determining the flaws in facts given;
however, I disagree with the issues raised. All his arguments were a mere what
if’s and speculations about the case at bar. Jury # 8 was providing purely
circumstantial evidence while the prosecution provides direct as well as
circumstantial evidence. To start with, what is circumstantial evidence?
According to the law dictionary, it is an evidence directed to the attending
circumstances; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by
establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose
existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be
concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. Indeed the first argument raised
by jury # 8 that the murder weapon (switchblade knife) is not an unusual and
unique as the storekeeper claims to be. In his store, it could be one of its kind.
However, how high is the probability, that the same switchblade knife that the
accused admittedly bought on the night after the altercation with his father
could be used by a different assailant to kill the father? As to the claims that
the switchblade knife slipped through a hole in his pocket and lost it, it is still
a mystery on why he did not feel such knife with a little weight slipping
through his pocket. On the second argument, the jury inferred that the woman
might have a poor eyesight due to the marks on her nose that seems to be from
eyeglasses. The circumstance given was beyond facts and that the idea has not
been proven since the jury himself did not saw the woman wearing an
eyeglass. Arguendo, the woman was wearing eyeglass, but is it for a single
vision prescription? Maybe it is a fashion eyeglass. There is no question about
her testimony due to the fact that the accused was well known to her and she
could have easily determine if the assailant was not the accused. The
testimony corroborates with the testimony of the old man whom the jurors try
to discredit by putting chairs to mark the points of the venue and calculates if
it were indeed 15 seconds. The old man could have move as fast as he can
even in his condition to run to the door due to what he heard above his
apartment. Therefore, the experiment was not precise. Nonetheless, what the
old man heard corroborates with what the woman saw. On the issue, of the
inability of the accused to remember the movie he saw when the police
questioned was a product of the highly charged emotional setting. There is no
expert opinion that will suffice juror’s inference. None of the jurors has an
expertise in psychology. Given that, a switchblade knife could only be use in
an upward thrust; does the circumstance provide how the deceased react prior
to death? The father could be defending himself and while in process, he was
stuck in a position that results to a downward stab. The switchblade knife
contains no fingerprint of the accused. It is obvious to say that most criminals
avoid leaving a trace of direct evidence, thus, the reason why there is no
fingerprint.
The abuse experienced by the accused from his father and the altercation that
happen prior to the murder, which cause anger in him, could be enough to
prove that he has a motive to kill his father. Although motive is not an
essential element of a crime, and hence, need not be prove for the purpose of
conviction. (People v. Aposaga, No. L-32477) Motive however is relevant in
circumstantial evidences or sufficient evidences. If the evidence is merely
circumstantial, proof of motive is essential. (People v. Oquiño, 122 SCRA 797,
808) In the case of People v. Gallo , G.R. No. 187497, October 12, 2011
“Preliminarily, we note that the lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar
the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution
establishes the appellant’s participation in the crime through credible and
sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that
the appellant committed the imputed crime, the latter should be convicted.” In
People v. Oliva, the court upheld the conviction of the accused based on
circumstantial evidence. In Oliva, the victim was abducted from his home,
was last seen alive in the custody of the accused, and was hog-tied with
coralon rope. Although no one saw the actual killing, we held that there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence to find the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.”
The jurors, led by jury # 8 failed to separate the facts from their imagination,
thus, provided circumstantial evidence that were beyond the facts. However,
the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution together with the
direct evidence, such as the old man who lives below the apartment of the
father who heard the accused yell, “I will kill you” and seconds later, heard a
body hitting the floor, were proven by the testimony of the woman who saw
the stabbing itself. The purchase of the switchblade knife by the accused after
the altercation with his father is a strong circumstantial evidence to prove the
existence of mens rea. The testimony of the friends of the accused and the
storekeeper that the switchblade knife used in the murder is similar to the knife
of the accused is beyond reasonable doubt.
Given the foregoing discussion, I find that the jurors erred in their decision
and that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.