12 Angry Men - Judicial Terms PDF

12 Angry Men Judicial Terms 1. acquittal (N): a setting free by declaring not guilty; discharge; release 2. appall (V): to fill with horror; dismay; terrify 3. bigot (N): an intolerant, prejudiced person 4. defendant (N): a person accused...

12 Angry Men Judicial Terms 1. acquittal (N): a setting free by declaring not guilty; discharge; release 2. appall (V): to fill with horror; dismay; terrify 3. bigot (N): an intolerant, prejudiced person 4. defendant (N): a person accused or sued in a court of law 5. defense (N): the answer of a defendant to an accusation or lawsuit against him 6. dogged (ADJ): stubborn; persistent; not giving up 7. evidence (N): whatever makes clear the truth or falsehood of something; facts established & accepted in a court of law; before deciding a case, the judge or jury hears all the evidence given by both sides 8. homicide (N): a killing of one human being by another; intentional homicide is murder 9. jury (N): a group of persons selected to hear evidence in a law court & sworn to give a decision in accordance with the evidence presented to them 10. premeditate (V): to consider or plan beforehand 11. proof (N): the way or means of showing beyond doubt the truth of something 12. prosecution (N): the carrying of a lawsuit; side that starts action against another in a court of law; the prosecution makes certain charges against the defense 13. sadism (N): kind of insanity in which a person enjoys hurting someone else; an unnatural love of cruelty 14. subservient (ADJ): tamely submissive; slavishly polite & obedient 15. superficial (ADJ): concerned with or understanding only what is on the surface; not thorough; shallow 16. testimony (N): statement used for evidence or proof 17. verdict (N): the decision of a jury Example: The play begins at the end of a homicide trial in which a young boy is accused of murdering his father, with the judge telling the jury they must reach a unanimous decision, and if the verdict is guilty, the defendant will be given the death penalty, and the jury moves to deliberation. The jury takes a vote and all but one of them votes guilty, juror #8. Juror #8 insists that since the defendant will receive the death penalty, they should at least take some time to talk about the case, the jurors agree, and begin to look at the evidence. They bring in the murder weapon, a switchblade, which the prosecution claimed was completely unique, but juror number #8 had gone to a pawn shop in the neighborhood in which the murder took place and found an identical knife for sale. Then they begin to look over the witness testimony, the first of which was an old man with a limp who claimed to have heard the boy murder his father and then saw the boy running out of the apartment building. However, other witnesses claim there was an el train passing by at the time of the murder, making it impossible for the old man to have clearly heard the murder. The jury also looks at a diagram of the old man’s apartment, and decides it would have been impossible for him to have reached his door to see the boy running away in the time he claims it took him. The other witness was a woman who claims to have seen the murder from her apartment through the windows of the passing el train while she was in bed. Many of the jurors claim this as undeniable proof that the boy is the culprit, but one of the jurors remembers he noticed marks from glasses on the nose of the woman. After one of the jurors who wears glasses claims no one would wear glasses to bed, the decide it would have been impossible for her to have identified the murderer. After some more deliberation, only juror #3, the most bigoted of the jurors towards the defendant, votes guilty. Eventually, he breaks down after indirectly revealing the reason he hates the defendant is because he reminds juror #3 of his son, and the jury unanimously votes for acquittal. At the END of the play, select 10 words and summarize the play using any words or phrases from the glossary words. Write that paragraph here: