Warden is admonished for his cavalier attitude in which he changed his vote to not guilty. I say that the same admonishment should also be reserved for Fonda also for his willingness to sell his 'not guilty' vote if the others unanimously vote guilty. A vote that would have sent the accused to the 'chair'.
Every third person who complains will be shot. Two people have complained already!
I would say Juror 8 simply saw that the accused hadn't been represented fairly and wanted to show his perceived flaws in the evidence presented, he only called for not guilty so as to have a chance to reason. After all he called for a revote after presenting his thoughts and said if all 11 voted guilty he would to.
share[deleted]
Au contraire. FOnda would have been doing his civic duty by changing his vote to guilty. If he can't even get a single ally, it would be irresponsible to hold out and create a mistrial, which would probably have resulted in a conviction anyway.
shareIf he can't even get a single ally, it would be irresponsible to hold out and create a mistrial, which would probably have resulted in a conviction anyway.
But at the outset, Fonda doesn't claim he has reasonable doubt, he even admits the case looks very strong, he just thinks they should talk about the case before comdemning the kid to death.
shareAgreed - but he was also willing to (or at least claimed to) change his vote if nobody changes their mind. So if during the discussion nobody changes their mind and he forms reasonable doubt - then he would have to change his vote if he were to keep his word.
My point is he shouldn't have made a blanket statement in which he might have to vote guilty when he has reasonable doubt. He could have said let's talk about it for a while or I'm not voting so you might as well discuss it.
User Error Please Try Again
Agreed - but he was also willing to (or at least claimed to) change his vote if nobody changes their mind. So if during the discussion nobody changes their mind and he forms reasonable doubt - then he would have to change his vote if he were to keep his word.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't think he said that, what he said was that they take another vote before discussing the case and if there are still 11 votes for guilty, he'll change his vote. The implication is that once they start discussing, all bets are off.
what he said was that they take another vote before discussing the case and if there are still 11 votes for guilty, he'll change his vote.
Haven't seen it in a while so I may be remembering it wrong.But I thought they went around the table once after the first vote and that's when #8 makes his offer.
Anyone else who can help on the timing?
When he pulled out the knife - this was after the first round of dicussions. So after he pulled out the knife and made his case - this is when he made his proposition - just after he explained how easy it was to find the knife.
User Error Please Try Again
hero, I checked it out and you're 100% right, the offer was after he revealed the knife.
But at the time of the offer, #8 is still willing to concede that the defendant is probably guilty, the big chinks in the testimony/evidence only come after.
#8 is still willing to concede that the defendant is probably guilty
I think the reason he did that was after he started asking jurors if the boy lied, 5 doesn't say with a firm answer he lied, like 3, 4, and 10. That makes him think he might've reached somebody on this jury who would want to hear more. He took a risk, but felt that he would get what he wanted-one person to change his vote to not guilty.
shareI believe that, at this point in the film, #8 had serious misgivings, but recognised that these weren't enough, at this point, to denote enough of a reasonable doubt for him to go against his fellows. He had the duplicate knife. He had his impressions concerning the defendant's background. But these weren't enough in itself to convince people. He appears, to my mind, to have to steel himself to voice a contrary opinion at the very beginning; and it's clear that #4's more telling replies, and #6's challenge in the restroom, have an effect on him.
shareI don't know if he even had real misgivings about the guy's guilt at the time because I don't think it would have mattered. He could have been as convinced as anyone that he was extremely guilty but still felt obligated to talk about the case before having everyone unanimously say he was guilty. A man's life was at stake and he wanted to spend more than five minutes on the verdict.
share#8 (Fonda) did it to extend the trial. #7 (Warden) did it to try to end it quickly.
shareI think when Fonda did that, he was gambling for support. He figured after juror 5 couldn't answer the lie question directly like the others did, he might have reached someone who would at least want to hear more and talk it out. He probably at that point decided to risk it and was successful.
As for Warden, he changed his vote because he didn't believe the boy was guilty anymore, but didn't want to admit that Fonda changed his opinion. Remember, earlier he said that he couldn't do that if Fonda talked for 100 years? Maybe he didn't want to eat crow, so he came up with this excuse, with 11 thought was wrong to do.