Alternative transcript:

relationship with his son and the son left him 3 years ago and they have not spoken since. He might be biased because of his experience with his son being "tough" and he sees the defendant being similar to his son. 12. What causes conflict between Jurors 10 and 5? How is the tension eased? Juror 5 is from the slums and Juror 10 was saying slum people are violent and racist toward people from slums. Juror 10 claims he was not referring to Juror 5 but 5 still takes it personally. The tension is eased when the Foreman changes the subject back to the evidence. 13. Identify two of the 8th juror's concerns about the trial. One concern is there are a lot of unanswered questions by the defense attorney. 14. Explain how Juror 4 explains the evidence (page 22-23). Juror 4 goes into detail only about the evidence explained in court. He explains the story behind the knife using only facts. 15. What proposition does Juror 8 make? He suggests that a vote by secret ballot happen. 16. Why do you think he does this? Juror does this to convince the Jury that the boy might not be guilty. 17. How does Juror 3 react to this proposition? Juror 3 believes he is ridiculous [][ Act II 18. What Juror changed their mind? Why? Juror 9 changed his mind because Juror 8s courage as well as wanting to hear more from him. 19. What do Jurors 3 and 12 do that upsets 8? Playing tic-tac-toe. "This isn't a game." 20. What does Juror 8 point out about the phrase "I'm going to kill you"? It does not mean anything because it is frequently used. 21. How do the other jurors respond? The disagree because the idea of context that Juror 4 mentions. Juror 3 talks about how the boy "screamed" it. If you scream it, you mean it. Juror 10 follows up with "and how they mean it." 22. What does Juror 5 say about his vote? Juror 5 says he's changing his vote to not guilty - I think there is doubt. 23. What does Juror 8 ask for from the evidence? Juror 8 asks for the diagram of the apartment. This is to see if he could make it to the door in 15 seconds. 24. What is determined about the time in relation to the old man's testimony? It is determined that the old man likely would not have gotten down the hallway within 15 seconds. Juror 8 took 39 seconds 25. What happens between Juror 3 and 8? Juror 3 and 8 start to argue and Juror 3 refuses to accept that the boy might not be guilty. 26. What does Juror 3 say to 8? Juror 3 says he would like to pull the switch to kill the boy. Juror 8 calls him a sadist. Juror 3 says "I'll kill him! I'll kill him!" 27. What is the point it makes? Juror 8, "you don't really mean that, do you?" The point that it makes is that it's common to say "I'm going kill you" and that the boy may not be guilty just because he said those words. Act III 28. What is the result of the new vote? 6 guilty and 6 not guilty (guilty: 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12) (not guilty: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11) 29. What does Juror 3 want to do? Declare a hung jury. They determine to have a vote on whether they are a hung jury or not. 6 yes and 6 no. Same people who voted guilty and not guilty. 30. Briefly summarize Juror 10's outburst following the vote. How do the other Jurors respond? He talks about how people from the slums are liars, drinkers, and killers. The other Jurors turned their backs on him, some go to windows and ignore him completely. 31. What effect does this have on the jurors? Juror 4 threatens him and other jurors don't speak to Juror 10 anymore. 32. What is the result of the next vote? Who changes their votes to "not guilty," and why? The result of the next vote is 11-1. Juror 4 changed his because he now has doubt in his mind. 33. How does Juror 3 react when he loses his last two allies? Juror 3 claims he doesn't care that he's standing alone but almost begs Juror 4 to stay on his side. 34. How do the others respond? The other Jurors are asking the argument of Juror 3 and remind him they have plenty of time. 35. What is the 3rd juror's final argument before he changes his vote? Juror 3 goes on about it being a hung jury and he's entitled to his opinion. 36. What does this reveal about him? The reveals him to be very stubborn and refuse to be wrong. 37. Why does Juror 3 finally vote "not guilty"? Juror 8 says that it can be a hung jury but only more evidence proving the kid is not guilty will appear as they present the ideas to the lawyers. 38. What does Juror 8 do for 3 as the play ends? Why do you think he does this? Juror 8 consoles Juror 3 and makes him change his vote to not guilty. He knows that Juror 3 knows the boy is not guilty and consoles him about it being ok to be wrong. KNIFE Evidence Sheet Testimony: Unusual - the only one of its kind Boy admitted to buying it. Claims it was for a friend and that it fell through a hole in his pocket. The clerk was arrested for selling it to boy. Questions: Juror 8 pulled out an identical looking knife. Knife was bought at a store around the corner where the boy lives. How unique is the knife then? Smart? The wound is "inexperienced" - an extra step switching it in your hand - would the boy (experienced with a knife) make that wound? 5- experienced people use it underhand 1. Wipe away fingerprints 2. Wait for el train to cover up the noise 3. Amateur wound Dumb? 1. Associate himself with the knife 2. No alibi 3. El train passing could mean more witnesses COUPLE ACROSS THE HALL/BOY'S ALIBI Testimony: OLD MAN Living below the father and son. A little after midnight, he heard a "fight" between the father and son. Later he heard the boy shout, "I'm going to kill you." Heard a body fall. Went to door to check and saw the boy leaving the apartment. Questions: Could he have really heard the boy say "I'm going to kill you" over the sound of the el train? Could the old man have walked the length of the hallway in fifteen seconds? Did he really see the boy running down the stairs? Reasonable things the killer would have done: 1. Wiping the prints off the knife. 2. Standing over the victim, waiting for the victim to die 3. Look around the apartment for other clues/evidence 4. Wipe the doorknobs Maybe the old man was wrong about the time but right about what he saw. Did he really see the boy running down the stairs considering the lack of lighting in the hallway? LADY ACROSS THE TRACKS Testimony: Claiming he was at the movies. Can't remember the film name. The ticket taker and cashier doesn't remember seeing boy there. Boy has no ticket stub. Around 8 p'clock there was an argument between the father and son. The father hit the son. The boy storming out. Speaks to the boy's motive. Questions: Testimony: She saw the boy stab his father. Saw the scene through the windows of a passing el train. She has known the kid his whole life. They took the jurors to her room to show them it's possible to see through an elevated train window to the other side. Questions: She wears glasses and probably was not wearing them while in bed so could she have accurately seen the murder? Did she just see a blur?