Editing 12 Angry Men (1957 film) (section)

==Plot==
<!--This plot is 694 words long. According to WP:FILMPLOT, plots should not exceed 700 words. Please add nothing without first checking the wordcount. Thanks!-->
On a hot summer day in the [[New York County Courthouse]], the trial phase has just concluded for an impoverished 18-year-old boy accused of killing his abusive father. The judge [[Jury instructions|instructs the jury]] that if there is [[reasonable doubt]], the jurors must return a verdict of "not guilty." If the defendant is found guilty, he will receive a mandatory death sentence via the [[electric chair]]. The verdict must be unanimous.

At first, the case seems clear. A neighbor testified to witnessing the defendant stab his father, from her window, through the windows of a passing [[elevated train]]. Another neighbor testified that he heard the defendant threaten to kill his father, and the father's body hitting the floor; then, as he ran to his door, he saw the defendant running down the stairs. The boy had recently purchased a [[switchblade]] of the same type that was found, wiped of fingerprints, at the murder scene, but claimed he lost it.

In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who believes there should be some discussion before the verdict. He says he cannot vote "guilty" because reasonable doubt exists. When his first few arguments (including producing a recently purchased knife nearly identical to the murder weapon that was thought to be unique) seemingly fail to convince any of the other jurors, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain; if all the other jurors still vote guilty, he will acquiesce. The ballot reveals one "not guilty" vote. Juror 9 reveals that he changed his vote; he respects Juror 8's motives, and agrees there should be more discussion.

Juror 8 argues that the train noise would have obscured everything the second witness claimed to have overheard. Jurors 5 and 11 change their votes. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 further question the second witness's story, and question whether the death threat was figurative speech. After looking at a diagram of the witness's apartment and conducting an experiment, the jurors determine that it is impossible for the disabled witness to have made it to the door in time. Juror 3, infuriated, argues with and tries to attack Juror 8, yelling a death threat; jurors 5, 6, and 7 physically restrain Juror 3. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes; the jury is now evenly split.

Juror 4 doubts the defendant's alibi, as the boy did not recall specific details. Juror 8 tests Juror 4's own memory to make a point. Jurors 2 and 5 point out the father's stab wound was angled downwards, although the boy was shorter than his father. Juror 7 changes his vote out of impatience rather than conviction, angering Juror 11. After another vote, jurors 1 and 12 also change sides, leaving only three "guilty" votes.

Juror 10 goes on a bigoted rant, causing Juror 4 to forbid him to speak for the remainder of the deliberation. When Juror 4 is pressed as to why he still maintains a guilty vote, he declares that the woman who saw the killing from across the street stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 reverts to a guilty vote.

After watching Juror 4 remove his glasses and rub the impressions they made on his nose, Juror 9 realizes that the first witness was constantly rubbing similar impressions on her own nose, indicating that she also was a habitual glasses-wearer, even though she chose not to wear glasses in court. Juror 8 remarks that the witness, who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on, making her story questionable. Jurors 4, 10 and 12 all change their votes, leaving Juror 3 as the sole dissenter.

After failing to convince the others of his argument, Juror 3 finally reveals that his strained relationship with his own son is the reason why he voted guilty. He breaks down in tears and changes his vote to "not guilty". As the others leave, Juror 8 graciously helps Juror 3 put on his coat. The defendant is acquitted off-screen. As the jurors leave the courthouse, Jurors 8 and 9 reveal their surnames to each other before parting ways.