12 Angry Men (1957)

Initial Release:
Director:
Starring:

April 1957
Sidney Lumet
Henry Fonda
Lee J. Cobb

CANON/S APPLICABLE
A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
PLOT
This is a story of 12 men who were chosen to stand as jurors on a case of murder
allegedly committed by an 18 year-old Puerto Rican boy. The boy was accused of
stabbing his father to death. The mandatory penalty, should the boy be found guilty, is
death. Thus the weight bore by the shoulders of the juror is heavy, as one life was already
taken, and another life at stake.
It was alleged that after a confrontation between the accused and the victim, the accused
uttered the words Im gonna kill you. The boy then left and returned home after having
bought a knife and it was alleged that he stabbed his fathers heart. Several witnesses
were presented by the prosecution: an old man who testified that he heard the victims
body hit the floor and he saw the boy run down the stairs of their apartment; and an old
lady who testified that she saw the boy stabbed his father from his apartment through an
open window, 60 meters away.
The story revolves in a single room where the 12 jurors must decide on the fate of the boy.
The jury should decide unanimously on whether or not to convict the boy. The difficulty on
arriving at a unanimous decision was when the initial count of votes was 11-1 in favor of
guilty verdict. Consequently, a discussion started to settle the vote and to convince the
lone dissenter to vote guilty. However, this was not the case. As the discussions
continued, the jurors who voted not guilty increased. Additional trouble to arrive at a
unanimous decision was the conflicting and opposing background and personality of each
juror.
It was evident from the trial that a guilty verdict will be meted out until one of the jurors had
a reasonable doubt in his mind that the boy could have commit such a heinous crime.
ANSWER AGAINST THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AS PROVIDED BY THE
PROFESSOR
1. The main conflict presented was on how to arrive at a decision based on the truth
and justice, not only according to the facts presented in court but also on the totality
of evidence adduced and the credibility of the witnesses.
A reasonable doubt is one of the brilliant concepts in legal world. The doctrine
provides that should a reasonable doubt exist, the criminal should be acquitted.
Though the lawyer of the defendant never played a role in the movie, the
discussion of the jurors implies that the lawyer was not able to make a good case. It
was even mentioned in the movie that the lawyer did not volunteer to take the case,
but was chosen. As such theres not much interest or zeal on the part of the lawyer
to represent the accused to the best of his abilities. Though lawyers are infallible, it
is hard to believe that the scenarios and facts which caused the reasonable doubt
of the jurors did not cross his mind.

Relative thereto, the lack of interest and zeal on the part of the lawyer of the
defendant is in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
2. The conflict was resolved when the jurors opened their eyes and accepted the fact
that reasonable doubt exists in their mind due to the credibility of the witnesses and
their testimonies.
2.1 A reasonable doubt on the credibility and statement of the old man when the
jurors was able to establish that it was impossible for the old man, who drags
his leg while walking due to a stroke, to walk outside his bed and through the
corridor in 15 seconds, and see the boy running down the stairs after
stabbing his father.
2.2 A reasonable doubt on the credibility and statement of the old lady when the
jurors established that the lady have eye glasses marking on the bridge of
her nose, which implies that the lady has been wearing eye glasses for a
longtime. And because her testimony provides that she saw the crime when
she was on her bed trying to sleep in an apartment 60 meters away, the
jurors arrived at a conclusion that it was impossible for the witness to be able
to identify the accused from that distance.
Because of the reasonable doubts mentioned above, the jury arrived at a conclusion
that the accused is not guilty. The conviction on the crime of murder has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. I agree with the decision of the court on acquitting the boy on the crime of Murder.
In the Philippine jurisdiction, at least, I submit that the Crime of Murder according to
Article 248 of the Revise Penal Code must be proven and established beyond
reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. In any case that the crime is proven
merely on preponderance of evidence, the accused should be acquitted.
Because of the established reasonable doubts as mentioned above, I believe that
the jurors meted the correct decision on acquitting the boy.
COMMENT/S
I love the story and the plot of the movie. It shows the power of law should it be abided to
the letter. I love how the 12 jurors, who started from believing that the boy was indeed
guilty, was later on able to establish a reasonable doubt. It was indeed moving to see the
characters build on their case and establish reasonable doubt on the credibility and
attestation of the witnesses. However, I abhor the lawyer who defended the accused; I
come to believe that a lawyer with legal education will at least be able to see at least one
of the reasonable doubts established by the jurors. I support the conclusion of one of the
character when he provided that the case was assigned to him therefore he did not exert
much effort nor showed enthusiasm or even minimal concern to defend the accused. Such
character is contrary to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states
that A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.