12 Angry Men Research Paper

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18 year old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the position of the stab wound, the one of a kind knife and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the stab wound. Juror eight mentions that the boy have been to a reform school where the boy would be involved in many knife fights. As juror three demonstrates that the boy stabs his father downward but then juror five thinks the boy did not stab his father. Juror five mentions that he seen knife fights before and the father of the boy is tall and if the boy wanted to kill his father he would of have stab him underhand. Therefore, the boy could not have kill his father because of the man’s height.
In addition, to the stab wound is the shaky testimony of the knife. In the testimony one of the juror mention that the boy asked a gun store owner for a rare gun, even though the gun store owner sold the gun to the boy there was a new piece of evidence to this theory. Juror eight proves that the “Rare knife” the boy bought was not so unique after all. …show more content…
In the final scene of the play a juror brings up the testimony of the old woman. He mentions that the old lady wore glasses but some jurors says they did or did not remember the woman wearing glasses. If the woman claim she saw the murder, then she would have time to put on her glasses when she was laying down on her bed. Additionally, in doubt as the jurors continue their discussion they then prove that the woman could not have seen the murder bceuase she would not have time to put on her glasses and this is in fact proven because no one wears glasses to

Show More