This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 1. The man in charge, at the head of table, enforcing rules, addressing votes. 2. The timid 1 st timer, doesnt really know at first why he believes the suspect is guilty, later on he brings up the knife angle and how the boy is 6 inches shorter than his dad (could the boy really have been stabbing down when he is shorter than dad by that deficit) 3. The main antagonist, gets into an altercation with just about every juror in the room, almost fights the architect, his son left him and he hasnt spoken to him in 2 years, secretely the reason why he wants the suspect to get the chair. At first he claims all facts point to boy being guilty, he is all about the FACTS. 4. The man with the glasses, claims the boy has a flimsy story because he cannot recall information about the movie that he went and saw, but when he has to recall a movie he saw on Monday with his wife, he cant either, brings up a big point in case. At the later part in the movie he is trying to explain why he thinks the boy is guilty and he brings up that the woman (witness) literally saw him through her window and said she...
View Full Document
- Fall '08