Following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a

guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, a 18 year old Latin boy. As the dozen men try to reach a
unanimous decision while sequestered in a room, one juror casts considerable doubt on elements of the
case. Personal issues soon rise to the surface, and conflict threatens to derail the delicate process that
will decide one boy's fate.

As I watch the movie, I understand two principles that is important in the practice of law:

1. The presumption of innocence

2. The burden of proof

In the practice of law, it is a basic rule that an accused must be presumed innocent until his guilt is
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It simply means that the evidence must engender
moral certainty or constitute that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
In the opening scene where the judge is stating that there is a life at stake if there is a reasonable doubt
about his guilt then they must bring a verdict of not guilty and if there is none they bring him the verdict
of guilty with good conscience. This scene reminds me the meaning of presumption of innocence and
the understanding gets deeper when Juror #8 keeps bringing why he has reasonable doubt regarding
the case especially when he states that they must take it seriously since they are talking about
someone’s life. When he is asked why he keeps his vote not guilty, he only emphasize that they should
talk it out and not jump into conclusion that kid is guilty just because of the stated facts in the court.

Furthermore, the juror talks about the burden of proof, that burden of proof is very important in making
decisions. He said that we must make judgement based on the burden of proof and logical reasoning
without prejudiced mind. This thought has been highlighted at the last sequence of the movie. When
juror

#7 decided to change his vote because he get tired of the arguments and juror #10 express his racial
thoughts regarding the matter. Personal prejudice is difficult to keep especially in those situations but
we must always remember that personal prejudice may obscure the truth since we only see it in our
own perspective. Burden of the proof must be always basis of the conviction not the personal prejudice.

To sum it all, 12 Angry Men makes me understand that in every trial, we must always keep the principle
of presumption of innocence and burden of proof in making conviction.