12 Angry Men Review

Foreman

• A strong-minded, loud-mouthed, prejudiced man. At the end of the play, he is the final holdout in claiming the accused is guilty. His strong belief in the guilt of the youth seems to stem from his personal situation, his prejudices, and the painful rift between himself and his son, which causes him to judge all youth negatively.
• An average man and manual labor worker who obediently follows the orders of his boss. He is honest and respectful, especially towards the elderly. He changes his vote from guilty to not guilty, but he does not exhibit the prejudices, flair, or loud-opinions of the other jurors.
• The leader of the jurors who facilitates the process of voting and discussion. He believes the defendant is guilty for the majority of the play. He is not particularly intelligent or actively involved in the debate, but he is focused and does not change his opinion lightly. He appears to enjoy his own authority.
• The central character in the play, He is the only juror to initially vote “not guilty.” This vote, which prevents an immediate unanimous guilty decision, and his insistence that the jurors commit time and effort to deciding the fate of the accused, propels the events of the play. Through his calm and clever discussion of the case, all the other jurors are eventually convinced of the same reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. He is also a charismatic speaker. His ability to stand alone and his sympathy for the accused present a direct contrast to Juror 3’s arrogance and prejudice.

Juror 2

• A man who is defined by his job in advertising, he is shallow and a snob. It seems he maintains his vote of “guilty” more out of the comfort of maintaining his opinion than any other reason. He believes the jurors should acknowledge that they’re a hung jury and should let the case go to another trial.
• A sarcastic man whose “guilty” vote seems to be based more on indifference than prejudice. He is the juror who continuously expresses a desire to wrap up the process quickly and leave. He is loud and extravagant, and he clearly is not invested in the judicial process or his judicial responsibility. He prefers to get distracted by such things as cracking jokes.
• He is a shy and meek bank clerk. He takes time to feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. At first he is overpowered by others, but eventually develops his own voice as the play progresses.
• A self-confident man who is clearly used to others listening to his voice. He is identified by marks of wealth and intelligence. Although he is a strong supporter of the guilt of the accused until nearly the end of the play, he is more rational and level headed than most of the other jurors. He is the only one to present successful counter-arguments to the persuasive observations of Juror 8.

Juror 3

• The most prejudiced and cruel character in the play, he is driven by an “us versus them” complex concerning rich and poor. He speaks of the accused and people like him, from poor backgrounds, as “them.” He believes that none of “them” are trustworthy or good people. His bitterness and anger toward “them” spills over repeatedly in the play. At the end of the play, the other jurors move toward the window to express their disagreement with his cruelty by refusing to listen to him.
• A strong-minded, loud-mouthed, prejudiced man. At the end of the play, he is the final holdout in claiming the accused is guilty. His strong belief in the guilt of the youth seems to stem from his personal situation, his prejudices, and the painful rift between himself and his son, which causes him to judge all youth negatively.
• A German immigrant from Europe, he exhibits an awareness of, and awe for, the idealistic principles behind the American legal system. He changes his “guilty” vote quickly after defending the right of any man in America to have an unpopular opinion. Initially, he seems reluctant to distinguish himself from the others, perhaps fearing the very attacks that follow. He experiences the cruel treatment of some of the other jurors early in the play when he attempts to close the window.
• A sarcastic man whose “guilty” vote seems to be based more on indifference than prejudice. He is the juror who continuously expresses a desire to wrap up the process quickly and leave. He is loud and extravagant, and he clearly is not invested in the judicial process or his judicial responsibility. He prefers to get distracted by such things as cracking jokes.

Juror 4

• A self-confident man who is clearly used to others listening to his voice. He is identified by marks of wealth and intelligence. Although he is a strong supporter of the guilt of the accused until nearly the end of the play, he is more rational and level headed than most of the other jurors. He is the only one to present successful counter-arguments to the persuasive observations of Juror 8.
• A man who is defined by his job in advertising, he is shallow and a snob. It seems he maintains his vote of “guilty” more out of the comfort of maintaining his opinion than any other reason. He believes the jurors should acknowledge that they’re a hung jury and should let the case go to another trial.
• A young man whose youth shows in his timid nature. He quickly desires to vote not guilty, but only has the courage to do so when following the lead of Jurors 8 and 9. He cowers under Juror 3’s anger at him. He grew up very poor, and he is sympathetic with the low economic background of the accused.
• An elderly, good-natured man, he is compassionate and thoughtful, unlike many of the other jurors. He is the first to change his “guilty” vote to “not guilty” during the secret ballot vote. He does so primarily because he respects Juror 8’s courage in standing alone and wants to have the chance to see the case fully discussed.

Juror 5

• The central character in the play, He is the only juror to initially vote “not guilty.” This vote, which prevents an immediate unanimous guilty decision, and his insistence that the jurors commit time and effort to deciding the fate of the accused, propels the events of the play. Through his calm and clever discussion of the case, all the other jurors are eventually convinced of the same reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. He is also a charismatic speaker. His ability to stand alone and his sympathy for the accused present a direct contrast to Juror 3’s arrogance and prejudice.
• An average man and manual labor worker who obediently follows the orders of his boss. He is honest and respectful, especially towards the elderly. He changes his vote from guilty to not guilty, but he does not exhibit the prejudices, flair, or loud-opinions of the other jurors.
• A young man whose youth shows in his timid nature. He quickly desires to vote not guilty, but only has the courage to do so when following the lead of Jurors 8 and 9. He cowers under Juror 3’s anger at him. He grew up very poor, and he is sympathetic with the low economic background of the accused.
• He is a shy and meek bank clerk. He takes time to feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. At first he is overpowered by others, but eventually develops his own voice as the play progresses.

Juror 6

• A young man whose youth shows in his timid nature. He quickly desires to vote not guilty, but only has the courage to do so when following the lead of Jurors 8 and 9. He cowers under Juror 3’s anger at him. He grew up very poor, and he is sympathetic with the low economic background of the accused.
• A German immigrant from Europe, he exhibits an awareness of, and awe for, the idealistic principles behind the American legal system. He changes his “guilty” vote quickly after defending the right of any man in America to have an unpopular opinion. Initially, he seems reluctant to distinguish himself from the others, perhaps fearing the very attacks that follow. He experiences the cruel treatment of some of the other jurors early in the play when he attempts to close the window.
• The leader of the jurors who facilitates the process of voting and discussion. He believes the defendant is guilty for the majority of the play. He is not particularly intelligent or actively involved in the debate, but he is focused and does not change his opinion lightly. He appears to enjoy his own authority.
• An average man and manual labor worker who obediently follows the orders of his boss. He is honest and respectful, especially towards the elderly. He changes his vote from guilty to not guilty, but he does not exhibit the prejudices, flair, or loud-opinions of the other jurors.

Juror 7

• A sarcastic man whose “guilty” vote seems to be based more on indifference than prejudice. He is the juror who continuously expresses a desire to wrap up the process quickly and leave. He is loud and extravagant, and he clearly is not invested in the judicial process or his judicial responsibility. He prefers to get distracted by such things as cracking jokes.
• The central character in the play, He is the only juror to initially vote “not guilty.” This vote, which prevents an immediate unanimous guilty decision, and his insistence that the jurors commit time and effort to deciding the fate of the accused, propels the events of the play. Through his calm and clever discussion of the case, all the other jurors are eventually convinced of the same reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. He is also a charismatic speaker. His ability to stand alone and his sympathy for the accused present a direct contrast to Juror 3’s arrogance and prejudice.
• An elderly, good-natured man, he is compassionate and thoughtful, unlike many of the other jurors. He is the first to change his “guilty” vote to “not guilty” during the secret ballot vote. He does so primarily because he respects Juror 8’s courage in standing alone and wants to have the chance to see the case fully discussed.
• The most prejudiced and cruel character in the play, he is driven by an “us versus them” complex concerning rich and poor. He speaks of the accused and people like him, from poor backgrounds, as “them.” He believes that none of “them” are trustworthy or good people. His bitterness and anger toward “them” spills over repeatedly in the play. At the end of the play, the other jurors move toward the window to express their disagreement with his cruelty by refusing to listen to him.

Juror 8

• The leader of the jurors who facilitates the process of voting and discussion. He believes the defendant is guilty for the majority of the play. He is not particularly intelligent or actively involved in the debate, but he is focused and does not change his opinion lightly. He appears to enjoy his own authority.
• An elderly, good-natured man, he is compassionate and thoughtful, unlike many of the other jurors. He is the first to change his “guilty” vote to “not guilty” during the secret ballot vote. He does so primarily because he respects Juror 8’s courage in standing alone and wants to have the chance to see the case fully discussed.
• A strong-minded, loud-mouthed, prejudiced man. At the end of the play, he is the final holdout in claiming the accused is guilty. His strong belief in the guilt of the youth seems to stem from his personal situation, his prejudices, and the painful rift between himself and his son, which causes him to judge all youth negatively.
• The central character in the play, He is the only juror to initially vote “not guilty.” This vote, which prevents an immediate unanimous guilty decision, and his insistence that the jurors commit time and effort to deciding the fate of the accused, propels the events of the play. Through his calm and clever discussion of the case, all the other jurors are eventually convinced of the same reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. He is also a charismatic speaker. His ability to stand alone and his sympathy for the accused present a direct contrast to Juror 3’s arrogance and prejudice.

Juror 9

• The central character in the play, He is the only juror to initially vote “not guilty.” This vote, which prevents an immediate unanimous guilty decision, and his insistence that the jurors commit time and effort to deciding the fate of the accused, propels the events of the play. Through his calm and clever discussion of the case, all the other jurors are eventually convinced of the same reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. He is also a charismatic speaker. His ability to stand alone and his sympathy for the accused present a direct contrast to Juror 3’s arrogance and prejudice.
• An elderly, good-natured man, he is compassionate and thoughtful, unlike many of the other jurors. He is the first to change his “guilty” vote to “not guilty” during the secret ballot vote. He does so primarily because he respects Juror 8’s courage in standing alone and wants to have the chance to see the case fully discussed.
• A German immigrant from Europe, he exhibits an awareness of, and awe for, the idealistic principles behind the American legal system. He changes his “guilty” vote quickly after defending the right of any man in America to have an unpopular opinion. Initially, he seems reluctant to distinguish himself from the others, perhaps fearing the very attacks that follow. He experiences the cruel treatment of some of the other jurors early in the play when he attempts to close the window.
• The leader of the jurors who facilitates the process of voting and discussion. He believes the defendant is guilty for the majority of the play. He is not particularly intelligent or actively involved in the debate, but he is focused and does not change his opinion lightly. He appears to enjoy his own authority.

Juror 10

• The most prejudiced and cruel character in the play, he is driven by an “us versus them” complex concerning rich and poor. He speaks of the accused and people like him, from poor backgrounds, as “them.” He believes that none of “them” are trustworthy or good people. His bitterness and anger toward “them” spills over repeatedly in the play. At the end of the play, the other jurors move toward the window to express their disagreement with his cruelty by refusing to listen to him.
• An elderly, good-natured man, he is compassionate and thoughtful, unlike many of the other jurors. He is the first to change his “guilty” vote to “not guilty” during the secret ballot vote. He does so primarily because he respects Juror 8’s courage in standing alone and wants to have the chance to see the case fully discussed.
• A strong-minded, loud-mouthed, prejudiced man. At the end of the play, he is the final holdout in claiming the accused is guilty. His strong belief in the guilt of the youth seems to stem from his personal situation, his prejudices, and the painful rift between himself and his son, which causes him to judge all youth negatively.
• A sarcastic man whose “guilty” vote seems to be based more on indifference than prejudice. He is the juror who continuously expresses a desire to wrap up the process quickly and leave. He is loud and extravagant, and he clearly is not invested in the judicial process or his judicial responsibility. He prefers to get distracted by such things as cracking jokes.