12 Angry Men is the utmost in entertainment as a character study, but only that, not as jury reality. It is fascinating due to the magnificent actors who portrayed the jurors. The viewer becomes increasingly engrossed in the dialog by their superb acting, which transcends the drab setting of the jury deliberating room. However, as a lawyer myself, the movie contains an instance of jury impropriety, which ruins the film from a legal standpoint.
During jury deliberations, one of the jurors brought in an item identical to one that was introduced at the trial and showed it to the other jurors. This is a classic case of improper jury behavior! Jurors may only consider the facts, witnesses, and evidence presented at trial and what may or may not be inferred from them; not outside items that were introduced in the deliberating room, such as this "second" item. Reasonable doubt in a criminal case must exist itself, not be deliberately manufactured by a juror. Additionally, the movie takes a considerable "stretch of the imagination" to conclude that not one of the other jurors reported this behavior to the judge at the time it happened. The juror who mentioned that it was against the law was ignored.
Despite the excellent acting, 12 Angry Men is disturbing even if it is "only a movie" because the legal content is pure fiction. The movie gives a distortion about permissible jury conduct and would never have ended the way it did. If the case had been real, there would have been either a mistrial or this juror would have been dismissed and replaced with an alternate juror who heard the trial and the deliberations started over again. Also, the juror would probably have received a stern rebuke from the judge when he was dismissed, mistrial or not. This juror (the late Henry Fonda) was not some kind of "hero" as the viewer is led to believe, indeed, he was quite the contrary. 12 Angry Men is not a movie for someone who may be called for jury duty for the first time, despite how it may seem to those untrained in the legal system. I have read that this is the only movie Mr. Fonda ever produced (as well as acted) and, perhaps, he let his personal feelings of justice interfere with reality.
During jury deliberations, one of the jurors brought in an item identical to one that was introduced at the trial and showed it to the other jurors. This is a classic case of improper jury behavior! Jurors may only consider the facts, witnesses, and evidence presented at trial and what may or may not be inferred from them; not outside items that were introduced in the deliberating room, such as this "second" item. Reasonable doubt in a criminal case must exist itself, not be deliberately manufactured by a juror. Additionally, the movie takes a considerable "stretch of the imagination" to conclude that not one of the other jurors reported this behavior to the judge at the time it happened. The juror who mentioned that it was against the law was ignored.
Despite the excellent acting, 12 Angry Men is disturbing even if it is "only a movie" because the legal content is pure fiction. The movie gives a distortion about permissible jury conduct and would never have ended the way it did. If the case had been real, there would have been either a mistrial or this juror would have been dismissed and replaced with an alternate juror who heard the trial and the deliberations started over again. Also, the juror would probably have received a stern rebuke from the judge when he was dismissed, mistrial or not. This juror (the late Henry Fonda) was not some kind of "hero" as the viewer is led to believe, indeed, he was quite the contrary. 12 Angry Men is not a movie for someone who may be called for jury duty for the first time, despite how it may seem to those untrained in the legal system. I have read that this is the only movie Mr. Fonda ever produced (as well as acted) and, perhaps, he let his personal feelings of justice interfere with reality.