In the play 12 angry men written by Reginald Rose , Juror 8 creatively induces reasonable doubt into the minds of the other jurors by going into the evidence in more detail. He insightfully deconstructs every minute detail in the case and gradually convinces the jurors that it is possible that he may be innocent. 11 of the jurors had voted guilty initially, either because of the facts on the surface of the case or in the case of jurors 3, 7 and 10 personal prejudices or the need to get out of the building.
The defendant was probably extremely lucky that someone like 8th juror was on the jury. It is hard to think that 1 in 12 people would have the same charisma of juror 8, maybe 1 in 100 or even 1 in 1000. If it were not for the heroics of 8th juror to stand alone against an overwhelming majority, the jury would've found the boy guilty "as sure as he's born" with just one preliminary vote and injustice could've potentially been served. For instance, even in separate stage directions at the start and end of the play, Juror 8 is 'smiling' at the very beginning. He is the only one to come into the jury room with any positive emotion. Also, at the very end of the play he even assists one of the main antagonists and main rival, juror 3, put on his jacket and this displays the very essence of his character.
8th juror introduces reasonable doubt into jurors' minds by critically examining the evidence, so much so that he even exposes his own fallibility by a switch knife, thus 'breaking the law' just so he could demonstrate reasonable doubt to the other jurors. (In a trial, it is against the law for jurors to conduct their own investigations on the case). For instance, one of the prosecutions's arguments that the switch-knife was very unique. However, 8th juror took matters into his own hands and buying a switch-knife with ease. This was maybe the first time, that some of the jurors' may not see the facts as they are what they seem. However, even after this display from 8th juror, he still has to gamble for the support of 9th juror to keep the deliberation alive.
Another example of 8th critically examining evidence in 12 angry men is when he challenges the prosecutions's evidence that the way the boy said "I'm gonna kill you" meant that he definitely meant to kill his father. He induces reasonable doubt into the mind of 5th juror by quoting the times that he has heard someone threaten to kill someone and they haven't acted on it "If you do that once more Junior , I'm gonna kill ya". This is further exemplified when 3rd juror makes the same threat to juror 8 at the end of the 1st act, saying "God damn it! I'll kill him, I'll kill him". This further puts doubt into the rest of the jurors minds as now they have seen this example in the jury-room.
However, not everyone changes their vote due to having reasonable doubt. For example, juror 7 says that "I've had enough. I'm gonna break this up". I vote 'not guilty'. After juror 11 puts him on the spot to reveal why he has changed his vote, he quietly says "I don't think he's guilty". It cannot be entirely certain whether changed his vote because he really did have reasonable doubt or he was just keen to get out and go to his baseball game. It seems as though it is the latter because of his careless attitude throughout the play.
Juror 3 and 10 do not have reasonable doubt either, but change their vote due to not being up to withstanding the overwhelming
