The type of vote would be determined by the first type of vote suggested. Part Three Throughout the deliberation, Juror number 3 used intimidation to make his point. He acted as a bully in attempting to push around other jurors, Juror number 8 tries to include everyone in the group and show them that they have a voice. His strategy is more successful. Number 8 is open to anyone persons input and listens to everyone’s point of view. Number 3 is very close-minded. Juror number 4, the stock broker, seemed to be the best educated of all the en.
He looked at the case very factually. Everything was very black and white for the broker. He does a great job of communicating his opinions and ideas with the group. Juror number 5, the Baltimore fan, came from the same neighborhood as the boy accused of the crime. He was able to relate to the boy in many ways. His vast knowledge of knife fighting helps disprove the idea that the boy stabbed his father from a downward angle. Juror number 9, the old man, notices many minute details throughout the trial, He sees things that the rest or the jurors don’t realize they saw.
The old man deices that the man who claims to have saw the boy leave the apartment had a bad hobble and that the women who lived across the street wore glasses. Juror number 1 1, the Immigrant, viewed the whole process as a privilege, while other jurors viewed the whole situation as an inconvenience. The Immigrant was committed to finding the truth in the case, no matter how long it took. Part Four The group did a good job of surveying all of the different members. The opinion of each member was very well known. The group needed to improve on allowing everyone to voice their opinion, and stopping the useless jabbing.
Juror umber 7 made a plethora Of useless comments that just slowed down the deliberations. Part Five I think the suspect was not guilty. For starters, the prosecution didn’t have any rock solid evidence. The suspect’s fingerprints were not found on the knife, and he had a viable alibi for the crime. The two “eyewitnesses”‘ stories had major flaws. The man who lived below the boy could not have walked all through his apartment to reach the stairs and see the boy fleeing the scene in the IS seconds he claimed it took. The Woman who lived across the street wore glasses, She was not wearing these glasses when she “saw” the crime committed.