LogFAQs > #976397837

HashtagSEP posted...

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would this apply to 12 Angry Men? In this case, the juror used their own circumstantial "evidence" to convict, whereas in 12 Angry Men, the experiments they conduct are merely to see if there is any reasonable doubt. That feels like a pretty big difference.

EDIT: Well, no, I get it. A lot of what drives their decisions is speculation, but you're going to get that when it comes to reasonable doubt, anyway, which is why I think the actual outcome is what makes a big difference, since they're not deciding guilty based on that speculation, they're deciding "He COULD not be guilty."

Sorry, I should have said "valid criticisms" of 12 Angry Men - specifically the juror "doing his own research" being (technically) legally forbidden, as the jurors are supposed to go only on what lawyers present. My Cousin Vinny showed this really well/appropriately - the lawyer didn't necessarily prove innocence, just showed the evidence was not sound.