YOUNG LEADERS

CASE STUDY
12 ANGRY MEN
2HRS
AIMS: To familiarise Ss with the concept of jury prejudice and give them
authentic reasons to communicate with each other. To give Ss
practise in independently researching and preparing presentations.
MATERIALS: 12 Angry Men film clip and equipment to play it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDhgR3p12w
Speech cut into strips (enough for each group of four)
Slips with controversial court cases cut up

STAGE:
Warmer /
Lead-In

Generate
interest /
prediction

Describing
action as it
happens

PROCEDURE:
Tell Ss they are going to watch a clip of a film called 12 Angry Men.
Have them discuss what they think it is about and what they think
happens in the film based on the title.
Feedback on a few of their predictions.
Show film clip on pause, have Ss discuss what they can see, what they
think the situation is and what they think is going to happen next
(reviewing going to for predictions based on evidence - elicit that
they should use this structure before they make their predictions)
Feedback on a few predictions.
Ask Ss what they think theyre going to do now watch the clip!
Move the chairs so that theyre in two rows, one facing the screen
and one facing those chairs, i.e:

Collaborative
writing

Writing check

Explain that Ss are going to watch the clip for two minutes without
sound. Those who can see the screen should tell their partner
(opposite) whats happening, and the partner will write notes.
ICQ: (to those facing away from screen) Can you write every word
your partner says? (N) So what are you going to write? (Key words)
What kinds of words are key words? (Nouns, verbs, adjectives)
Elicit that they should be using present continuous as the action is
happening now, as they see it.
After two minutes, pause the clip, have the Ss swap places and repeat
for a further two minutes.
Now both Ss have seen half the clip and written notes. They need to
work together to write the story of what happened in the entire clip.
Elicit that they should be using past tenses (past simple, continuous
and perfect) as the action has just happened.
Monitor as Ss write, elicit corrections from them, e.g. Ss write: Then
the man walk to the table. Elicit past tense by pointing to verb and
pointing behind you.
As they finish have them swap stories with other pairs to see if there
are any differences between the stories. Feedback on a few.
Ask Ss if they would like to see the whole clip for themselves.

TIMING:
5 min

5 min

10 min

10 min

10 min

Bucksmore Summer Programmes Young Leaders 12 Angry Men Case Study

Speech match

Discussing
reactions to
the clip

Independent
research

Presentation

Tell them youre going to show it (no sound), they need to see if they
covered all the details in their stories or if they missed anything, e.g.
did they all write about the man wagging his finger?
Feedback were all stories detailed enough? Who missed some
details? What do they think they are saying?
Tell Ss you have the speech on slips, but its mixed up. They have to
work in groups of four to put the speech in order using what they saw
as clues.
Monitor and help with vocab questions.
When Ss are finished, have them walk around and peer check with
other groups. Do they want to make any changes now theyve seen
others attempts?
Play the clip with sound, Ss listen and check their work, moving the
slips around if necessary.
Feedback play again if necessary.
Ask Ss, whats prejudice? Elicit some ideas from a few Ss. Is it the
same at stereotypes? (similar) Are stereotypes always bad? (N) Is
prejudice always bad? (Y)
Tell Ss the defendant is an 18-year-old Puerto-Rican from a New York
city slum and is on trial for stabbing his father to death
Have Ss find examples of prejudice in the speech, e.g. They dont
need any big reason to kill someone.
Feedback.
Have Ss have a discussion about prejudice in trials by jury in pairs.
For lower-levels, use these Qs to stimulate discussion:
o Is it possible for jurors to make decisions without prejudice?
o What can we do to make juries less likely to make prejudiced
decisions (e.g. a mix of people on a jury)?
o Whats reasonable doubt? Why is it so important?
o Do you think trial by jury is the best way to decide if
someone is innocent or guilty?
o Innocent until proven guilty. What does this mean? Is it
important in your country? Do you agree with it?
Tell Ss just as the court case in the film was controversial, so too are
many court cases in real life.
Hold out court cases on slips face down, have each pair select one.
Ss have 25 min to research these cases in the computer room, come
back and tell another pair about the case. Can they write full
sentences? (N notes).
Ss come back and tell another pair about their case. The listening
pair has to ask at least one question.
Feedback on a few which had Ss never heard about before? Which
cases were the most interesting? Which were really controversial?
Why?

10 min

15 min

30 min

25 min

Bucksmore Summer Programmes Young Leaders 12 Angry Men Case Study

12 Angry Men Speech from clip

Cut into slips and mix up, enough for each group of four.

I dont understand you people. I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up,
they dont mean nothing. You saw this kid just like I did. Youre not gonna tell me you
believe that phoney story about losing the knife and that business about being at the
movies. Look, you know how these people lie. Its born in them. I mean, what the heck, I
dont have to tell you.
They dont know what the truth is. And let me tell you, they dont need any real big reason
to kill someone either. No, sir. They get drunk. Oh, theyre real big drinkers all of them,
you know that, and bang, someones lying in the gutter. Well no-ones blaming them for it,
thats the way they are, by nature. You know what I mean, violent.
Where are you going? Human life dont mean as much to them as it does to us. Look,
theyre lushing it up and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed or something gets
killed they dont care. Well, sure, theres some good things about them too. Look, Im the
first one to say that.
Ive known a couple who were okay, but thats the exception, you know what I mean? Most
of them act like they have no feelings, they can do anything.
Whats going on here? Im trying to tell you, youre making a big mistake you people. This
kid is a liar, I know it, I know all about them.
Listen to me. Theyre no good, theres not a one of them whos any good. Whats
happening in here? I speak my peace and youlisten to me. This kid on trial here, his type,
well dont you know about them? Theres a danger here. These people are dangerous.
Theyrewelllisten to melisten
I have. Now sit down and dont open your mouth again.
Im trying totell you
Its always difficult to keep prejudice out of a thing like this. Wherever you run into it,
prejudice always obscures the truth. I dont really know what the truth is, I dont suppose
anybody will ever really know.
Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent. Were just yammering on
probabilities, we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I dont know.
Nobody really can, but we have a reasonable doubt, and thats something thats very
valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless its sure.

Bucksmore Summer Programmes Young Leaders 12 Angry Men Case Study

Controversial Court Cases

Cut up and have pairs randomly select (face down) for independent research.

The O.J. Simpson Murder

Trial
Lizzie Borden
The Monkey Trials
The JFK Assassination Trial
of Lee Harvey Oswald and
Jack Ruby
The McLibel Case
The News of the World
Phone Hacking Scandal
Paul McCartney/Heather
Mills Divorce
Jack the Ripper
Bucksmore Summer Programmes Young Leaders 12 Angry Men Case Study