They essentially conducted their own investigations, in real life someone in the jury would’ve snitched to the judge and the whole trial would get rules as a mistial due to jurors conducting their own investigations. Then new jury gets convened and they wouldn’t have that solo “non guilty” juror. The kid on trial would’ve been executed, sadly.
You were going on about carefully convincing other people to vote not guilty and all I could think about was the process of persuasion that slowly flipped the jury in that movie.
Everyone needed something different for them to consider, then actually believe, that the defendant might be innocent.
Everyone reading this, watch the movie 12 Angry Men and take copious notes.
Lol that movie is not legal advice.
They essentially conducted their own investigations, in real life someone in the jury would’ve snitched to the judge and the whole trial would get rules as a mistial due to jurors conducting their own investigations. Then new jury gets convened and they wouldn’t have that solo “non guilty” juror. The kid on trial would’ve been executed, sadly.
Edit: Great movie tho
Not what I meant.
You were going on about carefully convincing other people to vote not guilty and all I could think about was the process of persuasion that slowly flipped the jury in that movie.
Everyone needed something different for them to consider, then actually believe, that the defendant might be innocent.