53 pages • 1 hour read
Reginald RoseTwelve Angry Men
Fiction | Play | Adult | Published in 1954A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.
Act IIChapter Summaries & Analyses
Act II Summary
Act II opens with the other jurors restraining the 3rd Juror after his attempt at attacking the 8th Juror. The jurors calm down and try to restart their deliberations. The 11th Juror, a German immigrant and one-time refugee, tries to urge the others to take their duties more seriously: “This is not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility” (Act II, 65). He also remarks that the jury system is “a remarkable thing about democracy” (Act II, 65). A vote is called again: The jury is now divided six-six. A storm begins outside. The 7th Juror suggests that they present themselves as a “hung jury” to the judge, which would occasion a retrial with a new jury. The 11th Juror refers to the principle of “reasonable doubt,” which angers the 7th Juror, who displays anti-immigrant sentiment in response.
The jurors continue to debate the evidence. The accused’s inability to recall which films he saw the night of the crime could be a side effect of shock and stress. When the 8th Juror interrogates the 4th Juror about movies he has recently seen, the 4th Juror’s memory also starts to fail him. The 1st Juror/Foreman mentions the psychiatric testimony during the trial, which claimed the accused had “homicidal tendencies” (Act II, 76). The 11th Juror responds to say that while many men may be capable of murder, they usually have enough self-control to prevent themselves from committing any actual crimes: “To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean he has committed murder” (Act II, 77).
The issue of the switchblade knife again surfaces. The jurors attempt to re-enact the stabbing to test how likely it was that the accused could have murdered his father in this way. The 5th Juror offers his own insights, drawing upon his own difficult upbringing in the slum and reflecting upon the many acts of violence he witnessed. He claims that a switchblade would not be used to stab in the manner the prosecution suggested, and that it would not have made the sort of wound that killed the victim. When the next vote is called, the verdict is now 9-3 in favor of “not guilty.” The jurors standing by their “guilty verdicts” are the 3rd, 7th, and 10th. The 10th Juror engages in virulent, prejudiced rants that shock some of the other jurors: “That kid on trial, his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as we are […] This boy, this boy on trial here. We’ve got him. That’s one at least. I say get him before his kind gets us. I don’t give a goddamn about the law. Why should I? They don’t” (Act II, 83-84). In response, the 8th Juror reflects upon the dangers of prejudice, remarking, “[P]rejudice obscures the truth” (Act II, 84).
A discussion follows about the other eyewitness, the woman from across the street. The 9th Juror notices that the 4th Juror has indents on the sides of his nose when he removes his glasses. This reminds him that the female witness also had those indents on her nose during her testimony. The 9th Juror argues that the woman appeared desperate to appear younger than her real age, and that the indents on her nose suggested that she also wore heavy eyeglasses in her day-to-day life. The 8th Juror argues that it is unlikely the witness would have been wearing her eyeglasses in bed when the crime took place, and that she therefore could not have witnessed the crime across the street clearly. By this point, the 7th Juror has changed his vote, and the 10th Juror now changes his out of impatience and disgust.
The 3rd Juror alone remains with a “guilty” vote. When the 8th Juror confronts him and demands his reasons, the 3rd Juror attempts to reiterate all the evidence but soon grows very flustered. He reaches an emotional climax when he calls the accused “a goddamn rotten kid” like his own son and relates his own situation to that of the murder victim: “I can feel that knife goin’ in” (Act II, 92). The 8th Juror reminds the 3rd Juror that the accused is not his son. The 3rd Juror finally relents and changes his vote. The jury then leaves to deliver their unanimous “not guilty” verdict to the judge.
Act II Analysis
As tensions mount in the jury room, the divide between “reasonable doubt” and prejudice grows wider and starker. The less prejudiced jury members are faster in changing their verdicts than the most prejudiced, until the final trio holding out—the 3rd, 7th, and 10th jurors—confirm through their speech and behavior that they are indeed the most prejudiced of all. The 7th Juror’s anti-immigrant rhetoric complements the racial and socioeconomic “us and them” rhetoric of the 10th Juror, exposing the fact that prejudice comes in many forms and that such prejudices create deep divisions within American society. As the 8th Juror notes, “It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” (Act II, 84). This prejudiced blindness achieves its full ugliness in Act II, exposing the racial and socioeconomic fault lines that threaten to undermine the American democratic ideal.
There is also an open clash between two different visions of America. While jurors such as the 3rd and 7th take much pride in their economic success, the 11th Juror—a one-time refugee and immigrant—represents belief in the more idealistic side of the American system: one founded on democracy and true equality over individualistic or materialistic concerns. These divides also manifest in the role the 5th Juror plays in this act. The 5th Juror is the only member who comes directly from the slums. His insight into the uses of a switchblade knife reflects his own troubled upbringing and stands in contrast to the prosperous, comfortable lives of many of the other jurors. Above all, his testimony proves invaluable in helping the others evaluate the evidence surrounding the switchblade. Just as the relationship between the 3rd Juror and his son mirrors that of the accused and his father, so too do the 5th Juror’s testimony and personal experiences serve as stand-ins for the life and experiences of the accused.
The play’s close, with the final confrontation between the 8th Juror and the 3rd Juror, brings closure to the deliberations by finally forcing the 3rd Juror to admit to his own biases. While the 10th Juror’s hatred of the accused reflects a generalized hatred of minorities, the 3rd Juror’s hatred is more personal: He sees the accused as similar to his own son, and regards himself as a victim akin to the murdered father. The 8th Juror’s reminder, “He’s not your boy. He’s someone else” (Act II, 92), breaks through the 3rd Juror’s resistance by confronting him with the fundamental injustice of his motivations. The 3rd Juror’s acquiescence enables the jury to return a unanimous verdict of “not guilty,” thereby saving the life of the accused.
While the jury has managed to reach a consensus by the play’s end, the play’s rather abrupt ending suggests that the wider social tensions exposed throughout the jury’s deliberations still remain unresolved. The prejudices, violent hatreds, and tensions between the myth and the reality of the American ideal remain, but the jury’s ultimate commitment to the principle of “reasonable doubt” does suggest that there is hope for real and lasting change.
