I love this movie but I have a HUGE problem with it (SPOILERS)... - 12 Angry Men (1997) Discussion

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

Except if the jury came back with a guilty verdict, the boy was going to be executed, you can't appeal then. The facts where shaky and were not much as facts at all, juries are not machines, they are going to think outside of the box regardless of what they're ordered to do.

reply

[–] indotexan 15 years ago

I'm pretty sure that you can appeal ANY verdict, especially one that results in execution.

And like I said in the OP, I do remember the movie pretty well but I don't remember any talk of the boy getting the death penalty. And, if there is talk about it, then that's another flaw. Because, as jurors, they wouldn't be told what the possible sentences are. If they specualted on it then, well, that's another issue, but they still shouldn't have even done that.

"I stick my neck out for nobody."- Rick Blaine, Casablanca

reply

[–] death_rocker45 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure the judge mentioned it in the first few minutes, and all through the film the jurors state that - if found guilty - the boy will most likely be executed.

reply

[–] HotRod_SC 13 years ago

The problem is that, if these guys sent the kid to die, he would probably not have enough resources or public interest to even consider to appeal effectively.
Like Jack Lemmon said (sort of), that they should not be the ones to decide his eventual fate.

now this is acting: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2458172160/tt1528718

reply

[–] Mister_Anderson 15 years ago

The OP is correct. Jurors are specifically instructed NOT to return to the scene of the crime and investigate or conduct experiments. Lemmon did just that by walking in the boy's neighborhood and seeing how easy it was to buy a switchblade.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] docrock-1 14 years ago

Jurors can vote their concience no matter what a judge "orders" one to do. It is your vote alone, and unless you do something flagrant, they can't dismiss your vote without dismissing you as a juror or declaring a mistr=ial.

Jury nullification happens all the time, is a positive thing for our legal system when presented with an unjust case, or charge or verdict, and will always be part of our justice system, because as someone else pointed out, jurors are people, not robots or machines.

If I made it onto a jury for a case involving drug possession, I'd acquit, no matter the evidence. I think drug possession laws are morally bankrupt and unjust.I just wouldn't admit that that's what I was doing. The same thing happens in many types of case, don't kid yourself.

reply

[–] Mister_Anderson 14 years ago

Of course jury nullification happens. But that doesn't change what jurors are instructed to do.

And if you would acquit automatically without hearing evidence...well, I don't know how to respond to that. You sound like one of the robot jurors you say do not exist. Next time you are called for jury duty, be sure to tell that to the judge and attorneys; you will save the judicial system some time.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

In no way did jury nullification happen here. They explained their reasoning for their decisions and it had nothing to do with jury nullification but the evidence - or least their assumptions based on the evidence.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] bluerisk 11 years ago

It might be correct, but it is also demonstrating how utterly inferior your system is.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply

[–] mnwthoutfear 15 years ago

My big problem with this movie? Edaward James Olmos. He doesnt seem to care during the movie about anything unless he has a monologue. Just look at him as he says, "Pardon me, but maybe you don't fully understand the term, 'reasonable doubt' ". It's almost as if he thought they were still rehearsing their lines.

reply

[–] goleafsgo27 14 years ago

Actually, I recall seeing him in the background several times taking notes as others spoke...

reply

[–] Jetfire59 14 years ago

I thought he was acting quite naturally. His character was fiddling with his watch as he spoke that line. Mr. Olmos did fine.

I think Rasputin put it best when he said, "Mmm, those pastries gave me indigestion".

reply

[–] flix-9 15 years ago

That's not a "huge" problem that's a minor quibble, used for dramatic illustration.

reply

[–] rixrex 15 years ago

If the legal system always worked perfectly in arriving at justice, then I think you'd have a valid point. My opinion, if serving on a jury, would not be to only consider just what was presented during trial. My duty as I see it would be to arrive at the truth and do what was just, as best as possible.

I know that the instructions always state to consider only the evidence as presented in court, and that's how things have been set up by the legal system to try to arrive at the truth with fairness for both the prosecution and defense. However, it's not a perfect system. What of all the times where something is stated in court and then the jury is told to disregard it? Do you really think that's possible and they'll wipe it from their minds?

What about situations where emotional appeals, such as presenting blatantly grisly evidence to sway the jury towards feelings of revenge against whoever is the defendent? Don't tell me it doesn't happen, for I've witnessed it plenty of times. They try to make the jury feel that somebody has to pay for the crime, and the defendent is the easy target.

And how about times when a jury acquits even though the person is guilty, to make some sort of statement, or because it's in the interest of justice or fairness? This too can happen, and it is allowed to happen.

There's no constitutional requirement that a jury cannot consider things that would prove innocence in a capital murder case, regardless of what the judge states. Once the jury is in session, they cannot have interference and can proceed as they best see fit to determine what is true and just. It's not a procedure to only determine guilt or innocence, but also justice and fairness as well.

If you are the type of person who must live by a rigid set of rules without consideration af what is true and just, then you would vote to send a person to death even though you knew the person was innocent. Could you really do that, and sooth your conscience by telling yourself that the appeal will solve the problem? And on that matter, appeals tend to not be useful. Very often, they are not successful, even with significant evidence of problems during trial. Let's say the appeal failed, and the person was executed, and you knew this person was innocent, then what?

And then what about a situation where the appeal succeeded, but only after a period of many years? Then we have a person who you knew was innocent serving in prison many years for no good reason except that you had to follow a very strict interpretation of a judge's instructions, rather than follow the truth and do what was right and just?

Why would you not allow a person who you know is innocent of murder to be free regardless of technicalities? That may be a technically correct position in this situation, but it is not justice.

Regardless of what you think about this, a big part of this drama was to show that a snap judgement is not always best and correct, and Jack Lemmon's character is absolutely right to make the jury actually spend a good amount of time discussing and considering all of the evidence they had at hand, especially since they held a person's life in their hands.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

[–] EnglishSummer 15 years ago

well a couple of things here

1. the intention was to raise a reasonable doubt, in this case, if the boy would be the only one to have gotten that particular knife to use in the murder.

2. the fact that he was able to get one (when the prosecution made it known that there was no way anyone else could get the knife)

3. not a plothole because they reprimand him that he broke the law and he admits he did and wasn't supposed to do that.

here is the kicker

4. issues with the knife continue to raise more reasonable doubts - could he have stabbed him with that kind of knife? how could he be so sane to remove fingerprints but not calm enough to remember the movie? and so on,

5. the judge makes it clear the boy could face the death penalty. but since it is a murder charge, that is a given sentence (in some states, including this one taking place in NYC - hence the baseball tickets, reference to subway train, etc.)

so it is not really a plothole but also, there were many other ways to reach a reasonable doubt that the jury in good conscience *

* sidenote, all the jurors tend to get a clearer conscience as the movie progresses *

could not honestly render a verdict of GUILTY.

no, they cover the bases pretty good in this one.

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 15 years ago

1,2. The prosecution did not say or even imply it was the only knife and one-of-a-kind. They (according to the jury) stated it was unusual - which it clearly was as it had an ornate intricate design. The store owner stated it was the only one he had in stock - not it was the only one around. Now even if there were 2,4, or 10 other knives like it - the odds that the killer used this same knife are astronomical. He could have used a steak knife, a hunting knife, a chair, a bat, his hands, etc - but he just happened to use the same knife the son just bought and "lost" through a hole in his clothing and didn't notice this large knife fall or hit the ground - all happening just after he got hit by the victim.

3. Admitting he broke the rules doesn't mean jack. He should have notified the judge of the error (aside from not doing it the first place) and probably get a mistrial.

4. There is no way to determine if fingerprints were wiped or just not left. It's not as easy to leave fingerprints as the movies/TV let you believe. This was a thin ornate knife - so leaving prints would be tough - add to the fact that he had to plunge the knife into his father - this would make it that much harder to leave prints as they would get smudged.

5. Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt - whether it's a murder or stealing candy. There is no legal difference. The penalty should not make a difference. Now many states have a second part in which after no reasonable doubt was found - they have an even higher standard for the death penalty. (not in this film).

Although many of the jurors orginally come to the guilty verdict for the wrong reasons - that doesn't mean the verdict was wrong. I agree that they shouldn't use predjudices but if you use the facts of the case and not make all the assumptions they did and all the "experiments" they did I don't find reasonable doubt.

What if the jurors originally had voted not guilty and one juror used "experiments" and assumptions and investigations to change their vote to guilty - would you be OK with it then.

Those rules are there for specific reasons. Much of the court procedings go on without the jurors knowledge.

As for the "bad" defence - the defence could have done a good investigation and found out that the lady had great farsighted vision and only needed reading glasses. They could have found out the old man could move much quicker in a time of emergency or in a time of need. They might have know there was another knife like it - but didn't want to stress the point of it's rarity. They wouldn't bring this info up because it would hurt their case - and if they did - many would be saying they did a bad job - just as many say now.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] EnglishSummer 15 years ago

hero-de-celluloid - are you replying to me or the Original Poster?

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 15 years ago

mostly just throwing it out there -but I used your points.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] adamyshoe 15 years ago

Thanks hero, you bring up some good points. And this is getting a little far afield from the OP's point, but the important thing here is the question of reasonable doubt, or whether the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

You posed the question of whether people would be okay with it if a lone juror had done experiments and converted a sea of "not guilty" votes into "guilty" ones. That's not the point of the process (although it likely has happened...see "The Runaway Jury" based on the John Grisham novel for 1 example).

The thing is, the definition of "reasonable" is different for different folks. Most of the evidence in the case was circumstancial, or possibly blatantly incorrect. But most of the jurors latched onto it and were ready to pronounce the defendant guilty and send him to his death. Most people are dumb. They are easily influenced by what they see and hear and can be persuaded to believe things that aren't necessarily true just because they are presented in an engaging manner or repeatedly, or by someone they believe they can trust (advertising anyone?). Most people believe that they have a reasonable chance of winning the lottery, even though that is patently false.

If someone said to me, "if you believe this person committed this act, then this person will die" I would need incontravertible evidence (a confession, fingerprints, DNA, audio or video recording - i know, often inadmissible) that the person committed the crime, otherwise, there would be enough doubt, no matter how small, that something else could have happened.

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 15 years ago

When this was filmed and nowadays as well - you don't need incontrovertible evidence to convict - you need reasonable doubt - even in a death penalty case. Now it is your prerogative to disregard the jury's instructions as nobody would be the wiser. Fortunately now - many if not most states have a second phase in murder trials that have a higher degree of certainty for death (otherwise life in prison). But the actual conviction is strictly based on reasonable doubt. I am not a proponent of the death penalty - but that isn't the point of finding reasonable doubt.

Second - can't a fingerprint examiner be wrong or "paid off", DNA isn't 100%, recordings can be tampered with and/or their examiners can be wrong, and there is always the long lost identical twin. Nobody would be convicted if they based their decision if there was any at all possibility of something not happening.

As far as the process - sure that is how it works and supposed to work. After the trial or discussion after people make conclusions. If it isn't unanimous they try to convince the others on why the feel that way. So a person who feels a person is guilty would try to explain to the others why he feels that way. Now if he used these "experiments", personal investigations, and assumptions to change the other voters to guilty – I doubt many would think it is OK - as I don't think it is. But I also don't think it is OK to make blatant assumptions, do experiments beyond the scope of a juror, and do personal investigation which is against court procedures to let a murderer go free. The victim has rights and the people of the state have rights as well. They have the right to see that suspect gets a fair trial and the jurors use the rules in deciding that.

As far as circumstantial evidence - there was a witness who saw the murder and murderer. That is direct evidence. She told the police she saw a stabbing. Not someone getting hit with a hammer or pushed to the ground or hit with a fist. She said she saw a stabbing - thus if she could distinguish that - her eyesight is pretty good.

Actually - most people do have chance at winning the lottery - which you write as "patently false." That chance is small - but they do have a chance to win.

You write," Most people are dumb. They are easily influenced by what they see and hear and can be persuaded to believe things that aren't necessarily true just because they are presented in an engaging manner or repeatedly, or by someone they believe they can trust (advertising anyone?)."

You just summed up how and why the jurors in the movie changed their mind. That was beautiful. They just listened to #8's (and others) assumption after assumption and believed them as fact. #8 actually says he "proved" the old man couldn't make it to the door - when he did no such thing - and most took it as fact.

Now I will agree with you that reasonable doubt is subjective. I don't have a problem with a not guilty vote - it's just how they came up with it. They based it on assumptions and experiments and investigations that were out of their scope.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] lithios-698-946200 13 years ago

I think you're misunderstanding which side of the argument the idea of 'reasonable doubt' falls on. (I am not patronizing you and correct me if I'm wrong). But, reasonable doubt means, "is there reason enough to believe that he MIGHT be INNOCENT" not "is there reason enough to believe he might be GUILTY". The burden is to prove guilty not innocent. If there is ANY POSSIBLE way that he could be innocent then you cannot convict him... especially for life in prison or the death penalty.

And furthermore, this is the whole point of the movie (apart from many other good points): Is it even POSSIBLE AT ALL to prove that anything is true beyond reasonable doubt? I mean even 'facts' of science that we generally consider to be absolutely irrefutable are still just theories because we have 99% of the math/information behind them but there is still that 1% that we don't know... which means its not absolute truth.

In a perfect world, the only way we could KNOW that someone did something would be to watch his mind like a movie which is impossible. Or, if every single human being was somehow compelled to be honest all of the time. Even the old man in the film probably did believe that he heard the boy yell 'I'm going to kill you' but a 100% honest man would HAVE to say "I thought that I heard it, but, I AM an old man and even young people make mistakes in remembering what is heard or even seen so I can't be completely sure".

It's a conundrum. Its one of life's biggest philosophical questions. And the other point the film was making is that BECAUSE it is one of life's most frustrating questions, people tend to not think about it because it can make you furious to try and find an answer to an unanswerable question (which is why religion was created to answer the question of how did we get here).

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

When this was filmed and nowadays as well - you don't need incontrovertible evidence to convict - you need reasonable doubt

Wow. You really have no idea what reasonable doubt is. It's based on the presumption of innocence. You can't convict with only a doubt. You can and must, however, vote not guilty if you have a reasonable doubt.

Now if he used these "experiments", personal investigations, and assumptions to change the other voters to guilty – I doubt many would think it is OK - as I don't think it is.

If someone could convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, I'd vote guilty.
The thing is it's harder to convince someone of guilt than it is to dismantle evidence and testimony, as it should be.

But I also don't think it is OK to make blatant assumptions, do experiments beyond the scope of a juror, and do personal investigation which is against court procedures to let a murderer go free.

Their duty as a jury is to evaluate the evidence presented to them, through all means available. Discussion and argumentation being one. You want them to just do a thumbs up/down on the prosecution or defense's performances?

As far as circumstantial evidence - there was a witness who saw the murder and murderer. That is direct evidence.

Did you actually serve on a jury? Wow. Testimony is *not* evidence, even less "direct evidence". Eye witnesses are the worst thing in the justice system. Most of the time they don't even lie. They are just wrong and the whole process of repeating their story over and over convinces them even more that they're right. Do you know how many witness testimony were found to be complete BS when DNA evidence was introduced? Check out the Innocence Project website.

She told the police she saw a stabbing. Not someone getting hit with a hammer or pushed to the ground or hit with a fist. She said she saw a stabbing - thus if she could distinguish that - her eyesight is pretty good.

lol right. Because recognizing a gesture and positively identifying someone's face from across a street through a passing train is the same thing, roughly.

Actually - most people do have chance at winning the lottery - which you write as "patently false." That chance is small - but they do have a chance to win.

I see you also don't understand probabilities, which would explain your interpretation of "reasonable doubt". A "small chance" is no chance at all. One in 5 billion is a "chance" but it is not small. It's non existent.

They just listened to #8's (and others) assumption after assumption and believed them as fact.

No. They considered the evidence and the doubt they had about each "key" piece after considering it, and changed their minds.

He could have used a steak knife, a hunting knife, a chair, a bat, his hands, etc - but he just happened to use the same knife the son just bought and "lost" through a hole in his clothing and didn't notice this large knife fall or hit the ground - all happening just after he got hit by the victim.

The problem is still that you don't understand the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt. The kid may have lost his knife in the apartment. Nobody said it wasn't his knife. Just that it wasn't that unique. For all we know, the guy who killed the father just found the knife right outside the building and used it.
It's plausible. Thus reasonable.

As for the "bad" defence - the defence could have done a good investigation and found out that the lady had great farsighted vision and only needed reading glasses.

Nope. They were alerted about her eyesight by the presence of marks on her nose. People wearing glasses only for reading don't usually wear glasses long enough in the day to have that kind of marks. Maybe if she read all day but that wouldn't leave permanent marks.

They could have found out the old man could move much quicker in a time of emergency or in a time of need.

Come on. Who's making assumptions now? He wasn't running from a fire. He was just curious about a noise he heard. "time of emergency or in a time of need"? Please.
And it wasn't just by a little. The time was 45 seconds!

I’m not sure where you are going with the “bleeding heart liberals” but lawyering up isn’t only done by the rich.

In overwhelming majority, according to the ACLU and Innocence Project as well as other statistics provided by Civil Rights associations, people with the means to pay for a lawyer do lawyer up more often and way faster than people who are afraid it's going to cost them their life savings. Go figure.

Anyone who has done time knows to lawyer up, anyone who watches TV knows to lawyer up

Again, you're wrong. According to the ACLU, most people who do not lawyer up believe it will make them look guilty to do so, probably because of tv.

Based on what? You were never at that place or at that time? There were witnesses who testified who were at that place AND at that time. The only thing they did to try to put doubt on the testimony was use assumption after assumption - and you can do that with any witness.

And that's why eye witnesses are crap. They are not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. You need hard evidence to support testimony. Testimony should only corroborate evidence.

IMO it wasn't flimsy as there was no evidence to contradict it - in fact the two witnesses corborated eachothers stories as far as who did it and when it took place.

Again, you do not understand the presumption of innocence. It's not their job to find evidence to contradict the witnesses. Just to examine their testimony and see if it is flawed. And in that case, it was.

Add to that the weapon - which is completely damning I don't see reasonable doubt.

How is the knife "completely damning"? It's not a particularly unique knife and even if it was, and it had the kid's damn name on it, it *still* wouldn't prove he was the one wielding the knife at the time of his dad's murder.

Even if you take away the witnesses (which you shouldn't) you have the knife. What are the odds the killer used the same knife the son just bought and "lost" that very same day.

So you don't mind small odds when it comes to the lottery but when it comes to reasonable doubt, you have a problem with them.

He could have used anything - a steak knife, a hunting knife, his hands, a rope, a chair, a bat, etc - but he just happened to use that very same knife - those are astromonical odds - even if there a 2,3, a dozen of those knives around.

And again, the kid said he had lost the knife, which wouldn't be the first time someone loses something, so what makes you so sure the killer just didn't pick it up off the floor of the apartment and used it to kill the dad? You are speculating.

The juror (#8) didn't show that it wasn't rare. He found one other knife. For all we know he could have had dozens of his friends look all night just to find one knife.

lol why would he even do that? And also who cares? Again, it could have been his knife, that still didn't mean he killed his father.

I hope you're never on a serious jury.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 7 years ago

Wow. You really have no idea what reasonable doubt is. It's based on the presumption of innocence. You can't convict with only a doubt. You can and must, however, vote not guilty if you have a reasonable doubt.

I know what reasonable doubt is and how the judicial system works. You can have doubt and still convict - if your doubt is reasonable then you shouldn't. Sorry if you can't comprehend that, but that is how the system works. Just because there is a possibility that the defendant might not have done the crime - doesn't mean you have to acquit - the doubt must be reasonable.

Their duty as a jury is to evaluate the evidence presented to them, through all means available. Discussion and argumentation being one. You want them to just do a thumbs up/down on the prosecution or defense's performances?

Wrong. Plain and simple. There are rules to the jury system. First, you are correct that they should use the evidence presented to them, but it has to be evidence that was entered into evidence or through testimony. They clearly did not do this. For example - they used the old man's walk to the witness stand. This is clearly out of their scope. This walk to the witness stand is not indicative of the old man's top speed. #8 investigated the crime on his own and introduced evidence to the jury (the knife). Klugman acted as an expert which is also against the rules of the jury system. They performed baseless experiments - also against the rules. I have previously posted the rules of jury conduct which explains how they are only to use evidence admitted into court or through testimony and how a juror can't act as an expert. (I can repost if you need) It is clear and they clearly violated it on many occasions. So more to the point - they can't (or at least shouldn't) use ALL means available.

Did you actually serve on a jury? Wow. Testimony is *not* evidence, even less "direct evidence".

Not sure where you are from - but testimony is surely evidence.

http://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/goingtocourt/evidence.shtml

Straight from the NY courts (btw this is where the trial takes place). Testimony IS evidence and when it is about how they saw the murder - that IS direct testimony. I can't make it any clearer than that. You obviously think you know more about that law and the judicial system than you actually do - which is fine - but don't try putting people down when you don't have a clue.

Do you know how many witness testimony were found to be complete BS when DNA evidence was introduced?

Do you how many witness testimonies were accurate? Far more than those that were false. So you can pick and choose the very few that were not accurate - but that does not even come close to those that were accurate.

Because recognizing a gesture and positively identifying someone's face from across a street through a passing train is the same thing, roughly.

Not just a gesture as an overhand swing could does not mean it's a stab. It could have been a club, a fist, etc - she knew it was a stab. Second - even in the movie - the jurors state that they proved you could see through the train to the other side.

I see you also don't understand probabilities, which would explain your interpretation of "reasonable doubt". A "small chance" is no chance at all. One in 5 billion is a "chance" but it is not small. It's non existent.

Are you for real? A small chance does not mean no chance - (and you write I don't understand probabilities).

But even more to your point - in the movie a juror tells #8 that even though he found another knife - the odds would still be a million to one (1: 1,000,000) that it was someone else. #8 doesn't refute it, doesn't change the odds, just says - well isn't it possible. So according to you - with these astronomical odds - it wouldn't be possible someone else did it. That is just the reference the knife - the juror wasn't even talking about the two witnesses, the lack of a credible alibi, the history of knife fighting, etc.

For all we know, the guy who killed the father just found the knife right outside the building and used it. It's plausible. Thus reasonable.

Serious?

People wearing glasses only for reading don't usually wear glasses long enough in the day to have that kind of marks. Maybe if she read all day but that wouldn't leave permanent marks.

Wrong - I know people who only have reading glasses and who have those marks. She could have been reading just before she went on the stand. Many witness do. There are long times of waiting and many read. She could have taken those reading glasses of just before she got on the stand.

Come on. Who's making assumptions now? He wasn't running from a fire. He was just curious about a noise he heard. "time of emergency or in a time of need"? Please.
And it wasn't just by a little. The time was 45 seconds!

He wasn't just curious - he was going to the door to possibly see the killer. He heard the threat of killing - then heard the thump - he rushed to the door to see the criminal flee. Either way - the walk to the witness stand is a time when virtually everyone takes their sweet time.

As far as the time - for arguments sake - let's say it did take 45 seconds to get to the door. So he wasn't accurate with his time. How accurate can you be when you aren't timing yourself. What is more likely - he was off in his time - or when saw the kid (who he knows) he was wrong. Don't answer as I already know your answer.

I’m not sure where you are going with the “bleeding heart liberals” but lawyering up isn’t only done by the rich.

Anyone who has done time knows to lawyer up, anyone who watches TV knows to lawyer up

Not sure why you are quoting me with these two or many of the others - I don't recall writing them in the prior post. Are they from other posts?

They are not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. You need hard evidence to support testimony. Testimony should only corroborate evidence.

Once again wrong. You can convict on testimony alone - plain and simple. Also - there was more than just testimony in this case.

Again, you do not understand the presumption of innocence. It's not their job to find evidence to contradict the witnesses. Just to examine their testimony and see if it is flawed. And in that case, it was.

I didn't say it was their job to find evidence to contradict the witness - I simple wrote there was no evidence contradicting the witnesses and they corroborated each other's testimony.

So you don't mind small odds when it comes to the lottery but when it comes to reasonable doubt, you have a problem with them.

Not sure what you mean. I don't play the lottery because the odds of winning are so small it wouldn't be very likely I would win. I might win - but it wouldn't be reasonable to play for me. If the odds that the son didn't kill the father are so small that it would lead to reasonable doubt - I would vote guilty.

You seem to have this attitude like you somehow know the law - which you don't. I don't know if you watch Law and Order on a regular basis, DVR CSI every day, solve your kids riddles -- but you need to get into reality. The law, the system, the rules, etc - aren't what you are watching on TV. I previously (I can repost if you can't find) have posted numerous law papers supporting my stance. They get into detail on how the jury violated many rules, were illogical, based their theories on assumptions, etc. They also cover how the knife alone would be so damning it would likely lead to a conviction in real life. These papers from prestigious universities demonstrate how out of touch you are. Please - stick to the water cooler chat about last nights NCIS and avoid posting about the law and the jury system.

User Error Please Try Again

reply

[–] jazzmantrey 15 years ago

The first time I saw it (on stage) I thought the same thing. Yes, the movie has flaws. Even though this one was updated it is still an old script. Check out some other courtroom dramas from the time of the original, Perry Mason did tons of things that he shouldn't/couldn't do. Now adays we care more about accuracy and realism in such stories, and many of these courtroom rules are more common knowledge than they once were. The main purpose of this story was to be entertaining and have exciting dramatic elements. It's an enjoyable, good movie even if it isn't completely accurate. If it bothers you too much, there are quite a few, more accurate, courtroom dramas out there that you can watch, but I like this movie in spite of it's flaws, and I hope others will continue to as well.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Jury nullification is the disregard of the letter of the law and acquitting the defendant. This is discussed on the original movie post. This is clearly not the case here. If they were to state - we think the son did it - but are not going to convict based on our convictions against the death penalty - that would be jury nullification - and I could accept that. They however just used assumption after assumption and used illogical reasoning. Can they do that? Sure. But that doesn't make it right? Would you accept the scenario if they CONVICTED the son based on this faulty logic and assumptions instead? What if they all wanted to acquit and one juror convinced them all to convict based on these assumptions and falsehoods?

What if they decided to do the "opposite" of jury nullification and just convict because of certain moral convictions (which some were doing)?

No verdict can bring a murdered person back to life - but it could prevent the defendant from doing it again. He was in knife fights before and has a history of violence, etc.

So yes - the jury can use faulty logic, etc - but it could work both ways, and it doesn't make it right. It's a dangerous road.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I’m not sure which conversation you’re refereeing to. The defendant in this case was an “ unknown.”
"too poor to get off jury duty"???

I'm not sure where you are from - but I have served a few times and am not poor nor were most of the other jurors (we did discuss occupations etc.). So, I'm not sure where you have this notion that poor comprise most of the jurors (unless I’m just reading into it, sorry if that’s the case). Either way – off subject – jury duty shouldn’t be treated as some chore or punishment. It’s one of the greatest privileges we have.

Actually I think I’m getting off subject. Oh well.

You think only stars get off DUI’s – many people get off DUI’s. It’s a very technical prosecution and when mistakes are made – either charges are dismissed or plea bargains are made.

Jury nullification is useless and/or harmful IMO except for the most egregious laws which for the most part aren’t around anymore. Jury nullification was great when laws were biased, but for the most part they aren’t anymore.

Sure the rich do get better lawyers – I can’t argue with that. Is there a solution – I don’t know. Have no more private lawyers and just court appointed lawyers – even those lawyers can range from great to bad.

I’m not sure where you are going with the “bleeding heart liberals” but lawyering up isn’t only done by the rich. Anyone who has done time knows to lawyer up, anyone who watches TV knows to lawyer up, in fact, most jurisdictions require to sign and waive your right to a lawyer if you are going to talk – so they spell it out for people and have you sign that right away if you like.

I consider myself middle of the road – I am not a proponent for the death penalty – not so much for moral reasons – I just don’t think it is a deterrent – and in many cases it’s more punishment to keep them alive in a cell for the rest of their lives – as well as it’s probably cheaper not going through all the mandatory appeals – also because it is so final.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] mwhite182 14 years ago

The OP is right, the evidence presented in court was in favor of him being guilty. Now that doesn't mean a juror couldn't think the boy was not guilty, but most of the things Jack Lemmon brought up were pure speculation and had no bearing on the case. They were supposed to use the evidence given to them and they vote not guilty based on there own speculations. It was like they had their own trial in the jury room but instead of evidence they went with hear-say. It's was obvious how this movie was going to end and that's why I dislike it.

I demand episode 201 of South Park be uncensored.

reply

[–] Cattymiss 14 years ago

mhwhite and the OP,

I happen to disagree. I have also served on a jury of a criminal trial.

The jury is allowed to discuss, debate, question or validate any evidence given in the trial.

You as a jury member have a right to decide whether the evidence or witness tesitimony is believable or valid. You do not have to take it as "fact".

I thought juror #8 did exactly that. He questioned the validity of prosecutions evidence. He did so in a way that was logical.

Was the knife so rare that only the boy could have gotten?

Was the method in which the knife was used a way in which the boy could have performed the murder?

Were the witnesses believable? Could the old man have heard or seen what he said he heard and saw? the same with the older woman?

A jury is allowed to question the evidence presented and they do not have to take the witnesses statements as fact.

Cattymiss

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Catty - you are right that they do not have to take the witness's statements as fact - but they did more than just that. #8 investigated the crime on his own (looking and buying knife) which is clear cut example of jury misconduct. They performed "experiments" based on evidence not submitted in to evidence or as witness testimony. Heck - they based their experiment on the old man's walk to the jury stand - a time when everyone takes their time. They had no idea how fast this man could move in a time of need, and the list goes on.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] melissa_bizz 14 years ago

It was mentioned that the old man had had a stroke and clearly walked slowly because of his bad leg. For him to be able to get out of bed, and walk some 50+ feet in 15 seconds would have been impossible. For him to have been able to hear what he said he heard would have also been impossible because of the train going by. Anyone who has ever been by a subway train as it goes by would agree with this.

The "experiment" of the walking speed is clearly based on evidence given.

"So these are brussel sprouts? They sure do smell up the house."

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Just because you have a stroke and a limp does not mean you can't go quickly in a time of emergency or need. Saying it is "impossible" is ridiculous because you have no idea how fast he could go. The only basis is his walk to the jury stand - a time in which people take their time.

As for the train - once again - you have no idea how loud the train was at that time in that building. I have been able to hear people with subways going by if they talk loud enough, and if you lived in old apartments you can hear the people above you very easily in many cases. Once again you use the word "impossible" yet it is possible to hear people when a subway is going by. On a daily basis you can have AND hear conversations of people on platforms just literally inches away from the subway (and this train in the movie was more than inches away.)

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] melissa_bizz 14 years ago

The main point of all of his questions with the testimony was to bring in "Reasonable Doubt." He didn't have to prove anything, just bring in to question the testimony given and that it could have been wrong. You can't send a person to death row on such flimsy testimony.

My choice of the word impossible was a poor choice. I'll switch to "improbable."

"So these are brussel sprouts? They sure do smell up the house."

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Based on what? You were never at that place or at that time? There were witnesses who testified who were at that place AND at that time. The only thing they did to try to put doubt on the testimony was use assumption after assumption - and you can do that with any witness. IMO it wasn't flimsy as there was no evidence to contradict it - in fact the two witnesses corborated eachothers stories as far as who did it and when it took place. Add to that the weapon - which is completely damning I don't see reasonable doubt. Even if you take away the witnesses (which you shouldn't) you have the knife. What are the odds the killer used the same knife the son just bought and "lost" that very same day. He could have used anything - a steak knife, a hunting knife, his hands, a rope, a chair, a bat, etc - but he just happened to use that very same knife - those are astromonical odds - even if there a 2,3, a dozen of those knives around.

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] melissa_bizz 14 years ago

For me, the point wasn't "if" he did it. The point was the "reasonable doubt." And there was plenty of that to go around.

We're watching the original tonight...I've never seen it all the way through. I'm looking forward to it.

"So these are brussel sprouts? They sure do smell up the house."

reply

[–] Ulex 14 years ago

First of all, Fonda/Lemmon didn't go back to the "scene of the crime," he went back to the neighborhood and bought a knife. (When he says, "Yeah, I broke the law," I assume he meant the buying a switchblade, which must have been illegal back then.)

Probably, it was technically a violation. But are we really supposed to believe that jurors never do this? Suppose he had seen some TV News program about how those type of switchblade knives area really popular in that side of town. If he brought that up during deliberations, would that be a violation?

I've never sat on a jury, but I did cover courts for about four months as a newspaper reporter in Ohio, and it was clear to me that jurors don't follow their instructions that precisely.

The knife is a crucial part of the story for this reason: It demonstrates the basic point of how our perceptions can be mislead. The prosecution apparently convinced everyone, through ONE witness, that those types of switchblade knives were exceedingly rare. The juror was able to puncture holes in this theory -- rather easily, not using Sherlock Holmes detective skills. Who knows, maybe there are only two of those goddamn scorpion knives around, and they just happened to stumble on them. Or maybe every thug on that block owned one, and this supposedly remarkable coincidence wasn't really so remarkable.

The point is: People are so eager to let a few testimonials or facts define our worldview, because that is easier and more comforting than confronting and exploring the complexity of life.

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

The juror (#8) didn't show that it wasn't rare. He found one other knife. For all we know he could have had dozens of his friends look all night just to find one knife. Second - maybe these stores started to stock this knife because of the trial - maybe they felt it would sell if it was seen in a newspaper or something like that - so the knives found that day wouldn't necessarily be available on the day of the murder.

The reason juror are not supposed to do their investigations (look for evidence) is because it can't be examined by the prosecution or the defense. How do we know how long it took #8 to find it? What if he lied?

The fact is the prosecution had a witness testify to the rarity and unusualness of the knife and defense didn't refute it. They might not have refuted it because they couldn't. Perhaps they knew it was very rare and only a few were around and by bringing that up - it would only stress its rarity.

All #8 did was demonstrate that another one existed - and the prosecution never implied no other one did. He could have spent all night with dozens of people trying to find just one knife - but we will never know because it can't be refuted. Also the fact that those knives were available when #8 was looking - isn't necessarily an indication that they were available at the time of the crime.

What if #8 did all these investigations, experiments, and expressed all these assumptions to change the juror's minds to guilty instead? Would you be so lenient on his actions? What if he did all these experiments and changed the juror’s from 11-1 not guilty to 12-0 guilty?

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

You seem to be making a mistake. Reasonable doubt DOESN'T mean that there isn't any doubt and the jury has 100% certainty that the person did it. The doubt just can't be reasonable. There can be doubt in every single case - any defense attorney can say it was a set up, the evidence was planted, the witnesses were wrong and the experts lied. Can that leave doubt? Sure - even if there wasn't any evidence supporting that. That doesn't mean it was reasonable doubt. Just because there is some small iota of doubt – doesn’t mean they should acquit – only if the doubt is reasonable. I don't see reasonable doubt in this case (with the limited info we get).

You can scream now if you want.

reply

[–] EnglishSummer 13 years ago

"You can throw out all the other evidence"

The switchblade was just the beginning of the deliberation. It got the jurors attention to closely examine all the other evidence/testimonies.

It was pretty clear that there was a reasonable doubt in at least one of them. That's all that was needed.

He was just too good, every juror had a stand and juror #8 was able to erect a doubt in each and every one of them.

That was the whole point of the film.

"Shall I list them for you?"

:)

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

They were supposed to use the evidence given to them and they vote not guilty based on there own speculations.

No. They are supposed to examine and weigh the evidence presented to them. I hope you're never on a jury.

It was like they had their own trial in the jury room but instead of evidence they went with hear-say.

Hearsay (noun): information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

How is anything "hearsay"? In fact the "witnesses" testimony is the most unsubstantiated of anything said in the whole movie.

You're confusing hearsay with argumentation. Again, please get yourself recused from jury duty.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] lithios-698-946200 13 years ago

You can't KILL SOMEONE if there is any chance he could possibly, however remotely, be innocent. There was NO concrete proof, all circumstantial.

reply

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

I'm not sure you know what circumstantial means. When a witness actually witnesses the murder and sees the defendant kill the victim- that is not circumstantial but direct evidence.

You can scream now if you want.

reply