Question about 12 Angry Men

Submitted by nthroop1 t3_127ktgr in movies

Is it the norm for jurors to deliberate on evidence that was not presented in the trial? They discussed the fact that the knife isn't as commonplace as the prosecutor argued, the timetable of the old man walking to the door, the passing of the el train causing noise, and the revelation that the next door neighbor wore glasses. All of which was not a point of discussion during the trial. I was under the impression that jurors are beholden to evidence presented in the context of the courtroom and not speculate about possibilities outside of that. Great movie though

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Owasso_Landman t1_jeeij8b wrote

I don’t know the answer but I think that was all done to point out how much the public defender had mailed in the defense.

1

PlatonistAstronaut t1_jeeivbc wrote

I think you're right? I recall it being the case that you're instructed to ONLY consider the evidence presented at trial.

8

Kolob619 t1_jeekf58 wrote

This has been my take since I was a child.

0

largos7289 t1_jeekpt5 wrote

LOL having been on one yes, also most people are dumb which is why having a trial by jury is the best possible outcome for you. I can guaranty you that someone will spout out some crazy BS notion because that's how they feel/ see it and then say, "Well i'm not changing my mind/vote." Then you get one or two that are just there and vote what ever. Sorry still a bit salty over it. Your supposed to consider the evidence presented, but humans by nature always interject their knowledge/experience into it.

6

raddaya t1_jeeme48 wrote

About the only movie which is legally accurate is My Cousin Vinny.

3

BertieWilberforce t1_jeemi4i wrote

Replying to largos7289 (#2,528,213)

Exactly my experience as well. We convicted a thug on beating his wife senseless (in front of his 3 year-old daughter) but even with an ADA who had her case sewn up pretty tightly, we still had one Lee J. Cobb figure on our jury who read his tabloid and said the defendant 'just got outta hand a little.' So it took some persuasion and jury members using things other than evidence to make their argument.

Yeah, I know the legal purists go crazy over what happens in the jury room in this movie (one of my absolute favorites) but the fact is, once the door's closed, anything goes. Guilty/Not Guilt/Hung Jury. That's it. No 'Oh, but we considered things other than the evidence.' Judge will *not* care.

5

calguy1955 t1_jeer2x4 wrote

I don’t know if the rules were different 60 years ago and I’m not a legal expert but isn’t the whole idea of having a jury of your peers (as opposed to professional jurors) to consider everything they heard in the trial and question it if in their own judgement they think something was incomplete or wrong? I do know that today the judge tells jurors not to do their own research so going out on the street and finding the same knife would probably result in a mistrial.

1

golfmonk t1_jeg3leg wrote

The legal friends say that the judge would declare a mistrial.

Anyways, the movie had one the best ensemble of character actors in one movie. I rewatch this one often...

1