Twelve Angry Men: Act 1 Summary & Analysis

The Judge gives the jury instructions from offstage, setting the scene as the lights come up. He (or she) lays out the stakes: a man has died and the defendant’s life is in their hands. He informs the jurors that they must find the defendant not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The vote must be unanimous. He ends by impressing the weight of their “grave” responsibility on them: they must deliberate “honestly and thoughtfully.”

Lights come up on the jury room. The room contains twelve “uncomfortable-looking” straight chairs, a clock, a water cooler, a garbage can, a single window and door, and nothing else. The Guard opens the window, surveys the room, and moves upstage to count the jurors as they enter.

As the jurors enter, some go to the water cooler, Juror Five lights a pipe, and Juror Seven opens the window a bit wider, while still others stand and lean on their chairs.

Juror Seven nervously offers gum to the men at the water cooler and makes idle chat. Juror Nine responds to Juror Seven with a polite no. Juror Twelve complains about the heat in the room, saying that his taxes are so high they ought to cover air conditioning. Juror Seven commiserates, but adds that he’s not too concerned because he thinks the deliberation will go quickly. Juror Nine sits down, agreeing that it’s hot. The Guard locks the door behind him as he leaves, with all the jurors settled in their seats.

Juror Three bristles at the need for the door to be locked. He adds that he is, however, fine with the defendant—“that kid”—being locked up forever. Juror Five comments that he didn’t know that jury room doors are locked, and he’d never thought about it before, while Juror Ten responds that it’s obvious the doors would be locked.

Juror Four, acting as a peacemaker, asks everyone to openly admit that the heat in the room has them short-tempered. Juror Three, acting the contrarian, responds that he feels fine. Juror Twelve impatiently muses about his advertising job, saying that it’s a quickly changing business and that he might return to find his company gone if they don’t hurry up the deliberations. The Foreman suggests in response that serving on a jury is their duty, while Juror Three jokes that Juror Four should give Juror Twelve a job, noting that Juror Four is probably rich because of his custom-tailored suit.

The Foreman then comments that he had a friend who wanted to be on the jury instead of him. Juror Seven wonders why he didn’t take the friend up on this. The Foreman continues that his friend served on a jury where they found the defendant not guilty, but later learned that he really did the murder. Juror Four notes that the double jeopardy law would prevent that man from being retried for the same crime. In the conversation that follows, Juror Seven comments on what he sees as the simplicity of this case and the unlikelihood of the jury not coming to an obvious decision, while Juror Three agrees about the case’s simplicity, suggesting that the trial could have lasted just two days rather than six, but shrugs it off because the “system” is that everyone gets a fair trial.

As the jurors keep talking, Juror Seven and Juror Ten agree that the boy’s story about losing his switchblade knife is ridiculous. Juror Ten explains away the cruelty of the murder by saying, “look at the kind of people they are.” The Foreman gets the two of them to stop chatting and take their seats.

Juror Seven, meanwhile, expresses his impatience to get to a current Broadway show that night. The Foreman also corrals Juror Eight, who is standing at the window not paying attention, to sit down. Juror Ten comments that the kid killed his father easily because “they” let their kids do whatever, but Juror Four cautions him not to let emotion, like a prejudice against a group, get in the way of his thinking. Juror Three is focused on getting the case over. The Foreman announces that he will leave it to the others to decide how to proceed, and the men all agree to take a vote to see where they stand before deliberating. Seven hopes that they will already be in agreement.

The vote is 11-1 in favor of guilty: Juror Eight is the only dissenter. Juror Three rises to confront Juror Eight, while Juror Twelve insists that the defendant’s guilt is as “simple as A, B, C.” Juror Three angrily comments: “I never saw a guiltier man in my life.” To which Juror Eight pushes him on what a killer looks like, and gives the boy’s age, 19, as a reason that he might be innocent. Juror Four tries to make peace between Juror Eight and Juror Three with the observation that they should not use emotional arguments.

Juror Three threatens to go through all the ways the prosecution “proved” the boy’s guilt. Juror Ten brings up the “stupid story” about losing his switchblade again, all while Juror Four tries to keep peace. Juror Eight states that he’s not sure whether he believes the kid’s story, and that he voted not guilty because he found it “not so easy” to be the vote sealing the boy’s fate of death. The other jurors protest that the vote was not “easy” for them, even though Juror Eight did not suggest it was. Juror Seven is defensive about how fast he voted.

Juror Eight replies that he wants to be heard out. He explains that “slum kids” get tough and angry because “we” – meaning society – are always knocking them down. He wants the kid to get a fair hearing in this jury room, for once in his life. The other jurors look at Juror Eight coldly. Juror Four refuses to buy the sob story—he remembers how life was hard for him too, but he put himself through college and didn’t go to the extreme of killing. Juror Eleven can relate to the accused kid’s hardships because he grew up in Europe in a country where “kicking was a science.”

Juror Ten believes the kid got more than he deserves, a fair trial at the taxpayer’s expense. He adds that he lives among “them”, and is convinced that none of “them” can be trusted. Juror Nine calls out Juror Ten on his prejudice and says Ten doesn’t have a “monopoly on the truth”. Nine continues over Juror Three’s objection, getting worked up until Juror Eight calms him. Juror Four insists that they can and must keep the talk civil, “behave like gentlemen,” and stick to the facts. Juror Twelve says okay, “if you insist,” and the Foreman quickly goes along with Juror Four.

Just then, Juror Eleven gets up to close the window, which starts an argument between him and Juror Seven. Juror Four proposes the compromise of trading chairs. The Foreman redirects everyone back to the case.

Juror Twelve proposes that the jury go around the table and each try to convince Juror Eight “that we’re right and he’s wrong.” The Foreman and Juror Four immediately agree that this proposal is fair and Juror Two timidly starts with “it’s obvious” that the boy is guilty. When Juror Eight presses him, he changes this to “nobody proved otherwise.” Juror Eight reminds him that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows the accused to be “innocent until proven guilty.” Juror Two, quite flustered, can only retort with “well, anyway…I think he’s guilty!”

Juror Three steps in to summarize what he calls the “facts”, and then reiterates the witness account told by the old man who lives below the room where the murder happened. Juror Eight responds that he doesn’t buy the old man’s story. Juror Four brings up the boy’s alibi of being at the movies at the time of the murder, and Juror Three quickly jumps in to agree. Juror Five questions why the boy didn’t have a ticket stub for the movies, but Juror Eight says no-one would hold on to a ticket stub.

Juror Ten, speaking out of order, states his belief that the testimony of the woman across the street proves the boy’s guilt. She had said in her testimony that she was looking out her window and saw the kid stick the knife into his father, and that she saw this even though an el train (elevated train) was passing between their apartments at just that moment. Juror Ten notes that the lawyers proved that you could see what’s happening through the windows of an el train at night. Juror Eight wonders why Juror Ten believes the woman’s testimony, when she is also one of “them” who are untrustworthy according to Ten. Juror Four pushes the point that the lawyers took the jurors to the el track and they were able to see what was happening on the other side.

Juror Six adds that the witnesses from across the hall were convincing. He brings up their testimony that they heard the father hit the boy and the boy walk out. Six notes that this doesn’t prove anything, but that it’s “part of the picture.”

Juror Seven brings up the kid’s record of stealing, knife fighting, and other crimes, sarcastically calling him a “very fine boy.” When Juror Eight brings up that the boy’s father beat him, Juror Seven retorts that he deserved it. Juror Three bitterly agrees, and lashes out against all “kids.” He says that he has had a falling out with his own son who disappointed him. His son ran from a fight when he was eight, and his father was ashamed of him. Later in life, the two are not in touch with each other. He cuts off his story as he gets more emotional.

Juror Four says it’s not relevant why many criminals come from slums, which they all “know”. Juror Five responds by telling of growing up in a slum and playing in a place full of garbage. When the Foreman interrupts to say no one is personally attacking anyone else in the jury room, Juror Five slams his hand on the table, saying that it is personal. Juror Three tries to calm Juror Five down, and there is a long silence. Eventually, Juror Eleven comments that he can understand why Juror Five is sensitive.

Juror Eight finally takes his turn. He begins by saying that he doesn’t like how many questions the defense counsel left unasked or unanswered. Juror Four agrees that the defense was bad, but doesn’t think it matters to the boy’s guilt.

Juror Three brings up one of the “answered” questions, the switch knife the boy bought. Juror Eight responds by asking to see the knife again—the Foreman looks at him questioningly before talking to the guard. Juror Three doesn’t want to look at the knife again, but backs down when Juror Four asserts Juror Eight’s right to see the evidence.

As the guard goes to get the switch knife, Juror Four leads the jury in establishing the facts surrounding the knife. The boy went out of the house and bought an unusual switchblade knife, the only one the storekeeper says he had in stock. Juror Three tells all the jurors to listen to Juror Four, who “knows what he’s talking about.” The murder weapon was found at the scene without any fingerprints on it. The boy claims, however, that the knife must’ve fallen through a hole in his pocket because he never saw it again. Juror Four says that what “actually happened” was that the boy stabbed his father with the knife and remembered to wipe his fingerprints.

Juror Four, now holding the switch knife that has been brought back into the room by the guard, challenges Juror Eight on who could possibly have picked up the knife when the boy dropped it and stabbed the boy’s father. Juror Eight says it’s just possible that the boy did lose the knife, and someone else stabbed the father with a similar knife. Juror Four thinks the knife is unique and Juror Eight’s scenario would be an impossible coincidence, but Juror Eight takes from his pocket a switch knife that is exactly alike the one in evidence, and slams it into the wall. There are gasps and a long silence. Juror Ten shouts, “who do you think you are?” The Foreman shouts for quiet.

Juror Eight reveals that he bought the switch knife he just slammed into the wall for 2 dollars at a junk shop near the boy’s house. Juror Three calls Juror Eight’s move a smart trick, insisting still that the boy lied. Juror Eight offers a possible scenario where the boy didn’t lie: he might’ve snuck into the movies to watch them (his alibi) and not been seen by the cashier. He appeals to the jury to be understanding of the boy sneaking in. Juror Eleven says he never once snuck in—they didn’t have movies when he was growing up.

Juror Eight asks the jurors whether they think the boy lied. Juror Ten and Juror Four both think it is a stupid question with an obvious answer. Juror Five looks around before answering that he’s not sure.

Juror Seven tells Juror Eight “you’re alone”. Angrily, he accuses Juror Eight of being stubborn and says Juror Eight will accomplish nothing even if he hangs the jury. Juror Eight agrees that he probably won’t convince the others to change their minds and he just wants to talk about the details of the case. Juror Seven angrily responds that he doesn’t want to stay all night, deliberating. Juror Nine retorts that it’s just one night, and a boy’s life is at stake.

Juror Four comments that Juror Eight obviously thinks the boy is not guilty. Juror Eight responds only that he has a doubt. But, Juror Four argues, Juror Eight hasn’t presented anything to explain his doubt. The jurors list their evidence: the old man heard the kid’s shriek, the woman across the el tracks saw the murder occur, the boy had a switch knife like the murder weapon, the boy’s alibi is weak, and the boy did fight with his father. Juror Four adds that the boy is a violent kid “all the way,” though he then weakly acknowledges that that doesn’t prove anything.

Juror Eight proposes another vote by secret ballot of just the 11 who voted “guilty” last time—meaning everyone other than him. He says that if all the votes stay the same, then he will vote “guilty” too. Juror Seven, Juror Four, Juror Twelve and the Foreman quickly agree, while Juror Eleven agrees more slowly. The men write down their votes and pass them to the Foreman. The Foreman counts the votes, and pauses at one that is “not guilty”. Juror Ten is immediately angry, while Juror Seven, snarling, demands to know who voted “not guilty.” He says the other jurors have a right to know.