header-logo header-logo

Reasonable doubt & the movies

14 July 2020 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7895 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail
24172
Mark Pawlowski looks at the meaning of reasonable doubt against the backdrop of one of the most iconic Hollywood films depicting jury trial

In Twelve Angry Men (1957), acclaimed as one of the best films dramatising the imperfections of the jury system, the fate of a teenager accused of the murder of his father rests on the verdict of 12 jurors locked inside a steamy jury room. The evidence seems overwhelming and 11 of the jurors are ready to convict in what they see as an ‘open and shut’ case. Only one brave juror (played by Henry Fonda) refuses to vote and wants to talk about the case. What follows is an intense examination of the prejudices that each juror member brings to the jury room.

Fonda’s character is the great unifier throughout the film seeking to dispel bias and faulty reasoning by demanding that his fellow jurors scrutinise the evidence carefully and come to a reasoned verdict. Critics of the jury system say that it works against justice

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Morrison Foerster—Jenny Galloway & Luke Rowland

Firm grows London practice with two partner promotions

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Hogan Lovells—David Hansom

Government contracts and procurement practice expands with London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll