Twelve Angry Men final assessment - This is an open book test.

I strongly recommend that you

use the play to provide support (including page numbers when appropriate) for your answers.
52 points

1. Who is the most accurate literary foil for Juror 8? Why? (5)

The most accurate literary foil for Juror 8 is Juror 3. There are obvious striking
differences between the two as Juror 8 is calm and collected while Juror 3 is hot-headed and
loud. In the text, it supports this claim by describing Juror 8 as “a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man-
a man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. He is a man of
strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done, and
will fight to see that it is” (p.5). When describing Juror 3 however, he is painted as “a very
strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of
sadism. Also, he is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and
accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others” (p.4).

2. When discussing the stab wound, Juror 5 provides information that supports Juror 8’s
opinion. Explain what Juror 5 says. (3)

Juror 5 supports Juror 8’s opinion by providing information about how to use a switch
knife. He states, “Anyone who's ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward.
You don't handle a switch knife that way. You use it underhanded. [...] I suppose it's conceivable
that he could have made the wound, but it's not likely, not if he'd ever had any experience with
switch knives, and we know that the kid had a lot of experience with switch knives” (p. 57).

3. List three of the most important pieces of evidence as they were presented in the case.
Then explain how reasonable doubt was presented, essentially discounting each. (9)

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I'm going to kill you” from his
apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment
after rising from his bedroom. The jurors eventually question how such an old man could have
moved that fast and, with his bad hearing, heard what he claims he did, “An el train takes ten
seconds to pass a given point, or two seconds per car. That el had been going by the old man's
window for at least six seconds and maybe more before the body fell, according to the woman.
The old man would have had to hear the boy say, 'I’m going to kill you," while the front of the el
was roaring past his nose. It's not possible that he could have heard it” (p.34). Though the old
man swore it took him fifteen seconds to get to the door, when they calculated the time it was,
“Fifteen-twenty-thirty-thirty-five-thirty-nine seconds, exactly” (p.42).

The woman stating that she saw the murder happen on the el train was but this lady's
testimony comes into question when one of the jurors remembers that she had marks on her
nose from wearing glasses but didn't wear her glasses to court. They also determined that no
one wears their glasses to bed and she said she sat straight up in bed and saw the murder
happen when she couldn’t have seen it.

The knife the boy used was supposed to be unique. 4th Juror explains that, on the night of the
murder, the boy bought a uniquely carved switchblade knife identical to the one used in the
murder. The boy claims that he lost it that night, before coming home to find his father dead. 4th
Juror presents the death weapon, the “only one of its kind;” 8th Juror surprises the others by
presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn shop two blocks from where the boy
lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim that the knife was unique and identifiable.

4. At the end of the play, do you think that Juror 3 really thought the boy was guilty? Why or
why not? (5)
I think that he had been convinced of reasonable doubt at the end and that he actually thought
that the boy might be innocent. Though he would most likely refuse to the fact he changed his
opinion, he spared the boy at the realization of how wrong he really was.

5. Based on evidence from the play, what do you know about the defendant? What
assumptions can you make about him as well? (5)

The defendant is a nineteen year old boy whose mother is not around and father was recently
murdered. Growing up, he lives in the slums and he was being abused growing up, “I want to
talk for a while. Look-this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know- living in a slum-his
mother dead since he was nine. That's not a very good head. start. He's a tough, angry kid. You
know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock 'em over the head once a day, every day.
I think maybe we owe him a few words” (p.16). He is a bit of a trouble maker, being put into
reform school for stealing a car and stabbing someone , “Look at the kid's record. He stole a
car. He's been arrested for mugging. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm.”

6. How do you think the jury (not the evidence) would differ if the play was set today? How
would these differences affect the verdict? (5)

The jury would most likely have more members of different races, genders, age variation, and
social classes. I think that more people who grew up in different backgrounds would be less
biased overall. It would be separate points and more people might be able to relate more with
the boy.

7. Which jurors embody the ideals of democracy? Explain your answer in detail. (10)

Juror 8 embodies the idea of democracy. Juror 8 believes in compassion and doing the right
thing, “a man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth” (p.5). He also
believes that, “above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done, and will fight to see that it is”
(p.5). Juror 8 is analytic and refuses to give up on trying to get justice for the boy.

8. Which jurors pose a threat against the ideals of democracy? Explain your answer in
detail. (10)

Juror 7 and 10 pose threats against the ideals of democracy since both have their own
disadvantages. Juror 7 doesn’t quite care to be there or work on the jury, “who has more
important things to do than to sit on a jury” (p.4). He is also “quick to show temper and equally
quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing” (p.4). Juror 10 “is an angry,
bitter man- a man who antagonizes almost at sight. He is also a bigot who places no values on
any human life save his own. Here is a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and
knows it deep within him” (p.5). He doesn’t care to get justice only for things to do well for
himself.