First Light Theatre Project

Twelve Angry Jurors – Synopsis and Character Descriptions
adapted by Sherman Sergel from Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose

The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter. A nineteen-year old man is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant has a criminal record (and a lot of circumstantial evidence piled against him). The defendant, if found guilty, would receive a mandatory death penalty.

The jury is working in a hot, crowded room to deliberate. Before any formal discussion, they cast a vote. Eleven of the jurors vote “guilty.” Only one juror votes “not guilty.” That juror, who is known in the script as Juror #8 is the protagonist of the play. As the tempers flare and the arguments begin, the audience learns about each member of the jury. And slowly but surely, Juror #8 guides the others toward a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

Reginald Rose’s drama, Twelve Angry Men ends with the jury agreeing that there is enough reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal. The defendant is deemed “not guilty” by a jury of his peers. However, the playwright never reveals the truth behind the case. Did they save an innocent man from the electric chair? Did a guilty man go free? The audience is left to decide for themselves.

The Characters:

There are 12 main characters in this play and all are on stage during the entire play. In addition there is a small role of a guard who appears 3 or 4 times and has just a few lines.

No names of any characters are mentioned in the play – only their juror numbers. The audience learns about them through what they say in the jury room. We also learn some of their occupations. All characters may be played by either male or female actors.

Instead of organizing the jurors in numeric order, the characters are listed below in the order they decide to vote in favor of the defendant.  The approximate number of times (not lines) each character speaks is written in parentheses.

Juror #8 (168):

He/she votes “not guilty” during the jury’s first vote. Described as thoughtful and gentle, Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the most heroic member of the jury. He/she is devoted to justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant. At the beginning of the play, when every other juror has voted guilty he/she is the only one to vote: “not guilty.” Juror #8 spends the rest of the play urging the others to practice patience, and to contemplate the details of the case. A guilty verdict will result in the electric chair; therefore, Juror #8 wants to discuss the relevance of the witness testimony. He/she is convinced that there is reasonable doubt. Eventually Juror #8 persuades the other jurors to acquit the defendant.

Juror #9 (38):

Described in the stage notes as a “mild, gentle older person, defeated by life and waiting to die” - He/she recognizes herself for what she is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding herself behind her many years. Despite this bleak description, he/she is the first to agree with Juror #8, deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the young man to death. Also, during Act One, Juror #9 is the first to openly recognize Juror #10’s racist attitude, stating that, “What this person says is very dangerous.”

Juror #5 (41):                                                                        

This young person is nervous about expressing an opinion; he/she is naïve and very frightened but takes his obligations in the case very seriously but who finds it difficult to speak up when especially in front of the elder members of the group.  Juror #5 grew up in the slums. He/she has witnessed knife-fights, an experience that will later help other jurors form an opinion of “not guilty.”

Juror #11 (41):

She/he is a refugee from Europe, who came to this country in 1941. She/he speaks with an accent (possibly eastern European) and is ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the people around her/him. Juror #11 will honestly seek justice, because she/he has suffered through so much injustice. He/she sometimes feels self-conscious about his foreign accent. He/she conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and America’s legal system.

Juror #2 (43):

He/she is the most timid of the group. She/he is meek and hesitant and finds it difficult to maintain any opinion of the and usually adopts the opinion of the last person who has just spoken with her/him.  Juror #2 has trouble explaining the roots of his/her opinions.

Juror #6 (18):

Juror #6 is an “honest but dull-witted man/woman who comes upon her decisions slowly and carefully. Juror #6 is a house painter (male) housekeeper (female) by trade. He/she is slow to see the good in others and must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to her/him the most. Juror #6 eventually agrees with Juror #8.

Juror #7 (79):

A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman (male) loud, flashy, glad-handing (overly friendly in order to gain advantage) department store worker (female), Juror #7 admits during Act One that he/she would have done anything to miss jury duty. He represents the many real-life individuals who feel they have more important things to do than sit on a jury. She is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things which she knows nothing. He is a bully and of course, a coward.

Juror #12 (37):

Juror #12 is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. He/she is slick and bright and thinks of human beings in terms of percentages, graphs and polls and has no real understanding of people. She/he is a superficial snob, but is trying to be companionable. He is anxious for the trial to be over so that he can get back to his career and his social life.

Juror #1 (92):

Non-confrontational, Juror #1 serves as the foreman of the jury. He/she is serious about his authoritative role, and wants to be as fair as possible. He handles himself quite formally – impressed with the authority that she has. She is not overly bright but persistent.

Juror #10 (48):

The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror #10 is openly bitter, angry and prejudice. During Act Three he/she unleashes bigotry to the others in a speech that disturbs the rest of the jury. Most of the jurors, disgusted by #10’s racism, turn their backs on him/her. This is a person who has been nowhere and is going nowhere, and knows it deep within.

Juror #4 (132):

Juror #4 is a person of wealth and position and is a practiced speaker who presents herself/himself well at all times. He/she seems to feel a little above the rest of the jurors.  A logical, well-spoken stock-broker (male) wife of stock broker (female), Juror #4 urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. His/her only concern is with the facts of the case, and is appalled with the behavior of the others. He/she does not change his vote until a witness’s testimony is discredited (due to the witness’s apparently poor vision).

Juror #3 (154):

In many ways, he/she is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. She/he is very strong, very forceful and extremely opinionated.  Within Juror # 3 there is a hint of sadism (gets pleasure from making others uncomfortable). She/he is humorless and is intolerant of opinions other than his/her own. She/he is accustomed to forcing her wishes and views upon others. Juror #3 is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with her opinions. He/she believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His/her poor relationship with his own son may have biased her views. Only when he comes to terms with this can she finally vote “not guilty.”

Twelve Angry Jurors Trailer

Please click here.



(Photos above and below) Cast visits the Chittenden County Courthouse in preparation for the play.