The first vote was 11-1 against Henry Fonda. So all the others changed their vote.
they changed their focus because they think it is not fair that women get to vote.
Generally, all jurors must vote "guilty" to convict someone of a crime. However, some states have laws that create "exceptions". Some states allow "all but one" or "all but two" of the jurors to vote guilty, and allow the conviction to stand.
That all other jurors vote for guilty or not guilty, and he will abstain (not vote). If everyone votes guilty, then they will put guilty as their verdict. If not, the jurors will talk about the case more.
Despite common belief, not ALL trials in the US are conducted with 12 jurors. Depending on the state some minor criminal trials are held with as few as 7 jurors and sometimes only a majority of the jurors are needed to find a defendant guilty. However - in the case of capital crimes there will be 12 jurors and the vereict must be unanimous.
Yes. He was the 6th juror to vote not guilty.
This because if the vote of guilty or not guilty is tied the one extra juror will be able to decide guilty or not guilty. for example if there are 6, 3 vote guilty 3 dont it tied the extra one would help the tie breaker
It has an amendment process that allows it to be changed with times ---> the amendment that allowed women to vote is an example. In 1787, society did not think women were fit to vote. By the 1900s that view had changed with the times, and the amendment was added.
In "To Kill a Mockingbird," the one member of the jury who delayed the verdict was one of the jurors who initially voted not guilty but later changed his vote to guilty. His hesitation and indecision were symbolic of the prejudice and injustice present in the case.
If the number of jurors were even, then the judge would need to make a jurisdiction, and some judges are not fair. However, if the number of jurors were odd, then they could come to a conclusion on their own.
The legal system does not specify any educational standard for jurors. Anyone who is qualified to vote is qualified to be a juror.
The first time it was at the beginning of the play and Juror #8 is the only one to raise his hand to vote "not guilty".The second time it was after they saw the knife and it was a secret ballot. Juror #8 said he was not going to vote and if there were 11 "guilty"s then Juror 8 would change his vote, but Juror 9 voted "not guilty".The third time was after Juror 8 reenacted the old man's walk down the hall and Juror #3's and Juror #8's little tussle. Jurors 2,5,6,11 vote "not guilty".The fourth time was after the knife scene and Juror #7 changes his vote because he was "sick of this whole thing". During this vote Jurors 1 and 12 change to "not guilty".The fifth time wasn't really a formal vote and it was after they demonstrated that the lady couldn't see without her glasses. Juror #8 asks "does anyone think there still is not a reasonable doubt?" and no on said anything except for Juror #3.The end of the play was when Juror #3 changed his vote.So 5 times.