Case Study 12 Angry Men PROC 5840 Negotiations KaShawna M. Davis Brief list of the major case issues that are instrumental in deciding the jury conclusion. Below I have defined the major case issues that are instrumental in deciding the jury: The defendant left his house at 8:00 P.M. after being “punched” several times by his father. The defendant went to a neighborhood “junk shop” and bought a switchblade knife with a “very unusual carved handle and blade.” The defendant met some friends in front of a tavern about 8:45 that night and talked with them for almost an hour. The defendant’s friends described the “death weapon” in court as the “very same knife” that the defendant had that night. The defendant arrived home around …show more content…
8 knew that he would be able to convince the other jurors the innocence of the defendant. Focus on the other side’s pressure- Not yours- Juror No. 8 knew the defendant’s freedom was at stake. Show the other person how their needs will be met- Don’t give anything away without getting something getting something in return- Juror No. 8 was not going to give up his Not Guilty plea without concrete evidence Don’t take the issues or the other person’s behavior personally- Juror No. 8 did not get offended when the other Juror tried to attack him physically or verbally. Select five (5) and write a detailed explanation of how your use of these techniques could be applied in your personal and business life. b) For each of the five (5) chosen techniques, write and explain the result you would hope to achieve by use of that technique. 1. Don 't be afraid to ask for what you want. Successful negotiators are assertive and challenge everything – they know that everything is negotiable. I call this negotiation consciousness. Negotiation consciousness is what makes the difference between negotiators and everybody else on the planet. Being assertive means asking for what you want and refusing to take NO for an answer. Practice expressing your feelings without anxiety or anger. Let people know what you want in a non-threatening way. Practice 'I ' statements. For example, instead of saying, "You shouldn 't do that," try substituting, "I don 't feel comfortable
Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.
Juror Four says he feels that the jurors have a right to see the exhibits in evidence.
In addition, Juror 8 was also fair. He said "It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy
Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was
Unlike Juror 3 Juror 8 is open and even welcomes others’ opinions. He was the only one to vote not guilty at the beginning of 12 Angry Men. He was not an appointed leader and throughout the course of this film he develops into an emergent leader. Juror 8 uses democratic leadership as he focuses on serving the needs of someone else and pointing out the severity of the issue they are deciding on and that a life is at stake. A democratic leader “understand(s) that these challenges are being made to present all sides of the issue and arrive at a better answer” (Kraemer, 2011). Juror 8 wants people to talk it through and make sure they have properly evaluated every side of the reason for being guilty or innocent and a just decision is made. He used
In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical
In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.
First, Juror 8 establishes his credibility to support his arguments. He becomes the authority to the other jurors. “ I want to call for a vote. I want eleven men to vote by secret ballot. I’ll abstain. If there are still eleven votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone” ( page. 11 ). This is the
presents a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was
Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.
the one used in the crime to prove that is easy to get an identical knife, and he proved that it
Second choice: compare and contrast juror #8 sense of justice with that of any other juror.
After this accusation, eleven of the jurors immediately voted guilty for the death; Juror Eight is the only one that votes for him being “not guilty”. Juror eight based
12 jurors were called upon to deliberate on an alleged murder of a father by his son, in the slums of New York. The case seemed clear-cut in the beginning, and most of the jurors were ready to immediately vote guilty without much discussion, so they can go back to their businesses.
Another major source of conflict is the other jurors’ disinterested approach to the trial. Almost every juror approaches Juror #8’s insistence on a not guilty vote with avoidance. They care little about the case and do not grasp its gravity,