Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Rethinking 12 Angry Men

Wikipedia tells us that:

On its first release, 12 Angry Men received critical acclaim. A. H. Weiler of The New York Times wrote “It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting.” His observation of the 12 men was that “their dramas are powerful and provocative enough to keep a viewer spellbound.” However, it was not a popular success: the advent of color and widescreen productions resulted in the film receiving a disappointing box office performance.

Even though when first released, it proved to be a major box office disappointment, today, the film is viewed as a “classic” and is highly regarded from both a critical and popular viewpoint: Roger Ebert lists it as one of his “Great Movies,”. The American Film Institute named Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, as the 28th in a list of the 100 greatest movie heroes of the 20th century, named 12 Angry Men the 42nd most inspiring film, and later named the movie as the 87th best film of the past hundred years. As of December 19, 2007, 12 Angry Men is ranked as the 13th Best Film in existence on the IMDb Top 250.

Roger Ebert writes:

The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge’s perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second-hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But “12 Angry Men” never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

The principle of reasonable doubt, the belief that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, is one of the most enlightened elements of our Constitution, although many Americans have had difficulty in accepting it. “It’s an open and shut case,” snaps Juror No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) as the jury first gathers in their claustrophobic little room. When the first ballot is taken, 10 of his fellow jurors agree, and there is only one holdout--Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda).

It is precisely the question of reasonable doubt that prompts my friend and UCLAW colleague Mike Asimow’s essay 12 Angry Men: A Revisionist View:

12 Angry Men is the iconic jury film but this article contends that it should not be viewed as a tribute to the jury system. Quite the contrary, the jury in the film erred badly by acquitting the defendant, even though the probability that he killed his father approaches 100%. The circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming. Even if all of the eye witness testimony is discredited, the circumstantial evidence is far more than enough to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard.