payment page
8th Juror: […] There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, but actually those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Supposing they were wrong?
12th Juror: What do you mean, “Supposing they were wrong?” What’s the point of having witnesses at all?
This quote takes place in Act I, as the 8th Juror explains in more depth some of his reservations about convicting the boy of murder. This dialogue encapsulates much of the tension throughout the deliberation. The 8th Juror wants to think critically about the prosecution’s case and interrogate the witnesses’ testimonies as potentially fallible. The 12th Juror, like many of the men in the room, seem to take the word of the witnesses and the prosecution as unassailable facts. As a result, the other jurors often push back against the 8th Juror’s interrogations with anger or ridicule, especially in moments like this when he simply raises the possibility of reasonable doubt or of another interpretation of the case. The 12th Juror, like others throughout the play, overlooks the fact that the witnesses are just normal people who may be wrong. This allows them to feel certain about convicting the boy. In contrast, the 8th Juror offers a more difficult but more reality-based approach to discussing the case.
8th Juror: Suppose you were the one on trial?
6th Juror: I’m not used to supposing. I’m just a working man. My boss does the supposing. But I’ll try one. Suppose you talk us all outa this and the kid really did knife his father?
This quote takes place at a break in the deliberations in Act I, when the 8th and 6th Jurors are separated from the other jurors while standing in the washroom. The 6th Juror sums up the philosophy that many of the jurors seem to adhere to—that thinking critically about events is the purview of authorities or other people. Many in the jury act as though it’s better to accept the version of events laid out by authorities like the prosecutor than to interrogate the facts for themselves. He then turns this idea on its head, and the two men lay out the fundamental uncertainty at the center of the case which causes them both discomfort: there’s no way for the jury to know whether they are sending an innocent boy to death or freeing a guilty boy who killed his father. The impossibility of answering this question drives much of the dramatic tension in the play. Though the jury must convince itself of the best course of action, no one will ever know for sure whether they made the right decision or not.
4th Juror: Gentlemen, this case is based on a reasonable and logical progression of facts. Let’s keep it there.
11th Juror: Facts may be colored by the personalities of the people who present them.
This quote takes place near the end of Act I, as the 4th Juror pushes back on the 9th Juror’s hypothesis that the old man’s psychological state could have affected his perception. The 4th Juror considers this pure speculation and tries to recenter the conversation on the cold, hard facts. However, the 11th Juror points out that facts, too, can be colored by the people who present them, and this is central to the jury’s deliberation. Throughout the discussion, the 4th Juror attempts to stick to the facts and puts a lot of faith in what seems to be the objective truth. But time and again, what he considers a fact has multiple possible explanations. For example, the 4th Juror thinks that the boy’s inability to remember details of the movie he saw the night of the murder proves that he’s lying. However, the juror also can’t remember the details from a movie he himself recently saw, and this emphasizes that there are multiple interpretations to the facts. The 4th Juror struggles to accept nuance and doubt through most of the play, believing that facts are the same as truth.
