payment page
Summary: Act I, Part 2
3RD JUROR [rising angrily]: All right. [To the 8TH JUROR.] Let’s try to get to the point here. What about the switch knife they found in the father’s chest? – the CURTAIN falls.
The jurors begin to discuss the knife found in the father’s body, and the 8th Juror requests to see the weapon. The 4th Juror recites the facts. The boy admitted to going out of the house at 8 pm, after his father hit him. The boy went to a junk shop and bought a switch blade with a carved handle, which the storekeeper said was one-of-a-kind. The boy showed his friends the switchblade. He went home until 11:30 pm, when he claimed to go to the movies, returning home at 3:14 am, where he was arrested for his father’s murder. The boy said that his knife fell through a hole in his pocket, which the 4th Juror calls a fabrication. The 8th Juror says it’s possible it did happen and that someone else killed the father with a similar knife. The 3rd Juror yells that it’s not possible. The 8th Juror produces an identical knife, which he said he found at a pawn shop in the boy’s neighborhood. The 8th Juror says that if they take a secret vote and no one agrees with him, he won’t stop them from submitting a guilty verdict. One person votes "not guilty." The jury room erupts in conversation.
The 3rd Juror accuses the 5th Juror of flipping his vote until the 9th Juror says that he flipped his vote to "not guilty" because he wants to talk more about the case. They take a break. The 8th Juror goes to the bathroom, and the 7th and 6th Jurors both try to convince him to give up. When they resume the deliberation, the 6th Juror asks who else would have a motive to kill the father. The 8th Juror says plenty of people, as he wasn’t a great guy. The 3rd Juror points out that people heard the boy say to his father that he was going to kill him. The 8th Juror says he doesn’t think that the old man could’ve accurately determined who yelled that.
They then begin a discussion about the impact of the elevated train on the witnesses’ ability to determine the murderer. Exasperated, the 3rd Juror tries to start a game a tic-tac-toe, which the 8th Juror throws away, saying that the proceedings aren’t a game. They almost come to blows. The 8th Juror resumes talking about the train, asking the jurors to estimate how long it would take for the train to pass by the apartment building. They estimate 10 seconds. The 8th Juror says that means the train was roaring by during the murder, which would make it impossible for the old man to hear who yelled “I’m going to kill you.” The 8th Juror also says that “I’m going to kill you” is an everyday phrase. The 3rd Juror says no one could be as accurate as the 8th Juror is requiring, and the 8th Juror says that accuracy is crucial when a boy’s life is at stake. The 6th Juror defends the 9th Juror after the 3rd Juror is dismissive of the 9th Juror, and they almost come to blows.
The 9th Juror takes the floor, explaining that he observed the old man carefully, and given that he has been a nobody much of his life, the old man might have convinced himself he’s witnessed the murderer just so someone would listen to him. The 10th Juror asks the 9th Juror what he knows about it, and the 9th Juror is embarrassed. The 5th Juror changes his vote to “not guilty.” The 11th Juror makes the point that, if the boy had killed his father, why would he return to the scene of the crime. Others argue that he wanted to retrieve his knife, but the 11th Juror suggests that would be foolish. The 8th Juror calls for another vote, which comes out 8-4, favoring guilty, after the 11th Juror changed his vote to “not guilty.” Angry, the 3rd Juror picks up a knife from the table, saying that the boy stabbed his father with it. The 9th Juror points out that that isn’t the murder weapon, but the knife the 8th Juror bought.
They then discuss the fact that the old man said he ran to the door of his apartment before seeing the boy go down the stairs after the murder. However, the old man limped in the court and had trouble walking. The 8th Juror recreates the distance from the bed to the hallway to the door that leads to the stairs, using the court exhibit of the boy’s apartment to estimate the distance. Though the old man testified it took him 15 seconds, the 8th Juror’s test shows he couldn’t have done it in under 42 seconds. This impresses the 6th Juror. The 3rd Juror gets angry, makes misogynist remarks, and says the boy has to burn. The 8th Juror accuses the 3rd Juror of wanting to see the boy die for personal reasons. The 3rd Juror gets so upset he says of the 8th Juror, “I’ll kill him.” The curtain falls.
Analysis
This section introduces the two knives as symbols for uncertainty, and emphasizes how difficult it is to identify the truth. When the jury examines the murder weapon, they believe the knife is one-of-a-kind. This parallels the way that many of the jurors believe there is only one possible version of the truth – the one in which the boy is definitely guilty. The existence of the second knife represents another version of the truth, one in which the boy is possibly innocent. When the 8th Juror introduces the second knife, the other jurors respond intensely with shock, disbelief, curiosity, and anger. The knife has the uncanny ability to upend their perception of reality and makes many of them begin to question themselves. These reactions parallel the ways the jurors react to the 8th Juror’s interrogation of the prosecution’s case, a version of the truth which unravels under his scrutiny.
This section also explores the motif of baseball and games, which parallels the way some of the men do not take their role as jurors seriously. Throughout the play, the discussion of games comes up often and serves as a distraction from the serious responsibility that has been set before the men. In the beginning of Act I, the 7th Juror talks extensively about baseball and is more concerned with making it to the Yankees game than he is about the jury proceedings. He also makes a joke in his impatience that he wants a deck of cards, which the 2nd Juror finds in poor taste. When the 3rd Juror grows impatient with the 8th Juror’s meticulous process, he tries to play tic-tac-toe, which angers the 8th Juror. This suggests that the jurors often don’t take the process seriously. They sometimes see the proceedings themselves like a game and as a result are playing with the boy’s life.
This section also explores the theme of the vulnerability of old age. The 9th Juror, an old man himself, observes the witness carefully and empathizes with the ways that the old man may be suffering because of his age. From the old man’s torn jacket, the 9th Juror sees that the old man is poor and theorizes that he has spent most of his life not feeling seen. The 9th Juror believes that the old man convinced himself that he saw a murder, not to intentionally lie, but because the old man’s longing to feel important impacts his ability to clearly perceive reality. When the 10th Juror asks the 9th Juror what he knows about it, it’s clear that the 9th Juror knows what it feels like to be an old man who no one listens to and is embarrassed. Thus, the 10th Juror uses the 9th Juror’s vulnerability to shoot down his cogent point about the old man’s testimony. Throughout the proceedings the 10th and 3rd Jurors treat the 9th Juror with disrespect, and the 6th Juror often defends him. The 9th Juror goes so far as to wish he was still young, feeling how his arguments and beliefs are dismissed because of his age.
