We listen in as the jury makes its deliberations.

Radio Times: The jury is out.

Characters: , , , , , , , ,
  • We are a fly on the wall of the jury room as we spend almost the entire episode listening to the deliberations, the only respite a brief return to the court where the judge, on hearing that they still cannot reach a unanimous verdict, tells them that he is willing to accept a ten to two majority.
  • Seven of the jurors seem more vocal than the rest, with Steve the foreman barely keeping sensible discussion to the fore – not so much “Twelve Angry Men”, as a “Dozen Dozey Locals” and there certainly wasn’t a Henry Fonda character to skillfully bring unanimity on the back of reasonable doubt.
  • The whole point of the jury system is to bring a mixture of experiences to bear on the case and we had a biology teacher who tried to simplify the talk of gene transfer, a mother of an asthmatic six year old with strong opinions about allergies and pollen, a younger women who thought that just because the defendant bore a passing resemblance to Brad Pitt that shouldn’t be enough to let him go (every though her vacillations eventually brought her back to a Not Guilty vote) and the chap whose wife was mugged in broad daylight two years previously and for whom violence cannot under any circumstances be condoned.
  • We heard them take a few votes, although with no clues as to which side was nearer the majority. We heard some strong opinions to guilt and to innocence and there were definite voices keeping the question of the honesty of Tom’s beliefs in the minds of the twelve. The prospect of not reaching a verdict, declaring the jury hung and just having done with it started to seem attractive to some of them. It seems that 10-2 is achievable, but which way …
Scriptwriter: ,