The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an

eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on

trial for the murder of his abusive father.  A jury of
twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to
decide the fate of the young boy.  All evidence is
against the boy and a guilty verdict would send
him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs
the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision
and that the court would not entertain any acts of
mercy for the boy if found guilty.
Even before the deliberation talks begin it is
apparent most of the men are certain the boy is
guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror
#8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking “not guilty”
vote; Immediately the room is in an uproar. The
rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his
decision.  After questioning his sanity they hastily
decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by
agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. 
Eventually, as the talks proceed juror #8 slowly
undermines their confidence by saying that the
murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and
that the testimony of the key witness is suspect.
Gradually they are won over by his arguments and
even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors
hesitantly agrees with him.  Their verdict is now a
solid not guilty.
Arriving at an unanimous not guilty verdict does
not come easily. The jury encounters many
difficulties in learning to communicate and deal
with each other. What seems to be a decisive
guilty verdict as deliberations begin, slowly
becomes a questionable “not sure”.  Although the
movie deals with issues relating to the process of
effective communication this paper will focus of
two reasons why they encounter difficulties and
how they overcome them. First, we will apply the
Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their
situation. Then, we will see how each individual’s
frame of reference and prejudices affect their
perception which cause difficulties in the
communication process.

If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a

large hidden area in the case of all of the men.
Take into consideration, each man is referred to by
a juror number, they do not even have the benefit
of knowing each others names. These men have
never talked before. Each of them come from
different situations with individual and unique
experiences. The public area consists solely of the
shared information provided during the trial. Their
hidden area is immense, resulting in an equally
large blind area. The public, hidden and blind areas
are relatively the same for each juror before
beginning the deliberation. It is the size of the
unconscious area that will differ more among the
men. We will see how the contents of the
unconscious area will largely affect the decision
making process of some of the jurors. The
information contained in the unconscious area is
unrecognized, it is often the most difficult to
overcome.

Henry Fonda’s (Juror #8) interpersonal style would

be classified as open-receptive.  He levels with
the others by openly admitting that he does not
know if the boy killed his father and solicits
feedback in order to make an accurate decision.
He says “I just don’t think we should send a boy off
to die without at least talking about it first.”  The
example he set encourages the others to level and
be open to receive feedback. The movie illustrates
the process of leveling and soliciting feedback
which can make all the difference.
The character with the largest hidden window is
the boy on trial. Realizing this, Henry Fonda (Juror
#8) tries to put himself in the boy’s shoes to gain a
better understanding of his situation. “The poor
boy has been beaten on the head once a day, every
day since he was five years old!” and “I think if I
were the boy, I’d get myself a better lawyer…He
didn’t stand a chance in there.” In this case one
can only speculate as to the contents of the boy’s
hidden area. The important factor is his desire to
comprehend the boy’s feelings.

One man in particular, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) has a

sizable unconscious area. He has a troubled
relationship with his own son that preoccupies his
thoughts. This is alluded to in a conversation
between juror #7 (Jack Warden) and himself.
Looking at a picture of him and his son, he says
“Haven’t’ seen him in two years, kids, you work
your heart out…” then he abruptly stops. The
broken relationship with his son preoccupies his
thoughts at several times throughout the movie; he
is found staring at the picture. His interpersonal
style would be classified as a blabbermouth. He is
neither open or receptive. He has his opinion and
loves to share it. The net result is a large blind
area. He is unwilling or unable to level with the
others and is also unreceptive to any feedback. 
Most likely the extent of these feelings and the
effect it has on his perceptions is unconscious to
him. Eventually, he finds himself the only one
maintaining a vote of guilty. He feels his sense of
reality is in question and it threatens him. This
puts him on the defensive. He bursts, accusing the
others of being crazy. This emotional eruption
changes from bitter & anger to sad and
understanding. His defenses start to crumble as
his unconscious emotions become visible to him.
By recognizing his unconscious emotions,
essentially what he has done is level with himself.
Once he did this he realized the anger and
frustration with regards to his son has been
misdirected toward the accused. With a new
understanding of himself he is able to change his
vote to not guilty.

Another issue dealt with in the movie is prejudice.

Prejudice is defined as premature judgment or
bias. In a trial situation Jurors are asked to only
consider the evidence presented to them.
Individual biases are not expected to affect the
decision making process.  Unfortunately, leaving
our prejudices outside the court room door is near
impossible. As the movie demonstrates prejudice
can distort our views and greatly affects our ability
to make accurate assessments.

Strong prejudice is displayed by Juror #10 (Ed

Begley) as he bursts into a rage while referring to
people from the ghetto, “Look you know these
people lie, it’s born in them…they don’t need any
real reason to kill someone…they get drunk all the
time, all of them, and bang! someone’s lying in the
gutter…Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s
the way they are! By nature! You know what I
mean? VIOLENT!”. He even goes on by saying “they
are no good, not a one of them’s any good.” It is
doubtful Ed Begley could see past his prejudice in
order to hear the evidence in the trial. His guilty
vote is cast as soon as he learns about the boy’s
disadvantaged life in the slums. While most of the
men are aware of the stigma attached to people
from the ghetto they are willing to try to put the
stereotype aside. His outburst has caused quite a
disturbance in the room. This disturbance serves
two purposes. First, it provides the “not guilty”
defenders with an understanding that his prejudice
is the reason for his opposition. It is always easier
to overcome an objection if you know what it is.
Having this knowledge allows for a more
productive communication, thereby convincing him
that he should change his vote. Secondly, it allows
him to vent his frustrations. In doing so, he
realizes the power of his emotions which forces
him to step back and take a look at what he really
feels. The look on his face shows he has a
realization. For the first time he understands his
prejudices have affected his perceptions. This new
understanding of himself enables him to think more
clearly and objectively.
It is interesting that the most damning evidence is
the testimony provided by an eyewitness to the
murder who is also a member of the boy’s slum
community. Yet the boy, a product of the same
community is an assumed liar. Henry Fonda (Juror
#8) points out the double standard to the others
when he says “she’s one of them too?”  Juror #5
(Jack Klugman) responds to the negative
comments by informing them that he too is from
the ghetto. “Listen” he says “I’ve lived in a slum all
my life, I’ve played in back yards that were filled
with garbage, maybe you can still smell it on me.” 
Another gentlemen tells him “let’s not be so
sensitive, he didn’t mean you.”  Pointing out these
double standards undermine the confidence of the
jurors who’s votes stemmed from pre judging.

As the movie closes the not guilty verdict is

handed down. It is not known if the boy is guilty or
innocent, that will forever remain in his hidden
area. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) entered the trial with
an open mind, he managed to convince the others
to do the same.  The movie illustrates that
everything is not what it appears to be. Being
aware of this is the first step to better
understanding.