12 Angry Men depicts the New York murder trial of an 18-year-old Hispanic man charged with stabbing and

killing his father. The judge advises the jury, comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds, that a unanimous decision needs to be made. If the jury decides unanimously that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death. However, if there is a reasonable doubt, the jury needs to reach a not guilty decision, and the boy will be freed. A life and death decision needs to be made on a hot, humid day. The 12 men are locked into a small room to come up with a decision. It starts with an open and shut case of murder. At the preliminary vote 11 jurors vote guilty, except for juror #8 - a charismatic, tall gentleman played by Henry Fonda. The jury 12 men from different backgrounds 1. The foreman, who acts as the facilitator for the group in arranging the ballot. An assistant high school football coach. 2. A meek bank clerk , who has a childish voice , easily dominated by others. However becomes courageous as the deliberations goes on 3. A businessman and distraught father whose son has left him, stubborn with a temper 4. A rational stockbroker, unflappable, self-assured, and analytical 5. A man from a slum 6. A house painter, tough but principled and respectful 7. A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations 8. An architect, the first to say not guilty 9. A wise and observant elderly man 10. A garage owner; pushy and loudmouthed 11. A European immigrant watchmaker 12. An indecisive advertising executive The most important evidence is the switch knife, the weapon believed to be used by the boy to murder his father. During the court proceedings its revealed that the switch knife used is unique. How did juror #8 refute this incriminating evidence? He had gone into the neighbourhood where the murder took place, visiting shops that sell switch knives and found a similar switch knife. One of the crucial moments in the movie is when the jury decides to have a look at the weapon and juror #8 reveals his find of an alternate similar knife.

He has created a doubt in the minds of the other jurors, that there is a possibility that there could be another person who had a similar knife stabbing the victim. The remaining evidence is also analyzed and the jurors look into the evidence of the two eye witnesses. The first is an old woman who saw the blurry image of the boy stabbing the father from across the building. The other witness is an old man who lives below the apartment and heard that the boy screaming to his father that Ill kill you and a second later he heard a sound of a man falling down on the floor. The frustrating arguments from all jurors, given their different backgrounds and personalities synchronizes how practical this was not only for a murder trial, but also when we are dealing with divergent people in organizations. During the analysis of the arguments from the jury, its revealed that the old woman has marks in her nose leading to the conclusion that her eyesight is weak, particularly during the night with a train passing by. How accurate was her testimony that it was the boy who killed his father? The old mans evidence of hearing a thud on the floor just a second after the boys screams was also doubted - how could an old man could hear it so accurately within a mere second? In his defense, the boy claims he was at a movie the time of the killing, but he has forgotten the names of the stars that appeared in the movie. Most of the jurors think the boy is lying, but there's a possibility that under a lot of emotional stress may have forgotten the movie. At the end, the entire jury gives a unanimous verdict of not guilty. How did the dissenting juror convince the rest of 11 men? Was it through trying to bulldoze the rest of the jury by power tactics? No. Thorough preparation - going to the neighborhood and finding a similar switch knife Buying more time from the jury to think through the decision. Rational, factual breakdown of evidence. Influencing the jurors who were hesitant of their decision first, rather than going against the resistors. Gain momentum whilst gaining supporters and let the supporters come out and justify the decision. Let all have their moments of glory. At the end, it was 11:1, where there was only one resistor who crumbled due to the pressure of the majority. Cant we mimic the same situation in our business deliberations? Or should we bow down to peer pressure and be bullied? Perhaps we may be wrong in our decision making .The juror #8 didnt say he was right, he only said the boy may possibly not be guilty.

We need to be open and transparent in our meetings both in business or family. Try to watch this movie to see the power of influence of people, study their body language/backgrounds when negotiating with them. Hopefully some of the readers can watch this movie and enjoy it as much as I did.