Understand Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose. Learn via quotes and analysis why Juror 3 is last to change his vote after he bullies and belittles others.
Updated: 11/21/2023
Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men | Quotes & Analysis
Table of Contents
- Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men
- Analysis of Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men
- Juror 3 Quotes
- Depictions of Juror 3 in Film
- Lesson Summary
- FAQs
- Activities
An Analysis of Juror 3
For this activity, you are going to critically analyze the characteristics and the overall significance of Juror 3 from 12 Angry Men. Make sure to answer all questions thoroughly and in complete sentences.
Character Analysis Questions
- What is Juror 3's role in the play?
- How does Juror 3 interact with other people?
- List three of Juror 3's character traits. Explain why you chose each character trait to describe this character.
- How has Juror 3's relationship with his son affected his decision about the trial?
- What caused Juror 3 to change his vote?
- Is Juror 3 a static or dynamic character? Explain.
These questions can be used as discussion questions or as comprehension questions. Either way, it is important that the questions are answered thoroughly with specific details from the text.
Examples of possible responses:
- In 12 Angry Men, Juror 3 is the most challenging juror because of his unwillingness to work well with the other jurors. Juror 3 tries to bully the other jurors into voting guilty.
- Juror 3 does not work well with others. He is a bully, and he often tries to belittle other people.
- Juror 3 can be described as rude, impatient, and dramatic. He is rude because he treats others poorly. He is impatient because he wants the jurors to make a decision as quickly as possible so he can leave. Finally, he is dramatic because he creates a scene when the jurors are trying to come to a decision about the defendant.
- Since Juror 3 has a strained relationship with his son, he is quick to blame and judge other seemingly disrespectful teenagers and young men. Juror 3 had apparently been harboring some negative feelings about his son's generation.
- Juror 3 changed his vote after realizing that all of his anger toward the defendant was a direct result of his bad relationship with his son.
- Due to his change of vote from guilty to not guilty, Juror 3 shows growth in character and is therefore considered dynamic.
How does Juror 3 contradict himself?
Throughout the plot, Juror 3 says that he is only looking at the facts of the case and not allowing personal biases into his votes. However, he has a strained relationship with his own son that clearly influences his actions throughout the play.
What is Juror 3's literary role in the plot of 12 Angry Men?
In the plot of 12 Angry Men, Juror 3 is the primary antagonist. He is constantly bullying and harassing others when they disagree with his opinions.
Table of Contents
- Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men
- Analysis of Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men
- Juror 3 Quotes
- Depictions of Juror 3 in Film
- Lesson Summary
12 Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose published in 1964, centered on a jury that must come to a verdict regarding an 18-year-old teen charged with the first-degree murder of his father. The play takes place on a hot day in the middle of the New York City summer. Upon entering the deliberation room, eleven jurors immediately decide on a guilty verdict. However, one of the jurors, Juror 8, votes ''not guilty''. He believes they should discuss the situation before sending an 18-year-old teen to his death. Since the vote must be unanimous, conversation ensues.
Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men is an antagonist in the play. He is often loud, boisterous, and willing to use intimidation to get his way. Juror 3 begins with a subtle shot at Juror 8, saying, I mean, let's be reasonable. You sat in the court and heard the same things we did. He is implying that Juror 8 is not being sensible about the life of a teenage boy and is trying to coerce him into changing his vote.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
You must cCreate an account to continue watching
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Create Your Account To Continue Watching
As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.
Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons.
Try it now
It only takes a few minutes to setup and you can cancel any time.
Already registered? Log in here for access
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Your next lesson will play in
10 seconds
Juror 3 is convinced that the teen is guilty and wants to get through the entire situation as quickly as possible. He tries to facilitate this by bullying everyone to follow his vote. In the following sections, Juror 3's behavior, background, and temper will be analyzed in the context of the play.
Bullying by Juror 3
Bullying is a defining aspect of Juror 3's personality. He begins his bullying early in the play when the jurors first enter the deliberation room. His primary target is Juror 2, who remarks that the trial has been fairly interesting. Juror 3 mocks him, saying that he was falling asleep. The subtle mocking continues throughout their initial conversation before the first vote.
Shown by his claim to have slept through the trial, Juror 3 gives little thought to his ''guilty'' vote. Later, after the first vote, Juror 8 votes ''not guilty'' and asks everyone to review the evidence in the case. Juror 3 becomes annoyed and antagonizes Juror 8 for holding everything up, and he pressures Juror 2, who is the weakest member of the jury:
- ''2ND JUROR: It's interesting that he'd find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought. / 3RD JUROR: What's interesting? You think it proves interesting? / 2ND JUROR: Well, no. I was just—''
Juror 3 does not like to be questioned and reacts aggressively when someone disagrees with him. He feels that others should inherently respect him and his opinions. Juror 3 is stubborn in his convictions and consistently maintains a ''guilty'' vote, even when many of the others have changed their votes due to the reasonable doubt provided by the evidence. This stubborn conviction indicates there is more than meets the eye with Juror 3.
Juror 3's Background
Later in the play, the audience learns why Juror 3 is so intent on a guilty verdict for the teenage boy. Juror 3 reveals that he has a son who is estranged from him. Juror 3 was extremely tough on his son, who eventually fought back. The son hit Juror 3 in the face before leaving, and Juror 3 says that he has not seen his son in three years. This background information exposes Juror 3's underlying issue with children not respecting their parents and explains his anger at the teenage boy on trial, who has been charged with murdering his father. Juror 3's background has colored his view of the young defendant, leaving Juror 3 unwilling to see evidence that the boy might not be guilty.
Additionally, Juror 3 is prone to hypocrisy. Throughout the play, he tells others not to take things personally and not to be sensitive. For example, when Juror 5 is getting riled up by Juror 10, he pats Juror 5 on the shoulder and tells him not to be so sensitive. However, later in the play after the intense verbal conflict between himself and Juror 8, he is talking to Juror 4, explaining his behavior. He states that he is ''a very excitable person,'' showing his hypocritical nature. He believes that others should not get excitable but expects others to understand when he is. Juror 3 also makes a comment to Juror 8 after he calls for another vote. He tells Juror 8 that he is finally acting reasonably, which is ironic considering that he is often the one behaving unreasonably, being quick to anger and interrupt others.
The Temper of Juror 3
Juror 3 has a bad temper. He constantly interjects his opinions throughout the conversation, often with a condescending tone. Juror 3's temper flares when Juror 8 starts probing him about his stubborn behavior and insistence the teenager be sent to death row: ''Every one of you knows this kid is guilty. He's got to burn. We're letting him slip through our fingers here.'' When Juror 8 calls him a sadist, Juror 3's temper spikes, and he lunges for Juror 8, and the others have to hold him back.
Later, when they go over how the teenager's father was murdered, Juror 3 demonstrates using the knife with Juror 8's help. He acts like he is going to stab Juror 8 but stops short. He is frustrated that the others want to discuss the stabbing again and uses this demonstration as an intimidation tactic. He quickly becomes more frustrated when Juror 5 states that the way he demonstrated the stabbing is not how a knife of that type – a switchblade – would be used.
Why Does Juror 3 Change His Vote?
Juror 3 is the last to change his vote to ''not guilty.'' When the other jurors who had previously voted ''guilty'' finally change their votes, Juror 3 begins to antagonize them. The other eleven jurors ask him why he is holding to his guilty vote, and he relies on his past convictions, even though the others had proved these to have reasonable doubt.
Finally, Juror 3 resorts to the boy yelling, ''I'm going to kill you,'' to his father. He says, ''I don't care what kind of man that was. It was his father. That rotten kid. I know him. What they're like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, don't you see? How come I'm the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin' in.'' Juror 3 is holding to his convictions because of his situation with his son. He is so hurt by what his son did that he wants to see the teenage boy sentenced to death. When he realizes this, the others convince him to change his vote.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
One of the first instances in which Juror 3's temper rises is in the first act when they discuss that the witnesses could be prone to error.
- ''3RD JUROR (rising angrily): All right. (To the 8th JUROR.) Let's try to get to the point here.''
- Juror 3 is angry at Juror 8 because Juror 8 points out that witnesses are just people and can make mistakes. The element of human error is what much of the evidence revolves around later in the play. However, Juror 3 gets so upset because he believes the case is open and shut and that there is nothing to argue. He thinks the facts are hard, unbiased evidence, which is ironic considering Juror 3 is heavily biased in this debate.
Here, Juror 6 is seen talking to Juror 8 in the washroom, discussing the situation.
- ''6th JUROR: That loud, heavyset guy, the one who was tellin' us about his kid—the way he was talking—boy, that was an embarrassing thing.''
- The rest of the Jurors caught on to how Juror 3 talked about his son, indicating that Juror 3 has a severe bias in the situation, which affects his decision-making throughout the deliberation, despite Juror 3's best attempts at sticking to the facts and the evidence.
Later in the play, Juror 3 begins playing a tic-tac-toe game with Juror 12. When Juror 8 notices, he takes the notepad and rips off the top sheet, telling them to stop playing games. Juror 3 is quick to anger.
- ''3RD JUROR (shouting): Who do you think you are? / 12th JUROR (To the 3RD JUROR): All right, take it easy. / FOREMAN: Come on now, sit down. / 3RD JUROR: I've got a good mind to belt him one.''
- Juror 3 is not taking the situation seriously and is trying to show everyone that their discussion is pointless. He does this in an attempt to speed the process along, though his efforts are in vain.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
In the 1957 film adaption of 12 Angry Men, Juror 3 is played by Lee J. Cobb and portrays the character as a businessman, which helps sell Juror 3's impatience. He tears up a photograph of his son upon changing his vote at the film's end. In the 1997 version, Juror 3 is played by George C. Scott. In this rendition, Juror 3 says the lines regarding how it feels as though his son stabbed him in the chest. Juror 8 tells him that the boy on trial is not his, and Juror 3 changes his vote. At the film's end, when all the jurors leave, Juror 8 helps Juror 3 with his coat.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
12 Angry Men is a play by Reginald Rose regarding the jury deliberations regarding the death sentence of a teenage boy charged with murdering his father. In the story, Juror 3 is the antagonist, constantly bullying others to get them to change their votes to ''guilty.'' He is loud, boisterous, and quick to anger. Despite his efforts to stick to the facts, he takes the trial personally because of his strained relationship with his son. When the other jurors disagree with him, he becomes aggressive, saying or doing rude things to them. Juror 3 is depicted as a businessman in the film versions of the play.
Juror 3 is the last person to change his vote to ''not guilty.'' He does so at the end of the play when all of the other jurors have decided to vote ''not guilty'' due to reasonable doubt in the evidence. In the 1957 film, he tears up a photograph of his son when he finally changes his vote. In the 1997 film, Juror 3 describes how he feels as if his own son has stabbed him in the chest, to which Juror 8 responds that it is not his son on trial. At the film's end, Juror 8 helps Juror 3 with his coat.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Video Transcript
Juror 3: The Bully
Do you know someone who shouts, bullies, and belittles others to try to get control? Juror 3 is the type of guy that always gets his way. He has no problem bullying the other jurors when they think differently from him. With a teenage boy's life in their hands, the jury has an important job of determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of murdering his father. Let's learn more about Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose.
As soon as the jurors move to the deliberation room, Juror 3 begins throwing his influence on the weakest member of the jury, Juror 2. Juror 3 is annoyed that it has taken as long as it has, as to him, the boy is obviously guilty. He is anxious to get the vote out of the way and is shocked when he discovers that there is one juror who sees things differently than he does. He has no sympathy that the defendant is only 19 years old and is annoyed when other jurors want to review the evidence.
Estranged Son
Juror 3 has a son that he hasn't spoken to in 3 years, so he is anxious to blame 'rotten kids' for all the problems that exist in the world. He was ashamed when his son was 8 and walked away from a fight, so he rode him hard to 'make a man out of him.' When his son was a teenager, he punched his father in the face. He considers his child unappreciative of his efforts. Despite taking this entire trial personally, Juror 3 is the first to tell Juror 5 not to take things personally when Juror 10 badmouths the kids from poor neighborhoods.
Quick to Anger
At the beginning of Act II, Juror 3 learns that yet another juror has voted not guilty. Angrily standing up, he falsely accuses Juror 5 of changing his vote. When Juror 9 stands up and admits that he is the dissenting voter, Juror 3 does apologize for his outburst.
Clearly annoyed that the deliberations are still continuing, Juror 3 sarcastically begins to play a tic-tac-toe game with Juror 12 to 'pass the time.' When Juror 8 snatches the paper away, Juror 3 is ready to fight. As the other jurors continue to review witness testimony, Juror 3 continuously interjects condescending comments. He's visibly embarrassed when he accidentally blurts out that the witness that lived downstairs may have been incorrect about the time because he is a confused old man.
As the deliberations continue regarding the ability of one of the witnesses to hear the accused yell that he was going to kill his father, Juror 3 yet again dramatically inserts his opinion, stating, ''Now don't try and tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it - they mean it.'' When Juror 3 yells at the other jurors, ''This kid is guilty! He's got to burn! We're letting him slip through our fingers,'' Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Juror 3 lunges at Juror 8 and shouts at him that he is going to kill him, which thereby disproves Juror 3's earlier statement about people not saying things they don't mean.
When the vote evens up, Juror 3 is ready to declare a hung jury. When the other jurors disagree, Juror 3 jumps up and gives a demonstration on Juror 8 about how a shorter person could kill a taller person using downward motion. The demo scares the other jurors, but Juror 8 just laughs.
The Concession
As the final hold-out after the other jurors are able to put reasonable doubt into every witness's testimony, Juror 3 acts as if he alone is going to hang the jury in order to be right, but as he stands alone without an argument, he finally concedes and votes not guilty.
Film Versions
In the 1957 film adaptation, we learn that Juror 3 owns a messenger service. At the end of the story, Juror 3 changes his vote when Juror 8 tells him that this is not personal and not his son on trial. Upon changing his vote, Juror 3 tears up a photograph of his son. Juror 3 is portrayed by Lee J. Cobb, who played in a number of films and Broadway plays, including the detective in The Exorcist.
In the 1997 film adaptation, the role of Juror 3 went to George C. Scott, who is best known for playing the lead in Patton. The ending is similar to that of the 1957 version, with Juror 3 feeling as though his son had plunged a knife in his chest. Once Juror 3 changes his vote, Juror 8 helps him with his coat.
Lesson Summary
Juror 3 is a loud, boisterous bully who thinks that the teenage boy on trial for killing his father is guilty; therefore, everyone else should think so, too. Juror 3 has a tendency to be aggressive and demeaning to those who disagree with him, even threatening violence against other jurors. It becomes apparent that the real issue is that Juror 3 thought that being tough with his son was a way of being a good father, but his misguided approach resulted in raising a resentful man that doesn't speak with him. Through this trial, Juror 3 is reliving his own strained father-son relationship.
As reasonable doubt creeps into every witness's testimony, Juror 3 continues to hold onto his belief that the boy is guilty and needs to pay. By the end of the play, he realizes that he is all alone and concedes. In the movie versions, Juror 3 owns a messenger service and only concedes after Juror 8 has a heart-to-heart with him about not taking the life of the defendant because of his relationship with his son.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Unlock Your Education
See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com
Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a MemberAlready a member? Log In
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Juror 3 in 12 Angry Men | Quotes & Analysis
Related Study Materials
Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons
Browse by subject