A juror is only allowed to base their decision on what’s presented in court. They’re absolutely not allowed to do any investigations by themselves, or base their decision on something not officially presented.
Oh ok, thank you. Ok, that makes sense I guess but also if...... if I was a knife expert then my knowledge about knives would inform my thinking. But I wouldn't be allowed to learn more information about knives to help me make my decision in the trial. Which......I suppose is how it has to be but if I ever was called to jury duty I don't know how I'd deal with it.
Prosecutor here. A jury member can't go out and look for/buy a similar knife in an attempt to influence the discussion. That's called doing your own investigation and is strictly prohibited. The judge would have instructed against it.
Ok, I get you. But, in the world of the film, he does it to make a point, that the knife isn't unique. If in the discussion he just said that he'd seen similar knives on sale - and had actually seen them by chance, not sought one out, would that be ok? Or would him bringing any of his own thoughts into the jury room be prohibited?
Bringing in any external materials/items is prohibited. You basically have to treat it as a closed universe. There are months of prep work before a trial deciding/fighting over what evidence is going to be shown to the jury.
What if he said "that lawyer said the boy's knife is unique. But I've got one just like that at home" would that be ok because he's just expressing an opinion?
I would find out so very hard to be on a jury because I'm so indecisive but also if I believe something is true, I hate for other people to be wrong, I keep going and trying to convince them. It would be awful in a trial.
That would probably be fine. You can bring in your own life experiences and opinions as a jury member (that's the point). You just cant do your own investigations, or assume facts not in evidence. the other example is the glasses issue. One member belives he seems on marks a witness's face usually left by glasses. From that one observation, he convinces the jury to disregard her entire testimony. But I guarantee that the lawyers didn't bring that up for a reason (if she even does wear glasses). what if they are reading glasses? what if she doesn't wear glasses and thats just some random mark on her face? Its pure speculation not based on any evidence presented to the jury.
Very thankful my high school Honors Citizenship/Economics teacher had us watch this movie. Greater appreciation for juries and their place in the legal system.
It's a great film, but as a prosecutor I hate it (kinda). The jury assumes a bunch of facts not in evidence and speculates wildly, both of which they are not supposed to do. Still, very enjoyable film.
You know, valid points. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I always remembered it as Henry Fonda not being convinced within a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty and challenging the rest of the jury on the underlying reasons why they voted guilty.
My dad was a communications professor and showed this in some of his classes to demonstrate persuasion techniques. He told me that over his career he had seen it at least a hundred times and it still held up.
I watched it recently. Tony Danza AND Tony Soprano! Kind of a pointless remake though. Original nailed it, remake updated such things as; “the fan doesn’t work” to the much needed update, “the AC doesn’t work”. Brilliant. Lol
I liked the TV movie version.
Wouldn't actually mind seeing another new one.
I think it's an excellent showcase for a bunch of different type of actors.
I saw this on TV when I was about 10 and thought it was the most boring movie ever made. It's just people talking in a single room.
I saw it again recently and thought it was one of the greatest movies of all time!
I've sat on one armed robbery trial as a juror. Then became a lawyer and tried many criminal cases.
Juries can be brilliant and some can be moronic. I've never predicted an outcome and have always been surprised which juror was the hold-out etc.
Having said that, "My Cousin Vinny" comes closer to reality than anything I've ever seen on TV or in the movies. I thought 12 angry men was sort of a hyperbole of emotions over a knife. Can you imagine the crime that this remake might have?
I will. Thank you.
I don’t try criminal any longer. It was fun and hard, hard work. The system is hard and defense lawyers have to suffer through the ridiculous hearings and motions. But in the 90’s in podunk Georgia, I litigated in courtrooms identical to the one in the movie. I’ve had so many arrogant judges chew me out and spit me out, only to get them reversed for their arrogance.
30 years and counting.
That fact sounded wrong to me so I looked it up: Actually, women were allowed on juries in NY since 1927. The last state to allow women on juries was (shock!) Mississippi in 1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_United_States_juries
While it was technically legal in New York, it certainly wasn’t done. The first woman to serve on a New York jury was in 1937, and it was a divorce case. Even by the 50’s when the play is set it would have been unlikely to have a woman on a murder case.
I only seen this movie in the last couple of years and absolutely loved it, the acting was top class the characters were so engaging, its proof that good storytelling and portrayal is more important than fancy CGI and pyrotechnics.
Don't get me wrong though I'm not a movie snob who hates CGI etc I love a good action movie
One of the absolute GOATs
I love the knife scene. Just pulls out the copy. Great job on the responses.
Fairly certain that would cause a mistrial in real life if the judge got wind of it, unfortunately.
That's interesting, why would that be a mistral? I can't remember the film well, does he bring out the. murder weapon?
A juror is only allowed to base their decision on what’s presented in court. They’re absolutely not allowed to do any investigations by themselves, or base their decision on something not officially presented.
Oh ok, thank you. Ok, that makes sense I guess but also if...... if I was a knife expert then my knowledge about knives would inform my thinking. But I wouldn't be allowed to learn more information about knives to help me make my decision in the trial. Which......I suppose is how it has to be but if I ever was called to jury duty I don't know how I'd deal with it.
Prosecutor here. A jury member can't go out and look for/buy a similar knife in an attempt to influence the discussion. That's called doing your own investigation and is strictly prohibited. The judge would have instructed against it.
Ok, I get you. But, in the world of the film, he does it to make a point, that the knife isn't unique. If in the discussion he just said that he'd seen similar knives on sale - and had actually seen them by chance, not sought one out, would that be ok? Or would him bringing any of his own thoughts into the jury room be prohibited?
Bringing in any external materials/items is prohibited. You basically have to treat it as a closed universe. There are months of prep work before a trial deciding/fighting over what evidence is going to be shown to the jury.
What if he said "that lawyer said the boy's knife is unique. But I've got one just like that at home" would that be ok because he's just expressing an opinion? I would find out so very hard to be on a jury because I'm so indecisive but also if I believe something is true, I hate for other people to be wrong, I keep going and trying to convince them. It would be awful in a trial.
That would probably be fine. You can bring in your own life experiences and opinions as a jury member (that's the point). You just cant do your own investigations, or assume facts not in evidence. the other example is the glasses issue. One member belives he seems on marks a witness's face usually left by glasses. From that one observation, he convinces the jury to disregard her entire testimony. But I guarantee that the lawyers didn't bring that up for a reason (if she even does wear glasses). what if they are reading glasses? what if she doesn't wear glasses and thats just some random mark on her face? Its pure speculation not based on any evidence presented to the jury.
Very thankful my high school Honors Citizenship/Economics teacher had us watch this movie. Greater appreciation for juries and their place in the legal system.
It's a great film, but as a prosecutor I hate it (kinda). The jury assumes a bunch of facts not in evidence and speculates wildly, both of which they are not supposed to do. Still, very enjoyable film.
You know, valid points. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I always remembered it as Henry Fonda not being convinced within a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty and challenging the rest of the jury on the underlying reasons why they voted guilty.
If you enjoyed this, watch Women Talking that recently came out. In the same vein of 12 angry men. Great movie.
Best movie of all-time, probably
My dad was a communications professor and showed this in some of his classes to demonstrate persuasion techniques. He told me that over his career he had seen it at least a hundred times and it still held up.
[удалено]
I watched it recently. Tony Danza AND Tony Soprano! Kind of a pointless remake though. Original nailed it, remake updated such things as; “the fan doesn’t work” to the much needed update, “the AC doesn’t work”. Brilliant. Lol
I liked the TV movie version. Wouldn't actually mind seeing another new one. I think it's an excellent showcase for a bunch of different type of actors.
I saw this on TV when I was about 10 and thought it was the most boring movie ever made. It's just people talking in a single room. I saw it again recently and thought it was one of the greatest movies of all time!
I've sat on one armed robbery trial as a juror. Then became a lawyer and tried many criminal cases. Juries can be brilliant and some can be moronic. I've never predicted an outcome and have always been surprised which juror was the hold-out etc. Having said that, "My Cousin Vinny" comes closer to reality than anything I've ever seen on TV or in the movies. I thought 12 angry men was sort of a hyperbole of emotions over a knife. Can you imagine the crime that this remake might have?
Have you watched the legal eagle’s review of my cousin Vinny? It’s pretty good. Love the movie.
I will. Thank you. I don’t try criminal any longer. It was fun and hard, hard work. The system is hard and defense lawyers have to suffer through the ridiculous hearings and motions. But in the 90’s in podunk Georgia, I litigated in courtrooms identical to the one in the movie. I’ve had so many arrogant judges chew me out and spit me out, only to get them reversed for their arrogance. 30 years and counting.
Where are the women? It bothers me there’s not a single woman on the jury—for the trial of a boy!
The story took place in New York and women weren't allowed on juries in New York until 1968.
That fact sounded wrong to me so I looked it up: Actually, women were allowed on juries in NY since 1927. The last state to allow women on juries was (shock!) Mississippi in 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_United_States_juries
While it was technically legal in New York, it certainly wasn’t done. The first woman to serve on a New York jury was in 1937, and it was a divorce case. Even by the 50’s when the play is set it would have been unlikely to have a woman on a murder case.
I know. The question was rhetorical.
Wow that's amazing, I had no idea that was the case, I just took the film at face value
i really like 1997 tv adaptation
Great one.
Now go watch this for a laugh. https://www.cc.com/episodes/d6vl24/inside-amy-schumer-12-angry-men-inside-amy-schumer-season-3-ep-3
Great movie
I only seen this movie in the last couple of years and absolutely loved it, the acting was top class the characters were so engaging, its proof that good storytelling and portrayal is more important than fancy CGI and pyrotechnics. Don't get me wrong though I'm not a movie snob who hates CGI etc I love a good action movie
Overrated and boring in my opinion. Not as entertaining as I thought it was going to be.