Current Events > Can an internet lawyer explain why 12 Angry Men got this scene wrong?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or an actual lawyer, even. Who here was studying in law school again?

-Kid on trial owned the switchblade that his father was killed with
-Considered damning evidence since it's apparently a unique weapon
-Juror 8 (who is affirmative that the Kid isn't guilty) buys an identical switchblade and throws it on the jury table to prove that isn't the case

Apparently in real life this is gonna get him disqualified via a mistrial, but how exactly? What if he already knew about that model of switchblade or already owned one and therefore knew about it?
---

They're only supposed to consider evidence presented at trial. The judge tells them exactly this at the start of every trial. This dude went out and investigated the case on his own. He violated his oath as a juror.
---