Humanities › Literature "Twelve Angry Men", a Play by Reginald Rose Share Flipboard Email Print Robbie Jack/Getty Images Literature Plays & Drama Basics & Advice Playwrights Play & Drama Reviews Monologues Improvisation Games and Activities Best Sellers Classic Literature Poetry Quotations Shakespeare Short Stories Children's Books By Wade Bradford Theater Expert M.A., Literature, California State University - Northridge B.A., Creative Writing, California State University - Northridge Wade Bradford, M.A., is an award-winning playwright and theater director. He wrote and directed seven productions for Yorba Linda Civic Light Opera's youth theater. our editorial process Wade Bradford Updated January 23, 2020 In the play Twelve Angry Men (also called Twelve Angry Jurors), a jury must decide whether or not to reach a guilty verdict and sentence a 19-year-old defendant to death. At the beginning of the play, eleven jurors vote "guilty." Only one, Juror #8, believes that the young man might be innocent. He must convince the others that "reasonable doubt" exists. One by one, the jury is persuaded to agree with Juror #8. Production History Written by Reginald Rose, Twelve Angry Men was originally presented as a televised play on CBS's Studio One. The teleplay was broadcast in 1954. By 1955, Rose's drama was adapted into a stage play. Since then it has been seen on Broadway, Off-Broadway, and countless regional theater productions. In 1957, Henry Fonda starred in the film adaptation (12 Angry Men), directed by Sidney Lumet. In the 1990s version, Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott co-starred in an acclaimed adaptation presented by Showtime. Most recently, Twelve Angry Men was reinvented into a Russian film simply titled 12. The Russian jurors determine the fate of a Chechen boy, framed for a crime he did not commit. The play has also been slightly revised as Twelve Angry Jurors in order to accommodate a gender-neutral cast. Reasonable Doubt According to private investigator Charles Montaldo, reasonable doubt is explained as follows: "That state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge." Some audience members walk away from Twelve Angry Men feeling as if a mystery has been solved as if the defendant is proven 100% innocent. However, Reginald Rose's play intentionally avoids providing easy answers. We are never given proof of the defendant's guilt or innocence. No character rushes into the courtroom to announce, "We found the real killer!" The audience, like the jury in the play, must make up their own minds about the innocence of the defendant. The Prosecution's Case At the beginning of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy killed his father. They summarize the compelling evidence of the trial: A 45-year-old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city's commuter train passed by.An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell "I'll kill you!" followed by a "thump" on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away.Before the murder took place, the defendant purchased a switchblade, the same type that was used in the murder.Presenting a weak alibi, the defendant claimed he was at the movies at the time of the murder. He failed to remember the names of the films. Finding Reasonable Doubt Juror #8 picks apart each piece of evidence to persuade others. Here are some of the observations: The old man could have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have heard the boy's voice while the train was passing by.Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was rare and unusual, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant's neighborhood.Some members of the jury decide that during a stressful situation, anyone could forget the names of the movie they had seen.The 45-year-old woman had indentations on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury decides that she is not a reliable witness. Twelve Angry Men in the Classroom Reginald Rose's courtroom drama (or should I say jury-room drama?) is an excellent teaching tool. It demonstrates different forms of argument, from calm reasoning to emotional appeals to just plain shouting. Here are a few questions to discuss and debate: Which characters base their decisions on prejudice?Does Juror #8 or any other character, exercise "reverse discrimination"?Should this trial have been a hung jury? Why or why not?What are the most persuasive pieces of evidence in favor of the defense? The prosecution?Describe the communication style of each juror. Who comes closest to your own style of communication?How would you have voted if you were on the jury?