TV and Movies

[Pearlee]

---

@Pearlee wrote:

I'm definitely watching 12 Angry Men - again.  It's a really good film (although no women on that jury!  Boo-hiss! Although it would have had to have been retitled if there had been!)

---

@Oznell  OMG -  I hadn't seen this film in many years until last night.  I realized about a half an hour into the film - when Fonda produced the other knife- that he was totally guilty of juror misconduct by introducing "other" evidence.   That alone was grounds for a mistrial if any of the other jurors had informed the bailiff/judge about it.   Most of them were guilty of juror misconduct to some extent, for bringing in their own experiences and considering that as "evidence" that was never presented.   They "filled in" evidence for the defense attorney whom they considered not to have done his job right.  

I declare a mistrial in this case!   

[Oznell]

Wow, that fine legal point flew right over my head, @Pearlee!   That's cool that you picked up on it.  It would be neat to see if any film critics comment on that aspect of the film too-- maybe if they had some legal background.

I saw part of it last night and was impressed anew at how entertaining it is-- all the different characters.  Love Martin Balsam in this, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley.  Even the smaller parts, like Robert Webber-- all perfect in their roles.

[Pearlee]

@Oznell  Every time I saw Balsam, I couldn't help but think of him three years in the future, getting stabbed and falling down the stairs in Psycho!  [insert Psycho music here]

Yeah, I wonder too if any film critic has ever mentioned juror misconduct.  My jaw dropped when Fonda pulled out that other knife he had bought - I'd totally forgotten about the details of how he convinced the others to vote with him.