Juror n. 3: In many ways, he is Juror #3's opponent. 8 substantially composed. Juror no. 3 speaks to the simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant as soon as he enters the jury room. He easily loses his temper and loses his temper when Juror #1. 8 and other jurors disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the film's conclusion. His poor relationship with his son may have been a factor in his resistance to the issues of reasonable doubt that had been raised. During his final outburst in the film, he throws his notebook on the table and a photo of him and his son falls out. Extremely distressed, he begins to cry and tears the photo to pieces. Only when he comes to terms with this burden will he finally be able to admit reasonable doubt and vote not guilty. Juror no. 11: As a foreign refugee, juror no. 11 may have witnessed terrible things before coming to the United States. This is probably why he is so keenly interested in administering justice as a jury member. Expresses a deep appreciation for democracy and the American legal system. After juror no. Juror #6 changed his vote to not guilty because he just wants the whole thing to end. 11 reproaches him for his careless attitude towards the life or death of a young man. Juror no. 9: a mild and kind old man, is the first to agree with juror n.8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to immediately condemn the young man to death and that changing his vote will cause more discussion. Furthermore, juror no. 9 is the first to draw attention to the racist attitude of juror no. 10, saying, "What this man says is very dangerous." Later, identifying himself with the old prosecution witness downstairs, he suggests that the man might have been... in the middle of a paper... in bed that night. The existence of a reasonable doubt is important because it serves to prevent the innocent from being found guilty. It affected the verdict when it went from 11-1 for conviction to a unanimous verdict for acquittal. The jurors were unable to decide that he was guilty without reasonable doubt, so acquittal was the only possible verdict. I gave the movie a B. It was a little too dramatic for my taste. The inclusion of information on the young man's juvenile history would not have been permitted. Jurors no. 3 and no. 10 were so prejudiced that their attitude would get them rejected during voir dire. And it was wrong for Juror #1. 8 present evidence like a defense lawyer by reconstructing the old man's path towards the front door or investigate on your own by purchasing the knife. The heated interactions between some jurors seemed overblown.