12 angry men

Man 1:  Moderator

Man 2 At the start of the introductions, he bases his guilty verdict on solely on the presence of a witness. Not questioning the credibility of the witness at all. Bias at the start of the trial, he believes that it is all a waste of time and money to have a trial go on as long as it did and thinks the sentence should be handed out before a trial begins. He lets his emotions get to him

Man3: Repeats the facts heard in the trial. He basis his guilty on the supposed series of events that took place according to a neighbor and a coroner report. Vey strict on child decipline and believes the defendant wasn’t raised the right way.

Man4: Best case so far. He points out that the alibi doesnt add up, and it conflicts with the neighbor report. He is wrong to think that children from slum backgrounds are menaces to society

Man5: Rethinking his guess, he says he comes from the slums and he turned out well.He changes his verdict not guilty because of the prejiduce of the other men

Man6: He goes on about the fact of a strong motive yet when he recounts it, the story seems to be flimsy. Going on the neighbor witness who didn’t observe anything other than shouting through a wall is not a strong case

Man7: The baseball man doesn’t care. He wants to get out of the room so

Man8 Has the only innocent opinion. Discounts the credibility of the 2 “witnesses” and found it possible to buy a similar knife in the same area in where the boy lives. He also disproves the testimony of the witnesses

Man9: Shows sympathy to man 8 and changes his vote to not guilty. He is an old man and sids with the not guilty verdict and tries to disprove the old man witness.

Man10He is sick and is obviously affecting him and causing him to expedite his thinking. He has a short temper and is prejudice against the defendants race.

Man11: He made notes and tries to rationalize the facts, and seems to be on the fence

Man12: He isn’t focused on the problem at hand. Too preoccupied with his personal work.