Role and About Character

Juror 1:

As the first juror and the moderator of the other twelve juries, Juror 1 took the lead. He also likes
to be in a position of power, since he became irate when it was pointed out that he was not
carrying out his moderating duties properly. He answered all arguments for and against the
death punishment with composure. Though his initial response of "guilty" was made without
discussion, indicating a restricted way of thinking, he was also receptive to other people's
opinions and gave them some thought. His main concern was that everyone has an opportunity
to speak and that nobody treats another person disrespectfully. He granted everyone's desire to
have the ballots counted on a regular basis. He was quite effective in his function as the jury's
foreman.

Juror 2:
Juror 2 was a rather shy individual who tended to follow the crowd. He nervously said, "I have a
feeling about it," in response to the question of why he was entering a guilty plea on the
defendant's behalf. Despite the fact that his motivation might kill someone, he blindly obeyed
everyone. It was hard for him to participate in the decision-making. Even after exhibiting his
hesitancy, he was also helpful. Offering cough pills to all, he said it was hard for someone to
stab someone at such an awkward height. He took some time to settle comfortably before
joining the conversation.

Jurur 3:
Juror 3 was an assertive individual who made an effort to be rational. He was the type of guy
who preferred to base decisions on logic rather than emotion. Because he was certain of the
rationale behind his decision to enter a guilty plea for the defendant, he did not let his emotions
influence it. He was a volatile individual who became hostile when he did not agree with the
other jurors. He was closed off to the other jurors and did not appreciate their perspective on the
matter. Juror 3 stated that he entered the jury chamber believing the defendant was guilty and
that anyone who disagreed with this belief was incorrect. Juror 3 contradicted his claims in order
to support his position, but he was constantly aware of his errors in doing so. He also showed
insensitivity to the views of others.

Juror 4:
Juror 4 was more interested in factual conversation than in futile debate. He paid serious
attention to all of the points presented by the defendant and accepted them all, raising doubts
about his guilt. He held his position until he received a convincing argument from the lady
witness that the testimony was false. The examples provided by juror 8 and other concurring
jurors did not sit well with him. He dressed quite nicely and adhered to the group discussion's
guidelines. He was occasionally sensitive to the defendant as well, but this was because it was
his duty to see that justice was done. Among the jurors least moved by the emotions was him.
Juror 4 was more interested in specifics than in other people's emotions or intuitions.

Juror 5:
The defendant lived in a slum area, as did the jurors. Nevertheless, he didn't let this affect his
judgement and initially answered "Guilty". Compared to others, he was incredibly patient with
them when they felt attacked. Juror 3 falsely accused him of something, but he didn't behave
rashly or violently. Juror 5 was also meticulous, remembering and verifying the spectacles
bridge print on the woman's nose. He was repeatedly targeted, but he never lost his cool.He
initially agreed with the verdict of the other jurors, but after hearing juror 8's explanation, he
gave it some serious thought and accepted his point of view. He did not cast a ballot and
requested to be excused from voting when asked for his opinion for the first time. The
conversation went on, and he became more assured.

Juror 6:
When asked why he had made the decision for the first time, Juror 6 appeared a little perplexed.
His frequent use of the word "Maybe" indicated that he was not entirely confident in his choice.
When Juror 3 became combative, he took the initiative to stop him. Throughout the entire
conversation, he maintained an open mind, trying to comprehend the jurors' genuine statements
before making decisions in light of them. This is the kind of guy who, when persuaded, will
change his mind.

Juror 7:
He worked in sales. He votes right away and is eager to leave because it's hotter than usual. He
doesn't want to talk about it because he wants to watch a baseball game. "You couldn't change
my mind if you talked for a hundred years," he says, not even thinking twice before casting his
vote. He believes there is nothing to talk about. Additionally, he disregards Juror 9 simply
because he modified his vote. He assesses the child based on his past criminal charges, which
is a little biased—one should take into account but not pass judgement on the one incident from
the past.

Juror 8:
His profession is architecture. The person who renders the accurate verdict (jures are meant to
find only one case in which the accused may not be guilty, not that the accused is guilty or not
because the story fits perfectly). "You really think he's innocent?" the person asked him. In
response, Juror 3 said, "I don't know." (Man wishes to convey that while he is unsure of the
child's guilt, others initially believe the child is innocent). He empathises with the child and
comprehends the situation. He examines every detail and casts doubt on their veracity.

Juror 9:
Though he was a wise man and willing to talk, he initially believed the child to be guilty. He was
very perceptive and made some observations that others would never have considered.
Because he wanted to support Juror-8 and was moved by Juror-8's bravery in standing up to
the other 11 candidates, he changed his vote. Likewise, I wanted to talk more.

Juror 10:
He owned three garages. "There's always one" is the man's opening statement, which seems
biased (in the beginning of the discussion). He claims that the child is untrustworthy and that
they are born liars (also partially). Unless number 8 stops him, the man starts talking about a
story he heard last night and deviates from the original topic of discussion at the beginning of
the conversation. He accepts everything without ever giving it a second thought. At one point,
every other juror turned against Juror 10 because he failed to grasp the fundamental principle
that one should never judge a person based solely on their origins or where they currently
reside. It was bigotry on his part.

Juror 11:
He manufactures watches. He and everyone else initially voted guilty. But observed the
discussion & made very good points later on & combined several facts & asked questions.
which demonstrated that there was a potential the child wasn't guilty. He disapproves of fighting
and reassures everyone that they are not there to fight.

Juror 12:
He operates in a marketing firm. The man was only concerned with his business and couldn't
care less. Whenever he has time, he begins to discuss his business. This demonstrates his lack
of focus on the case. His decision-making was erratic. He is the only one who has cast more
than two different votes.