Changes

Juror no. 8 (the men are not named), who voted not guilty, explains that he has no more reason than the other men to believe that the defendant is innocent. However, because of the defendant's age and the fact that his life depends on their decision, Juror 8 believes that they ought to discuss the facts of the case more thoroughly before deciding.  

Juror no. 8 (the men are not named), who voted not guilty, explains that he has no more reason than the other men to believe that the defendant is innocent. However, because of the defendant's age and the fact that his life depends on their decision, Juror 8 believes that they ought to discuss the facts of the case more thoroughly before deciding.  

Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant but one man wants to talk about it first. The movie follows the process whereby the (initially) lone man persuades his fellow jurors to vote his way by wearing them down through seemingly endless, well-schooled argument: a classic tactic of [[Communist]]s and [[Trotskyist]]s.  

Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant but one man wants to talk about it first. The movie follows the process whereby the (initially) lone man persuades his fellow jurors to vote his way by wearing them down through seemingly endless, well-schooled argument.

Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".<ref>'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290301/1023 (Roger Ebert)] </ref>

Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".<ref>'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290301/1023 (Roger Ebert)] </ref>