Juror No. 5 is described as a naive and very scared young man. He takes his role in the trial seriously, but has difficulty speaking up when elders speak. He then mentions the elderly man who lives below and raises doubts about whether he actually saw the boy running down the stairs. This then leads to the demonstration by the 8-year-old of him getting up and going to the front door.
Vocabulary for Character:
Conformists: those who follow the rules, expectations and trends
Docile: obedient
Fickle: someone who is unable to take decisions quicklyIntrovert: an introvert
Perspective: to be observant, insightful
Submissive (noun): inclined to submit, yield or accept authority from another.
Juror 5 is not arrogant nor proud.
Jurors 3 and 4 were talking about kids who grew up in the slums, saying they are “potential menaces to society” and that they are bad people. He said he lived in the. He said that when Jurors no.
The secret ballot was done, and #3 voted guilty despite his outburst. Jiuror #3 thought that he was sympathetic towards the accused because of what he had said about his life in the slum. Quotes: I’ve lived all my adult life in a slum… I used a yard filled with trash to play. Page 21I was going to say, but you seemed so confident of yourself.” Juror 9 soon confessed to having changed his votes. Juror 3 also apologized for his mistake, but refused to accept this apology, as he did not mean it. However, nobody seemed to notice. Juror 8 asked me a lot of questions about the slums. I was very happy to answer them, since I lived there. My vote was changed to “not guilty” when I realized the boy’s innocence. The vote now read 9-3. They then decided to draw a map of the apartments because no one knew where they were.
Juror 8 proved, after the evidence was presented, that the old man could not get up, walk into the hallway, down the hall and open the front door in 15 seconds. Juror 2 timed the act. Juror 2 then said that people who say they’ll murder someone really do it. He became angry later and shouted “Let go!” I’ll kill him! The guard left quickly after the Foreman stated that nothing was wrong. Juror 11 pointed out that the argument was waning and we were fortunate for being able even to determine the fate of accused as a 12-member jury. Juror number 3 had requested another open ballot vote, so we did. The Foreman voted for “guilty” and Jurors 3, 7, 10, 12, and Jurors 2 voted for “not guilty”, making the result 6-6. After more argument, we decided whether there was a hung juror or not. The vote was also 6-6. Juror number 4 wanted to know the reasons why other jurors felt that the boy wasn’t guilty. He changed his vote and said “no, this is not a hung court.”
Then, Juror 8 asks if I have ever seen a fight with a switch knife. Flashes of dark street, knives shining in the moonlight and blood flash through my head. So tell him that while you demonstrate using the switch knife handed to me earlier. Juror Eight asks if I’ve seen a saber fight. Flashes come to mind of dark streets, knives in moonlight, shadows and blood. So I show him how to use the switch, using the knife I had received earlier. The boy did everything in his power to link himself to the switch blade. The boy was now guilty. In no time, the jury was split 9-3. Only Jurors 3 and 4 remained.
I was irritated by his racist remarks. I stood up, turned around and walked away. Jurors 4 and 10 stared down the boy, threatening to break his skull. In a short time, the testimony from the woman in the next street was also thrown out and proved to be wrong, making Jurors 4 & 10 believe the boy’s innocence, leaving Jurors 3 alone. Jurors 8 and 3 walk away, but I hear Juror number 3 shout out loud, “Not guilt!”
