Samuel Damren
This is the final commentary in a three-part series on “12 Angry Men” and Phil
Rosenzweig’s recent book “Reginald Rose and the Journey of 12 Angry Men.” The focus in this commentary is on building consensus.
In his book, Rosenzweig devotes a chapter to psychological studies and experiments on “the dynamics of behavior in small groups, defined as large enough to have sub-groups and coalitions, but small enough so that all members can interact directly.”
In the previous commentary, the dynamic of conformity, “the pressure felt by individuals to comply with a majority” was on full display. Psychological studies, cited by Rosenzweig, confirm that small groups can be highly influenced at the onset of the decision-making process by individuals who are most confident and expressive in their opinions.
That was certainly the case with the jurors in “12 Angry Men.” Jurors 3, 4, 7 and 10 voiced unswerving opinions concerning the guilt of the defendant and dominated initial juror interactions. The fact that the preliminary jury vote was verbal also increased the leverage of those jurors over other members.
However, that leverage is offset when a dominant juror overstates his position or violates norms, as Juror No. 10 did in making racist remarks.
The leverage of dominant jurors can also be offset if one person, Juror No. 8 in the drama, voices reasoned opposition to the dominate jurors before less confident members of the group are satisfied they have had a chance to fully consider the matter.
Taking secret ballots, as opposed to verbal ballots, also allows less dominant jurors to take positions that they might not yet be comfortable expressing aloud.
Rose’s decision to compose a jury of white men introduced the dynamic of race in more surprising ways than it might have been portrayed in clashes between jurors of different races.
Looking at one another and “seeing other white men,” as Rosenzweig observes, the twelve jurors would initially assume “that they had much in common and should be able to reach a verdict without difficulty. As they deliberate, however, fault lines begin to appear – by age, by education, by national origin, by socioeconomic level, by values and by temperament.”
In response to the bullying of Juror No. 8 and his courage in standing up to the 11 to 1 vote, Juror No. 9, the oldest member of the jury, changes his vote to not guilty. Juror No. 11 is one of the next jurors to change his vote. He is a refugee from Europe who clearly admires the ideals of the American justice system. He is also frustrated with how those ideals are ignored or discounted by some jurors.
To begin a process which would ultimately lead to all jurors voting not guilty,
Juror No. 8 seeks to recreate the scene of the murder from the perspective of the prosecution witness in the apartment directly beneath the victim’s apartment.
The witness testified he heard a scream followed by a thump above him. He rose from bed, walked to his bedroom door, then down a long hallway, removed the chain lock to the front door of his apartment and saw the defendant exit the building. He testified it took 15 seconds.
The witness had a severe limp as a result of a stroke. Juror No. 8 wants to know whether it was “possible” for him to traverse the entire distance in 15 seconds with his limp.
An exhibit of the floor plan to the apartment showed that the bed was 12 feet from the bedroom door. The hallway was 43 feet to the apartment front door.
The jury room is a little over 12 feet wide but not 43 feet in length.
Juror No. 8 sets two chairs as the bed on one side of the room. He walks the width of the jury room and asks someone to hand him a chair to mark the bedroom door. Juror No. 6 who supported the idea of this reenactment, despite strong objections from Juror No. 3 and Juror No. 10, hands Juror No. 8 a chair.
Juror No. 8 then paces up and back the length of the jury room till he gets to 43 feet. He asks for another chair to mark the front door to the apartment.
Juror No. 2 brings him a chair and it is Juror No. 2 who times Juror No. 8’s reenactment.
The “walk” with Juror No. 8 adopting the witness’s limp takes 33 seconds.
The assistance of Juror No. 2 and Juror No. 6 in staging the reenactment eases the way for them to reconsider their vote, which they later do.
As noted by Rosenzweig, “two subgroups are taking shape: a growing coalition voting not guilty; depicted as thoughtful and righteous, and a small set of hardliners voting guilty, some of them downright nasty.”
More and more jurors begin to feel free to contribute and do contribute to the information fund of the jury. The vote becomes 6 to 6 then 9 to 3 for acquittal and then 11 to 1 for acquittal with Juror No. 3 the remaining holdout.
The author of “12 Angry Men,” Reginald Rose, is telling the audience something about democracy practiced in the jury room.
There is more for jurors to contribute to its successful workings than votes.
Perspectives matter and it is important to share them. Some jurors may have more to contribute than others. That will vary, however, depending on the matters under consideration.
Certain perspectives must be shunned; others provoke thought and can lead to new directions in the decision-making process.
After Juror No. 3’s dramatic change of vote at the conclusion of “12 Angry Men,” the denouement of the movie takes place. The jurors spread apart as they walk down the courthouse steps. Juror No. 9 hails Juror No. 8 and asks his name. “Davis,” says Juror No. 8. Juror No. 9 thanks him. They part with obvious regret for Juror No. 9 that he will never get to know Juror No. 8 better or probably ever see him again.
Phil Rosenzweig’s biography and appreciation of the author of “12 Angry Men” remedies that regret. Juror No. 8 was Reginald Rose. Through Rosenzweig’s book, we get to spend more time with him and are better off for it.
