Question

Twelve Angry Men was a play on Broadway, and later made into a movie in 1957.  It is about a jury in New York City that is deciding the guilt or innocence of a young man charged with murder.  

Read the play, http://www.umass.edu/legal/Hilbink/250/12Angry.pdf, or watch the play,

https://youtu.be/ngbEpZ0tTjI. Consider the following questions as you read or watch:

1. What evidentiary issues are presented in this story?

2. How does the jury addresses these issues?

3. What Rules of Evidence apply?

Prepare an IRAC memo to the judge explaining your answers to these questions. Refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence (even though this is not a federal case) and cite relevant case law from New York in your answer.

In addition, explain in one or two paragraphs how you think the defense attorney failed regarding witness testimony of either the downstairs neighbor or the lady across the street.

Answer 1

The play is set up in a court of law jury in New York in 1957. There is a murder case that has to be discussed and reach a mutual decision. If the accused is found guilty, he sentence for the criminal act is death penalty. As the jurors submit their decision unanimously, the men of law decides to take a break before deliberating. The accused here is a little boy who has been held for killing his father. All the jurors after careful thinking voted the accused as guilty. However the 8th juror voted not guilty.Due to no mutual final decision, the situation demands them to re-evaluate the case.The evidences presented in this case are as follows. The boy had an arguement with his father the night of the murder. The little boy was heard shouting, "I am going to kill you" , proceeded by a body hitting the ground and he rushing down the stairs. This was further validated by the woman living across the streets who saw the boy killing his father through the window of a fast moving train. The boy had been acquitted of criminal offences in the past, which included him trying to attack and slash another fellow friend with a sharp knife. This only strengthen the idea that the little boy was indeed guilty of murdering his father.On the other hand, narrative of the boy reveals that he was watching a movie the night his father was killed. However, when asked the movie, he couldn't recall the name neither the contents of the movie.

The jury address the evidence and issues in the following ways. The weapon of murder was said to be unique and "one of a kind" sharp knife . The 8th juror had purchased am identical knife from a pawn shop, a few blocks from where the accused lived. This debunked the claims that the knife was easily identifiable due to its uniqueness. The 9th juror questions the witness testimony of the old woman who saw the boy murdering his fatger through the window of the moving train. The woman wore glasses but did not wear them while appearing in court, deducting to a conclusion that if she wasant wear ring the glasses while appearing in court, she wouldn't have been wearing them in bed, as she witnessed the murder. The 8th juror questions the capacity of a old man who had a stroke, and eho saw the boy rushing down the stairs after killing his father. After recreating the floor plan, the 2nd juror along with the 8th juror concluded that the time was not in congruation with the reporting. There was no way the of man could have reached his door in 15 seconds. As listening to this, the 3rd juror reacts violently to attack the 8th juror , while uttering, "I will kill you".The 8th juror ask him "you don't really mean that, do you"? This diffused the arguement that the boy spoke the same to his father in anger, not out of actual intentions of killing him. Finally, all the jurors reached a mutual decision and announced the boy as not guilty of the crime,setting the boy free.