Characters / 12 Angry Men

The Twelve Angry Men

Juror #1 (Foreman)

Juror #1

Played By: Norman Fell (1954), Martin Balsam (1957), Courtney B. Vance (1997)

"Let's try to keep this organized, gentlemen."

The foreman, assigned to moderate the rest of the jury; a job he is not quite qualified for, but he is determined to do his best.

---

• Berserk Button: When someone questions his authority, he gets worked up and suggests that person take his place instead.
• Nice Guy: Unless you press his aforementioned Berserk Button, he's a all-around decent guy trying to make the right decisions.
• Race Lift: He's black in the 1997 remake.
• Reasonable Authority Figure: Friendly and amicable, doing his best to make sure everybody has a chance to voice their opinion and weigh it against exhibits and evidence. We learn that #1's day job is as an assistant football coach.
• Token Good Teammate: Of the "guilty" voters once the vote reaches 6-6, as the other five have been some form of antagonistic or unpleasant up to that point.

Juror #2

Juror #2

Played By: John Beal (1954), John Fiedler (1957), Ossie Davis (1997)

"It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise."

A small, timid banker who mostly gives a "guilty" vote due to pressure from the other jurors.

---

• Age Lift: Old and gray-haired in 1997 remake.
• Extreme Doormat: He constantly finds himself being swayed by the opinions of others. However, by the end, his courage has visibly grown, and he is no longer afraid to stand up to the more antagonistic jurors.
• The Generic Guy: The 1997 remake changed him to a physically larger black man and did away with his timidity, but didn't add any further characterization to him.
• Grew a Spine: Over time, he's more willing to call the other jurors out on their shit.
• Hidden Depths: Despite his initial meekness, he is the one who brings up how the stab wound that killed the victim was angled downwards, despite the defendant being seven inches shorter. This leads to further deliberation on the use of the switchblade, furthering the cause for reasonable doubt.
• Nice Guy: He is a soft spoken guy who tries his best to be nice, even to the more confrontational jurors.
• Noodle Incident: He recalls an incident a few weeks back where he had a squabble with a fellow banker, when expressing doubt over #3's claim that people who yell stuff at the top of their lungs mean what they say. Sadly, #3 interrupts him before he can finish.
• Prematurely Bald: Not quite. Even if the top of his head is bald, he still has some hair on the sides and back of his head. But balding while being 32 years old (in the 1957 version), it's obviously premature.
• Race Lift: One of the four black jurors in the 1997 remake.
• Shrinking Violet: He's the shyest and least assertive of the group.

Juror #3

Juror #3

Played By: Franchot Tone (1954), Lee J. Cobb (1957), George C. Scott (1997)

"I'm a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything?"

The primary advocate for a "guilty" verdict, whose estrangement from his son causes him to automatically distrust any young person.

---

• Abusive Parents: It's heavily implied he was this to his own son and they haven't spoken in years as a result.
• Be Careful What You Wish For: After seeing his son walk away from a fight, he swore to "make a man out of [him]." The last time he and his son saw each other, his son punched him and walked out.
• Believing Their Own Lies: At the start of the deliberations, he opens by claiming to have no personal bias towards the case. It quickly becomes apparent that this is far from the truth, and he himself is the last to realize it.
• Berserk Button: His (apparent) views on youth, seeing them as spoiled and disrespectful. This leads to his final breakdown.
• Big Bad: The closest the film has to one.
• Deadpan Snarker: Part of his jerkass demeanour is that he responds to arguments with deeply sarcastic wisecracks.
• Everyone Has Standards:
  • Debatable in regards to #10's bigotry. When the vote reaches 9-3 in favour of acquittal, #3 walks away from the table just before #10 goes into his infamous rant, unlike most of the other jurors who leave during the rant in disgust. Despite both still voting "guilty", #3 keeps his back turned throughout #10's tirade and does not acknowledge or dignify it in any way. Whether it's because #3 is genuinely disgusted or is simply frustrated with the whole case is left up in the air.
  • #3 is also clearly appalled when #7 switches his vote to "Not Guilty" simply because he wants to leave and has "had enough".
    Juror #3: Whaddaya mean, you "had enough"?! That's no answer!
• Evil Counterpart: To #8, though more like a Jerkass Counterpart; they're both men of passion unwilling to back down when they believe their cause is just.
• Freudian Excuse: He spends the movie continuously trying to convict a young man where there is more and more reasonable doubt for his guilt because his relationship with his son appeared to have gone very sour. It's a classic case of Psychological Projection. He realizes this at the end, though, and does not continue his stance.
• Gone Horribly Wrong: His son used to run away from fights, something that disgusted him. He vowed to make a real man out of the boy, but all that accomplished was making him bitter and resentful. They had a serious fight and never spoke to each other since. For this, #3 carries around a lot of pain and is prejudice towards the defendant.
• Hair-Trigger Temper:
  Juror #3: Excitable? You bet I'm excitable! We're trying to put a guilty man in the chair where he belongs!
• The Heavy: He's the most vocal juror in favor of declaring the boy guilty, and the one who holds out the longest.
• Heel Realization: When, in the middle of his furious insistence that the defendant is guilty, he sees the picture of his estranged son and rips it to pieces, you can see in his face that he has just figured out what he was really doing. His cry of "Not guilty!" applies just as much to his son as it does to the defendant.
• Jerkass: He's an aggressive and irritable grump. It kicks into overdrive as the debate rages on.
• My God, What Have I Done?: His face shows this after ripping up his picture of his estranged son. He also feels this way about their falling out.
• Never My Fault: He mentions his bad relationship with his own son and treats him as spoiled and ungrateful for the fact that they haven't spoken in years rather than on his own bad parenting.
• Oh, Crap!:
  • When he contradicts his own, earlier arguments.
  • And when the rational part of his brain retakes control as he's tearing up the photo of him and his son, the look on his face changes from rage to absolute horror.
• Paper Destruction of Anger: He rips up a photo of him and his son during his breakdown and then he finally votes not guilty. He was voting "guilty" simply because of the bad relationship he has with his estranged son, not because of the facts.
• Pet the Dog: He assumes #5 changed his stance during the second vote and gives him hell for it, but it turns out it was #9. Afterwards, #3 stammers out something akin to an apology to #5. It's the thought that counts.
• Psychological Projection: By the end, it becomes clear that the real reason he's so insistent on a guilty conviction is because he's projecting his own problems with his son.
  • Red Oni, Blue Oni: The red to Juror #4's blue; both are pushing the guilty verdict but #3 is doing so for emotional reasons while #4 is approaching it from a purely logical angle.
• Sadist: #8 deliberately calls him one to rile him up to make a point, that people don't always mean what they say.
• Thin-Skinned Bully: Harasses and harangues the jurors of the room but once they get up and confront him like #5 or #6, he turns away from them hoping to not start a scene. He also gets riled pretty easily when #8 accuses him of voting guilty for less altruistic reasons.
• Tragic Villain: He's not really a bad man, and his reasons for pushing a guilty verdict so hard (namely, he's channeling all his anger about how his own relationship with his son ended onto the young defendant) is something he clearly does not realize he's doing. His Villainous Breakdown, unlike #10's racist diatribe, is not met with the disgust or contempt of the other jurors. They all just kind of look like they feel sorry for him.
• Ungrateful Bastard and Teens Are Monsters: After his final rant, he glances at the photo of him and his son and angrily says, “Rotten kids. You work your life out…!“ before ripping up the photo. Earlier, he comments that he grew up being taught to respect his elders and that the youth of the time (latter half of the 1950s) were spoiled rotten, lawless, disrespectful and ungrateful, all leading to a swift, sure downfall of society of the time.
• Villainous Breakdown: His final act in the play before the end and final vote. In contrast to #10's breakdown, which was met with disgust, his is more pitiful and invokes sympathy from the other jurors, even the relatively-apathetic #7.
• Villainy-Free Villain: He's just trying to bring someone he honestly believes to be guilty to justice. The fact that he's such a massive Jerkass prevents him from being a Hero Antagonist.
• Villain Protagonist: He is the angriest man in the room, the closest thing the movie has to a Big Bad, and the story is about him as much as it is about Juror #8.
• Your Approval Fills Me with Shame: He gets uncomfortable when he realizes that one of his last remaining allies, #10, is blinded by prejudice and doesn't give a damn about the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Juror #4

Juror #4

Played By: Walter Abel (1954), E. G. Marshall (1957), Armin Mueller Stahl (1997)

"You've made some excellent points, but I still believe the boy is guilty."

A highly methodical and logical stockbroker who becomes one of the last holdouts for a "guilty" verdict because the evidence is too strong for him to go against.

---

• Adaptational Nice Guy: In the 1954 teleplay, he threatens physical violence against #10 after one bigoted tirade too many. The 1957 and 1997 versions downplay this to him calmly but cuttingly telling him to shut up (then again, considering the nature of the tirade, you might not consider him meaner for a more violent reaction).
• Break the Haughty: One of the pieces of evidence he brings up is that the boy couldn’t remember the movie he was watching when questioned by police which brings doubt to his alibi, so #8 asks him if he can remember the movie he has watched from days ago. #4 looks at his most vulnerable in struggling to remember the picture’s name and its actors, taking some time to think, getting the film’s name wrong and not remembering the lead actress’ name; ultimately proving that there was a reason the boy couldn’t have remembered his film’s name as he was under pressure by police as #4 couldn’t remember a film he watched himself outside of police pressure. After his point was shot down, #4 starts to sweat.
• Deadpan Snarker: Has a tendency to quip back at some of the apparently less-than-logical theories.
• Failed a Spot Check: He realizes the key witness to the murder could not have possibly identified the boy as the murderer, being 60 ft away in the dark, when she didn't have her eye glasses on in bed. Out of vanity, she deliberately didn't bring them to court. But almost everyone, including Juror #4 who wears glasses, noticed the idents on her nose left by her own pair. He has a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, and immediately changes his mind.
• Graceful Loser: When his factual reasoning for voting guilty has been overwhelmingly debunked, he doesn't get upset or dig his heels in. Instead, he simply changes his vote, accepting that he was wrong.
• Hero Antagonist: Although he's the second last holdout for "guilty", he's not shown as being a mean person or unwilling to listen to reason; unlike Jurors #3 and #10, he has no personal reasons for his vote and is convinced the defendant is guilty purely because of the evidence presented at the trial.
• Implacable Man: The only juror shown not to sweat despite the massive heat in the room. He only sweats once, after #8 manages to prove his point.
• Ironic Echo: Juror #5 asks him about midway through the film if he ever sweats, to which #4 replies "no". When #8 eventually proves him wrong, #4 begins to sweat.
• Meaningful Appearance: The fact that his glasses have octagonal lenses underscores how he looks at a problem from every angle before coming to a conclusion.
• Nothing Personal: How he approaches the case and resulting discourse. He makes clear he has no personal bias against the defendant, even expressing sympathy for his terrible background, and is voting guilty based solely on the evidence. He also keeps his discussions with other members relatively civil and avoids making things personal, the sole exception being Juror #10, who he makes no effort to hide his disdain for, which is more than justified by #10's openly bigoted and bellicose attitude.
• Only Sane Man: Of three major holdouts (the other two being #3 and #10), he's the only one to stay calm, whose reasoning is motivated by logic rather than personal bias, who is willing to calmly listen to others and even make concessions and when the evidence becomes overwhelming, he changes his vote with no issue.
• O.O.C. Is Serious Business: When #8 manages to disprove one of his points, he's visibly flustered, wiping sweat from his brow.
• Punch-Clock Villain: As said under Hero Antagonist, despite being on the antagonistic side of the movie he is just doing his duty as a juror, and only because he actually believes the evidence to support his thesis.
• Reasonable Authority Figure: He's a stockbroker in his day job. He always speaks in a calm voice and is evidently very used to being treated seriously.
• Sharp-Dressed Man: He is always in a nice suit but won't take it off even in the heat.
• Shut Up, Hannibal!: Is the juror that finally puts #10 in his place after his Villainous Breakdown. For added awesome points, he does this without changing the tone or volume of his voice.
  Juror #10: Listen to me…!
  Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.
• Smart People Wear Glasses: He's the most logical and calculative of the group, and his glasses reflect that. This is further exemplified by his frames being octagonal, symbolizing how he looks at things from every angle before making his judgement.
  • His personal experience as someone who wears glasses regularly helps him realize that #9 has a very good point about the case's sole eyewitness, who had nose depressions consistent with eyewear. #4 himself confirms that he saw the marks on her nose, and that she would not have worn her glasses to bed, which would have been crucial to her eyewitness testimony. With the witness's eyesight casting her own testimony into question, #4 finally concedes.
• The Spock: He's certainly the most rational of the group, concerning himself purely with the facts. Despite being one of the last holdouts in favor of conviction, he listens to all of his opponents' arguments with an open mind. Once all of his objections have been rebutted, he changes his vote without complaint, saying he now has reasonable doubt.
• The Stoic: The calmest and most collected of the jurors, never raising his voice or showing strong emotions of any kind. He's not completely stoic, though, as a few scenes evidence. He becomes visibly unnerved while being interrogated by Juror #8, and towards the end, expresses annoyance towards Juror #3 (for his obnoxiousness), Juror #9 (for badgering him with seemingly-inane questions instead of getting to the point), and Juror #10 (for being obviously prejudiced against the defendant, instead of arriving at a guilty verdict by the exercise of logic).
• Stoic Spectacles: He wears them, and it even becomes a plot point.
• Token Good Teammate: Easily the most sympathetic of the final three holdouts, due to voting "guilty" because he really has reached that conclusion through logical thinking rather than emotional baggage (like #3) or prejudiced views (like #10). He even delivers a Shut Up, Hannibal! to #10 when the latter's prejudice goes too far. The second that the biggest piece of evidence is put into legitimate doubt, he changes his vote with no further argument.
• Tranquil Fury: When he calls out #10 for his bigotry, he keeps his usual even tone, but it's very clear he's thoroughly fed up with the man.
• Worthy Opponent: Near the end of the film he admits that the points Juror #8 made that he initially doubted were “excellent points” before bringing up the final and crucial piece of evidence that there was a witness who saw the murder taking place. Once it was revealed there was reasonable doubt the witness could have seen the murder, he concedes his guilty vote.

Juror #5

Juror #5

Played By: Lee Phillips (1954), Jack Klugman (1957), Dorian Harewood (1997)

"I've played in back yards that were filled with garbage. Maybe you can still smell it on me."

A man with a similar background to the defendant, who votes "guilty" out of worry that going the other way would simply be due to this.

---

• Ambiguously Jewish: He's hinted to be some kind of minority, and Jack Klugman, the actor who portrayed him in the 1957 version is Jewish.
• Berserk Button:
  • He gets pretty offended once #3 starts insulting the culprit and his poor background as #5 also comes from such a background.
  • In 1997, he storms out in fury when #10 launches his racist tirade.
  • Juror #3 gets #5 riled up when he starts accusing him of changing his vote to "not guilty" and insists that since #5 grew up in a slum neighborhood, he's the one to blame. Which makes it pretty awkward when it turns out that #9 was the one who changed his vote, not #5.
• Dark and Troubled Past: #5 had a impoverished childhood, and hated switch knives, seeing enough people get fatally wounded by them in the deprived slums where he grew up. It's thanks to his experience he knows the supposed murder weapon could not match the stab wound on the defendant's father.
• Everybody Has Standards: He’s the first to get up and face away from Juror #10’s bigoted tirade in disagreement. Unlike the other jurors who do so calmly, #5 actually gets angry and slams down the paper he was reading.
• Hair-Trigger Temper: Downplayed compared the #3 or #6 but he is pretty agitated once pushed.
• Nice Guy: Like The Foreman, unless you push him too far, he is respectful to others.
• Reverse Grip: His background lets him refute the evidence of the defendant's much taller father having a downward stab wound, something only possible with such a grip. However, he knows no experienced switchblade user would do it; he points out switching to that grip would waste precious time, and that the switchblade is designed for underhanded thrusting.

Juror #6

Juror #6

Played By: Bart Burns (1954), Edward Binns (1957), James Gandolfini (1997)

"Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin', but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this, and, uh, the kid really did knife his father? What then?"

A blue-collar painter who mostly just goes along with the group.

---

• Armor-Piercing Question: In the 1997 version during the first bathroom break, he asks #8 how he'll feel if it turns out The Boy was guilty and goes on to commit another crime. Although #8 sticks to his guns, he's clearly rattled by the question. The 1957 version doesn't go that far, having #6 ask #8, "what if you convince us all, and then we learn that the boy really did kill his dad?" This question does bother #8.
• Brooklyn Rage: In the 1997 version he has James Gandolfini's blue-collar Tristate accent and gets loud a few times - most notably early on when he yells at his fellow jurors to be respectful to #9, and at the end when he shouts at #10 during his racist rant.
• Bruiser with a Soft Center: Seems to have a soft spot for old people as he gets offended when #3 repeatedly harasses the elderly #9, even threatening to lay him out.
• Condescending Compassion: Though his intentions are obviously noble, some of his comments in regards to #9 come off this way.
• The Generic Guy: He has the fewest lines of any jury member, and we learn little about him besides his job. Following adaptations of the story reveal that he has a vain wife.
• Nice Guy: He's always polite and reasonable, never making his arguments in a rude way, and makes a point of telling #3 to show #9 a bit of respect, #9 being an elder.
• Rage Breaking Point: He threatens to punch out Juror #3 after the latter repeatedly interrupts #9. He almost moves to later when #3 does it again, but #5 quickly calms him down.

Juror #7

Juror #7

Played By: Paul Hartman (1954), Jack Warden (1957), Tony Danza (1997)

"Well, what's there to talk about? Eleven men in here think he's guilty."

A salesman more concerned with deciding a verdict in time for a New York Yankees game than doing justice.

---

• Brilliant, but Lazy: He shows some decent skill at analyzing the case and using it to make up his mind but he's most focused on voting however will get him out of there quicker.
• Brutal Honesty: He is rarely anything but honest about his feelings.
• Busman's Vocabulary: As a sports fan, he brings up a lot of baseball jargon and a boxing metaphor into the conversation.
• Deadpan Snarker: The majority of his dialogue is making wiseass remarks which add little to the proceedings.
• Dirty Coward: When #11 politely asks him a question, #7 insults him for being an immigrant. But when #11 gives him an actual "The Reason You Suck" Speech, #7 cowers and gives #11 the answer he wants to hear.
• Everyone Has Standards:
  • Even he shows nothing but contempt for #10's racism. Though considering that he insulted #11's immigrant status earlier, this could be seen as hypocrisy.
  • For all his indifference, he doesn't condone violence, which is shown when he immediately holds Juror #3 back from viciously assaulting Juror #8. He was also just as nervous as everyone else when #3 looked as though he was seriously going to stab #8.
• Hate Sink: Not quite as blatant an example as Juror #10, but arguably even worse because at least Jurors #3 and #10 legitimately believe the kid is guilty; Juror #7 doesn't care and votes whichever way he thinks will get him out fastest. And he considers #11 as an inferior just for being a foreigner.
• Hidden Depths: Despite his apathy to the case, there are moments where he takes his Juror position seriously, like a scene where he lists off the defendant's previous felonies before seemingly murdering his father and tells Juror #8 that he honestly believes the defendant committed the crime. He even expresses doubt of the defendant's alibi.
• Jerkass: Aside from constantly insulting the other jurors with his constant pithy remarks, he doesn't care what the decision of the jury is. He's only concerned with catching a Yankees game. At least the most vicious jurors voted guilty because they believed in it. That said, when called out on this, he does say that he doesn't believe the accused is guilty. Fortunately, the game is rained out during the deliberation, so he can relax and pay attention for once.
• The Load: As both sides argue for and against the boy's guilt, they soon became frustrated with #7's apathy. He really doesn't care whether the boy is convicted or not if it gets him out of jury duty any faster.
• Obsessive Sports Fan: Very impatient during the session as he has a Yankees game he wants to go to, compares #8’s arguments to a person who tries to convince a knocked out boxer won the fight and during a rest period he plays basketball with paper balls and a wall mounted fan.
• Pet the Dog:
  • He's very indifferent towards his job as a juror, but during #3's Villainous Breakdown, he looks at him with just as much pity as everyone else.
  • He seems genuinely sorry for accidentally hitting #9 with a paper ball while he was playing faux-basketball in the room.
• Plucky Comic Relief: The main source of humor in the film. Deconstructed since while the group was okay with him at first, by the end all the other jurors have had enough of him making light of such a serious situation.
• Politically Incorrect Villain: More of a Hate Sink than a true villain, but he insults Juror #11 for being an immigrant.
• Skewed Priorities: Switches his vote to "Not Guilty" just because it had taken the majority and doing so would get him out of jury duty quicker. Everyone in the room on both sides are fairly appalled by this, pointing out he's shrugging off a huge societal responsibility out of laziness.

Juror #8

Juror #8 / Davis

Played By: Robert Cummings (1954), Henry Fonda (1957), Jack Lemmon (1997)

"Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

The Rogue Juror who votes "not guilty" in the beginning. An architect, he insists to hold out because he feels the situation needs to be talked over first.

---

• Actually Pretty Funny: He can't help but chuckle when #7 mentions his brother-in-law after he mentions moronic lawyers.
• Age Lift: In the 1997 version, rather than being a handsome leading man like Henry Fonda, he's played by an elderly Jack Lemmon.
• Berserk Button: He just wants people to do their due diligence. When Jurors 1, 3, and 12 start playing games, he gets angry enough to crumble the paper into a ball.
• The Determinator: Even when opposed by all the other jurors, he stands his ground and manages to convince all of them why he believes the defendant might not be guilty.
• Dissonant Serenity: When Juror #3 is pretending to stab him, he is unflinching while the other jurors are standing up, worried that #3 is actually going to stab him.
• Establishing Character Moment: First seen pondering at the window of the jury room before being called over to begin the decision. Notably, he isn't shown speaking and chattering excitedly like most of the jurors, hinting that the majority sentiment won't go through as easily as previously thought.
• Guile Hero: Because violence would get him ejected, he must use his mind and instincts to combat the arguments of the others to make them question the evidence enough so there is enough reasonable doubt.
• Hanlon's Razor: #8 points out the boy's lawyer, new to the job and inexperienced, did a thoroughly miserable job of making a convincing defence. Letting him down out of incompetence more than maliciousness.
• Hero Protagonist: He is the one who gets the others to actually think about the evidence closely, and he refused to railroad the defendant because something didn't add up. Despite peer pressure, he continued his stance and pushed to reexamine all the evidence closely.
• Humanity Is Flawed: The man frequently reminds his fellow jurors that people make mistakes, and none of them have the right to send the boy to the chair if they have any room for doubt the evidence isn't concrete.
• Light Is Good: Juror #8 traditionally wears a white coat or suit. He's the first one to believe the boy could be innocent.
• Meaningful Appearance: You wouldn't notice it, as he's without it for most of the film, but Juror #8 wears a white suit. This represents he is unclouded by prejudice and wants to be impartial. Determined to remind the Jurors a man is always innocent until proven guilty. Some could argue he was like the boy's Guardian Angel that refused to let others punish him for a crime he didn't commit.
• Named by the Adaptation: Unnamed in the play, the film gives him the surname of Davis in an additional scene at the very end.
• Nerves of Steel: Doesn't flinch when #3 raises the knife, even with everyone panicking at the idea that he might actually stab him. Only Juror #4 doesn't react, as he knows it would be improbably stupid and illogical for him to grievously harm anyone in a courthouse with so many witnesses.
• Nice Guy: He is a generally nice and concerned man who is focused on ensuring justice is done right.
• Rogue Juror: If not the Trope Maker, definitely the Trope Codifier. In this case, however, the rogue juror isn't actually convinced of the defendant's innocence at first. He just wants to forestall an overly hasty deliberation and be certain that they do this as best they can.

Juror #9

Juror #9 / McCardle

Played By: Joseph Sweeney (1954 and 1957), Hume Cronyn (1997)

"He didn't change his vote—I did."

The oldest of the jury members, whose life experience gives him a unique outlook on the case.

---

• Awesomeness by Analysis: He has a few key moments of insight which help dismantle the Guilty-voter arguments.
• Cool Old Guy: More so as the movie progresses, which includes taking note of a few small details which the other jurors failed to pick up on, such as the old man's testimony not matching his physical capability and the woman having eyeglass marks on her nose.
• Hidden Depths: He's assumed to a doddering old man, but shows he's much smarter and more aware than he may appear.
• The Lancer: He's the first to change to a "not guilty" vote and at a crucial time when Juror #8 needed support. He then spends the rest of the film as #8's biggest supporter, ultimately playing a larger role in poking holes in the biggest piece of evidence.
• Named by the Adaptation: Unnamed in the play, the film gives him the surname of McCardle in an additional scene at the very end.
• Token Good Teammate: Aside from our hero (Juror #8), he is the only one who initially wants to hear more about the case, and doesn't give into Juror #3's tirades about degradation.

Juror #10

Juror #10

Played By: Edward Arnold (1954), Ed Begley (1957), Mykelti Williamson (1997)

"You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is."

A garage owner and a bigot whose prejudice causes him to be another main antagonist to #8.

---

• Adaptational Jerkass: Though he's still a pretty nasty piece of work in the 1957 version, he at least looks ashamed after being called out on his bigoted tirade, and it's somewhat implied that he's come to genuinely think the boy is not guilty. In the 1997 version he seems more resentful when called out, and makes it clear that his feelings haven't changed despite agreeing to vote non-guilty.
• Character Filibuster: He has a particularly blinkered rant against "the likes of him" that causes the other jurors to turn away from him one by one, until #4 shuts him up:
  Juror #10: Listen to me…!
  Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.
• Everyone Has Standards:
  • Is noticeably unimpressed when #3 and #12 are playing a game in the middle of one of the juror's statements. He was also as nervous as the others when it looked like #3 was actually going to stab #8 with the switchblade.
  • Despite being quite an easily angered man himself, he looks just as appalled as everybody else at #3's more "excitable" moments.
  • It should also be noted that despite being a bigot, it was #3 and not he who singled #5 out as the potential not-guilty vote. Despite his prejudice, he never directly judges #5 for his background.
• Evil Old Folks: "Evil" may be a strong word, but he's in his mid-fifties and a vile racist.
• Hate Sink: Despite Juror #3 being closer to filling the role of a Big Bad, Juror #10 is clearly the more unlikable character. Unlike with Juror #3, there is never any suggestion that he has a sympathetic side beneath the Jerkassery.
• Heel Realization: Vaguely implied. When he rants at length about how "they" (the unspecified ethnic group the defendant belongs to) are by nature nothing but a bunch of hotheaded liars and killers, the way all eleven of the other jurors respond with silent open contempt for his views, followed by #4's command to sit down and not say another word causes him to go practically catatonic. He spends the remainder of the deliberation silently staring at nothing, and after #4 changes his vote to not guilty, #10 soon follows. It is left ambiguous, if this means he was actually rethinking his views, or if he just felt defeated. The original telepay and the Showtime version aren't as ambiguous; when the final vote is taken, #10 flat out says he believes the defendant is guilty, he's just voting "not guilty" cause he's done butting heads with the others.
• Jerkass: He doesn't have any logical reason for his guilty vote; he's just extremely prejudice, to the point where he eventually drops all pretenses and goes on a lengthy bigoted tirade to which the other jurors refuse to listen.
• Perfect Health: Averted: he has a head cold. It's not a plot point or anything—he just has a head cold. It's one of many distractions that cause some jurors to want to rush through the deliberation and go back to their lives.
• Politically Incorrect Villain: He's a bigot whose guilty vote is motivated not by the evidences presented to him, but by his strong prejudice against the background of the defendant, saying that there's "not one of them that is any good", causing him to go in a furious (and unpopular) monologue after eight of the jurors switch their votes to not guilty. After his famous tirade, even Jurors #3 and #7 have nothing but contempt for him.
  • It's given a seldom-seen twist in the 1997 remake: he's just as bigoted, but this time, he's a xenophobic Black supremacist who's affiliated with the Nation of Islam, and resents Latino immigrants for taking jobs that he thinks rightfully belong to black people.
• Profiling: That the defendant is a young man from a slum is enough for #10 to think he's guilty.
• Race Lift: He's black in 1997, and his bigotry is aimed at Latinos.
• Sharp-Dressed Man: In 1997, he follows the Nation of Islam's dress code by wearing a smartly tailored suit and a bow tie.
• Some of My Best Friends Are X: Paper-thin. He says he's "the first to admit that some of them are good." But not a minute later he's declaring that every last one of "them" is rotten.
• Stop Being Stereotypical: Absent in 1957, but very present in his 1997 incarnation as a black supremacist.
  • He's contemptuous of black people who come from poverty and don't live up to the NOI's standards of "respectability." Hence his nastiness to #5, whom he calls an "Uncle Tom."
  • He ends up on the receiving end when he assumes that #1 and #2, the other black men in the room^note #5 having stormed out in disgust, will share his hateful opinions about Latinos. Both men are mortified and ashamed: #1 is at a loss for words, and #2 is so insulted that he raises his voice for the first time.
• Stopped Caring: In the 1997 remake and the original teleplay, he votes 'not guilty' not out of moral reasons, as he stills holds his prejudice, but because he doesn't care if the defendant is guilty or not anymore on account of being shunned by the others for his prejudice.
• Tranquil Fury: When #8 asks him why he believes the woman when "she's one of them, too," he responds, "You're a pretty smart fella, aren't you?" His voice is quiet, but the tension between the two is so obvious that the rest of them speak up to intervene and make sure things don't get out of hand. (Later on, though, his fury is anything but tranquil.)
• Verbal Tic:
  • Calling people "my friend." This is coldly thrown back at him when he asks #2 for a cough drop, and is told, "I'm all out... my friend."
  • In the 1997 remake, he calls the other black jurors "brother." He gets mocked for it this time too.
  • He tends to say "You know what I mean?" after a racist remark. In a case of Truth in Television, this kind of thing can be a way for bigots to look for validation for their beliefs from other people.
• Villainous Breakdown: He launches into a bigoted harangue once he is left as one of only three jurors voting "guilty", stating "there is not a one of them that is any good!" He gets more and more worked up as the jurors turn their backs on him, one by one, until Juror #4 commands #10 to sit back down and keep his mouth shut. #10 spends the rest of the story sulking in defeated silence.
• Villainous BSoD: He sits in the corner and stays silent for a good deal of time after Juror #4 tells him to shut up.

Juror #11

Juror #11

Played By: George Voskovec (1954 and 1957), Edward James Olmos (1997)

"I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions."

A European immigrant and watchmaker who is particularly proud to perform his civic duty as a jury member.

---

• Berserk Button: He won't call you out for bringing up his immigrant status, but you'll get an earful from him if you don't take your American civic responsibilities seriously.
• Deadpan Snarker: He delivers a few of these towards #10, such as when he corrected him on his grammar, as well as this gem:
  Juror #11: I beg pardon.
  Juror #10: "I beg pardon"? What are you so polite about?
  Juror #11: For the same reason you are not, it was the way I was brought up.
• Immigrant Patriotism: He takes a moment to gush about the jury trial system, and how it could only happen in a democracy like the United States. They never say where in Europe he came from, but the implication is that the country he was from is not a democracy. He also berates #7 for refusing to take the process seriously, and makes a point to make sure he is speaking English more properly than the bigoted natural-born #10.
• Nice Guy: Like many of the others, he is an affable gentleman, but not one to cross or insult their duty in the jury room.
• "The Reason You Suck" Speech: Gives one to #7 after he changes to a "not guilty" vote simply because it now seems like that will get him out of the room faster.
  Juror #11: If you want to vote "not guilty" then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've had enough. And if you think he is guilty then vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?
• Token Minority: The sole immigrant of the twelve.

Juror #12

Juror #12

Played By: Larkin Ford (1954), Robert Webber (1957), William Petersen (1997)

"What do you mean, 'supposing they're wrong'? What's the point of having witnesses at all?"

An advertising executive who is easily swayed by others.

---

• Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny!: The most easily distracted of any of the jurors.
  • Is too busy doodling on his piece of paper to listen to one of the other jurors.
  • Goes off on a tangent about advertising jargon and buzzwords, even going off on a different tangent about water-cooler gossip.
  • Is too busy playing Tic-Tac-Toe with #3 to listen to #8.
• The Charmer: A smartly-dressed Motor Mouth adman, he presents this way early on. He is very friendly to the other jurors and tries to defuse the tension when they fight. He loses this trait and turns hesitant and unsure later on, flip-flopping his vote according to who cowed him last.
• Derailed Train of Thought: At one point he attempts to introduce something he was thinking about the boy, but because of his unusual opener ("Let me throw this out onto the stoop and see if the cat licks it up...") a few people laugh and he forgets whatever he was going to say.
• The Ditherer: He's the eighth juror to switch to "not guilty" in the vote that leaves them 9-3. When things calm down and the three remaining guilty voters are asked why they're still holding out, Juror #4's argument convinces #12 to change his vote back to guilty, the only time any of them do so. He is then the first of the remaining four outliers to be brought back to "not guilty".
• Innocently Insensitive: He can come off as a bit of a jerk at times, though he is at least trying to be a good guy, and never makes an active effort to antagonize anyone.

The Defendant

The Boy

The Boy

Played By: John Savoca (1957), Douglas Spain (1997)

A boy who has been accused of murdering his father.

---

• Abusive Parents: One reason #8 wants to give him the benefit of the doubt is because his father was, by all accounts, very cruel and violent towards him.
• Ambiguously Brown: Although never specified, he is evidently from an underprivileged background, as with Juror #4. This evokes some highly distasteful remarks against "those people" by Juror #10. This could be a racial or social class prejudice, it isn't made clear in the 1954 teleplay nor the 1957 film. 1997 does away with the ambiguity: he's clearly Latino.
• Ambiguous Situation: If he didn't kill his father, then it's not clear who did or why. For all the jury know, they may have even been someone the boy knew who killed his abusive father in self-defence, and now the youth is purposefully taking the fall for them (thus guilty of committing the lesser crime of perverting the course of justice). If true, the alternative was to allow the cruel man to beat his son to death.
• Ambiguously Evil: Evil's a stretch, but it's left deliberately ambiguous if he's guilty or not.
• Amnesiacs are Innocent: Under a lot of stress the night his father argued with him and later died, he went to see a movie, but couldn't remember which movie. Unfortunately, this paints him to the prosecution as someone deliberately Faking Amnesia.
• The Bad Guy Wins: Possibly. The whole point of the story is that the jurors have to decide if he stabbed his father or not. If he did, then he has killed someone and gotten off scot-free. In the end, they conclude not that he's necessarily innocent, but that they have reasonable doubt he's guilty. If he is genuinely innocent, then the real killer is still at large (though within the realm of the movie, the investigation would be considered ongoing, so it's more of a matter of them not covering the part where someone actually gets caught and convicted as guilty, since that's not the focus). And that's not even getting into whether or not his father might have deserved it.
• Bad Liar: The court and most of the jurors think he's this, given that he said he went to the movies despite not remembering even one film in the present. Juror #4 is completely incredulous towards his claim that he lost his knife through a hole in his pocket and that someone else stabbed his father with the exact same brand as it. Of course, as the jurors keep talking, it turns out that his claims may actually hold grains of truth...
• The Dog Bites Back: If he was the killer, ending his abusive father can be seen as Laser-Guided Karma for all the violence and pain he subjected him to since he was five years old.
• Foregone Conclusion: Whether the jury finds him guilty or not, his life is in ruins. His father is dead, and there's evidently bad blood between his neighbours and he, for them to accuse him of a murder he likely didn't commit. And then of course, the real murderer is still at large.
• Freudian Excuse: If he did indeed kill his father, then we also have to remember that the man was an abusive prick, meaning it might have been in self-defense.
• The Ghost: In the stage play, where he doesn't ever appear and is only discussed. The 1957 film gives only two shots of the boy, one of them being of his face (shown above).
• I'll Kill You!: He allegedly shouted this to his abusive father the night he died, which has obviously come back to bite him in a pretty major way. However, as #8 points out, just because he said it in a moment of anger doesn't mean he actually did it. After all, plenty of people say some variation of "kill you" every day in different situations.
• Karma Houdini: If he did in fact kill his dad. But no court in the world gives a verdict of "Innocent", its either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", for we humans can never know everything, or be absolutely certain of anything (otherwise there'd be no need for trials to start with). The court is looking to determine whether there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict this young man for 1st degree murder. They determined there wasn't, thus are obligated to vote "Not Guilty".
• Profiling: A low-class young man on trial for murder. Juror #10 thinks he's guilty purely for that.
• Sinister Switchblade: He is described as an experienced knife fighter, who would definitely have used a switchblade properly. He turns out to have possibly been too good with a knife to be the murderer when #5 puts out that an experienced knife fighter would thrust the knife upwards under-handed instead of down in a Reverse Grip like the death suggests.
• Small Role, Big Impact: In the stage play, he doesn't appear at all, and in the film, he appears in a single scene. Regardless, the entire story revolves around the jurors deciding his fate.
• Violation of Common Sense: Returning to the scene of the crime would've been this if he were guilty. If the woman's eyewitness testimony was credible, he'd have heard her scream. The prosecution's argument he did so to clean the murder weapon of prints is also unfounded, as the police were already in the apartment. It's so implausible several jurors believe he's innocent when they consider this fact.
• The Voiceless: He doesn't have a single line of dialogue.

---