Twelve Angry Men: Juror #8 (Davis) Report

Twelve Angry Men Essay

By Zack Koster

     In Twelve Angry Men, many different personalities were thrown together in a room with a task to declare whether a boy accused of murdering his father was guilty or innocent. Some were hot headed and loud, others were stately and factual, but only one was a true productive leader. Juror #8 was the reason the ruling could be made. He took it as his duty to make sure the boy was tried fairly. Juror #8 was the most influential character in the jury because he was patient, assertive, and persuasive.

     Without Juror #8’s patience, the sentence would have been made in five minutes, without any thought or consideration. This juror stopped and reasoned instead of going along with the crowd. “We can’t send someone to die without talking about it first,” is what he told the jury, and that was his philosophy during the whole film. At first, everyone looked at him with scorn for keeping them in that hot, stuffy room longer than they wanted to be there. He did not crack and change his vote, but remained calm and waited for them to listen. Also, many arguments broke out during the course of the trial, and Juror #8 did not participate until tensions died down. He demonstrated his ability to “wait out the storm” and present his ideas in a relaxed but effective manner. Without Juror #8 the whole jury would have a made rash and premature ruling.

     Juror #8 was assertive because he got people to pay attention to him without being obnoxious. For example, he wanted to prove that the old man living in the apartment where the killing occurred could not have reached the door to escape in 15 seconds. Juror #8 decided to re-enact the event and have another juror time him. He pretended to limp because the old man had an injured leg. It took 41 seconds for Juror #8 to reach the door and that caught the others by surprise. The result was accurate and hard to argue because of the keen detail it expressed. This eye for particulars was the reason Juror #8 could make such a believable case out of anything he deemed true. In addition, when the situation called for a leader, he answered and took the role as head man, even though Juror #1 was really appointed foreman of the jury. Juror # 8 had great ideas, observations, and advice, which he knew how to share in a way that would make people listen.