Twelve_Angry_Men__Guilty_or_Not_Guilty_

One may have reasonable doubt to believe that the defendant is not guilty. Reasonable doubt is defined as the level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. It is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. For every point proving the boy guilty, there has always been another point made proving that there is reasonable doubt. The faulty testimonies of the storekeeper, old man, and the woman across the street is what eventually may cause one to conclude that the boy is not guilty. Juror Three stated that "everyone agrees that it's an unusual knife" and Juror Four stated that "the storekeeper identified the knife and said it was the only one of its kind he had in stock" (Rose 23). However, Juror Eight pulls out a switch knife identical to the one used by the boy to 'kill' his father. When asked where he purchased it, he explained that he "got it in a junk shop around the corner from the boy's house." This proves that the knife isn't actually that uncommon. That said, if the knife isn't that unique, it could have been purchased by anyone and used to kill the boy's father. The boy could have been set up for a crime he didn't commit. As Juror Three had declared, "at ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing he" [the old man] "heard the kid say to his father, "I'm gonna kill you." A second later he heard a body falling, and he ran to the door of his apartment, looked out and saw the kid running downstairs and out of the house" (Rose 18). To repudiate this, Juror Eight recreated the situation - and which, according to the old man, only took him 15 seconds to travel from his bed to the door. Regardless of any other obstacles, it would have taken the old man at least 39 seconds (possibly even longer considering his condition) to reach the door; he must have assumed it was the boy running downstairs, especially so since it was dark. If the El Train was traveling past the open window it would have been nearly impossible for the old man to have heard the boy yell "I'm gonna kill you." Juror Eight conducted a short survey, and each person had mentioned the thunderous cacophony of the El Train as it rolled past. The most convincing piece of evidence came from the testimony of the woman across the street, which is why most of the jurors still thought the boy was guilty... until Juror Eight explained the reasonable doubt in her testimony. Juror Four mentioned that the woman "could see directly into the window across the street" while lying down, and that "she turned toward the window at about twelve-ten and, as she looked out, she saw the boy stab his father." (Rose 60) Nevertheless Juror Eight found the reasonable doubt in this 'unshakeable' testimony. Of course, nobody would be foolish enough to wear glasses to bed, and the woman wore bifocals. "She testified that the murder took place the instant she looked out, and that the lights went out a split second later. She couldn't have had time to put on her glasses then." (Rose 61-62) It was possible that what the woman saw was a blur she suspected was the boy, as the air filled in the courtroom was filled with everyone thinking the boy to be guilty. Twelve Angry Men began with a vote of 11-1, in favor of guilty. At first, the testimonies of the shopkeeper, the old man, and the woman across the street were surefire statements contributing to the argument that the boy was guilty. However, with the reasonable doubt presented in these cases by Juror Eight, they gradually began changing their votes to non-guilty. Order (guilty to not guilty): Juror 8 Juror 9 Juror 5 Juror 11 Juror 2 Juror 6 Juror 7 Juror 12 Juror 1 Juror 10 Juror 4 Juror 3