Deliberate mistake: When Henry Fonda decides to recreate the old witness' ability to get to the door in 15 seconds, he asks another juror to time his walk. The scene never cuts away, but the juror who times it says it took 41 seconds when in reality it takes exactly 31 seconds, you can time it.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, John Fiedler, Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall
Visible crew/equipment: In the scene where Henry Fonda is recreating the testimony of the old man getting out of bed & walking down a hall, you can clearly see a shadow of the camera on the floor.
Visible crew/equipment: When Juror 8 is approaching Juror 4 following the revelation of the witness across the street's eyesight being put under question, as the camera moves in, its shadow is seen moving across the back of Juror 3. (01:28:55)
Trivia: This was the only film ever produced by Henry Fonda. The work of both acting and producing was so demanding that he said afterwards that he would never produce another film.
Juror #5: Boy oh boy, it's really hot, huh? Pardon me, but don't you ever sweat?
Juror #4: No, I don't.
Juror #6: You think he's not guilty, huh?
Juror #8: I don't know. It's possible.
Juror #3: That business before when that tall guy, what's-his-name, was trying to bait me? That doesn't prove anything. I'm a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
Juror #4: He did an excellent job.
Question: Am I correct that when Henry Fonda is questioning the E.G. Marshall character about his recent activities Marshall says that the night before he worked until 8:30 then went home? The trial was every day for the past several days.
Question: Did they ever look at the hole in his pocket that the knife supposedly slipped out of?
Answer: If you're referring to the jurors, no. We see the entirety of their deliberations. If you're referring to the prosecution or defense, that is unknown. Given, however, that none of the jurors brought up the question, it's likely there was at least a check of his clothes to verify he had a hole in his pocket.
Given how easy it would be to simply tear a hole as an excuse, even if it was there, it wouldn't be much in the way of corroboration.
Question: Were all-male jury panels the norm in the 1950s?
Answer: Depends where, and the type of case. At the time the film was made, women were still barred from juries in three states (South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama); it wasn't until 1994 that the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers could not strike women from juries solely on the basis of gender. SCOTUS had ruled in 1942 that all-male juries were constitutionally acceptable. New York State (where the story is set) had granted women the right to serve on juries in 1927, so an all-male jury may not have been the norm across the board, but the nature of the crime (murder) would have, at the time, allowed lawyers to exclude women at the jury selection stage by citing the unsavoury aspects of the crime and arguing that the details of the case were not "suitable" for women to hear (being such delicate creatures, you understand /s).
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: He was actually talking about the night before the last one. Trials, especially longer ones for serious crimes such as murder, are not usually on consecutive days...often there is a recess after the prosecution rests, and another after the defense, before closing arguments and the jury's deliberation. During those recesses, unless they are sequestered, the jury members would return to their normal lives (including work), and report back to the court when summoned.