Plot: â€œTwelve Angry Menâ€ is an interesting and exciting jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes strenuous as twelve strangers scuffle for answers. The trial involves a nineteen-year-old boy, who is suspect of killing his father in a late-night altercation with an extraordinary knife. His fate now lies in the hands of 12 jurors, each with his own determination to solve the case and reveal the truth. As the session takes its course, evidence becomes scrutinised, tempers rise, and the jury room erupts in a shouting brawl because one such juror finds reasonable doubts in the two testimonies that were deemed credible enough to convict. In his fight for an acquittal, the singled out juror found that the testimonial evidence was not only unreliable, but the timely fashion in which both the man and the woman alleged to have seen and heard the defendant were by far insufficient. Upon reaction to his vote, the dubious jurors immediately began questioning the man, not understanding how he could possibly think that way. Nevertheless, the adamant juror held his ground and the votes were: 11 guilty, and 1 not guilty, but the decision had to be unanimous. Character: First there were those that couldn't care less about the outcome, then there was Davis, the tenacious juror who held a firm grip onto the possibility of reasonable doubt in the case. He demonstrated his personal strength of mind and tried eliminating any individual prejudices for the best po...
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.