STORY:

In a New York City town hall, an eighteen-year-old kid from a ghetto is being investigated for purportedly cutting his dad to death. Last shutting contentions having been introduced, a noticeably exhausted judge teaches the Jury to conclude whether the kid is at legitimate fault for homicide. On the off chance that there is any sensible uncertainty of his culpability they are to return a decision of not blameworthy. The adjudicator further illuminates them that a liable decision will be joined by a compulsory capital punishment.

The jury resigns to a confidential room, where the legal hearers spend a brief time getting comfortable before they start pondering. It is promptly evident that the legal hearers have previously concluded that the kid is liable, and that they intend to return their decision without getting some margin for conversation with the sole exemption of Member of the jury 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the as it were "not blameworthy" Vote in a starter count. He makes sense of that there is a lot in question for him to oblige the decision without essentially discussing it first. His vote irritates different hearers, particularly Member of the jury 7 (Jack Superintendent), who has passes to a ball game that night; and Member of the jury 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), who accepts that individuals from ghetto foundations are liars, wild, and perilous.

The remainder of the film's center is the jury's trouble in arriving at a consistent decision. While a few of the legal hearers harbor individual biases, Member of the jury 8 keeps up with that the proof introduced for the situation is incidental, and that the kid merits a fair thought. He raises doubt about the exactness and dependability of the main two observers to the homicide, the "extraordinariness" of the deadly weapon (a typical switchblade, of which he has an indistinguishable duplicate), and the in general sketchy conditions. He further contends that he mightn't in that frame of mind at any point vote "blameworthy" when he feels there is sensible uncertainty of the kid's culpability.

Having contended a few focuses and gotten no positive reaction from the others, Legal hearer 8 hesitantly concurs that he has just prevailed with regards to hanging the jury. All things being equal, he demands another vote, this time by secret polling form. He recommends that he will swear off casting a ballot, and in the event that the other 11 members of the jury are as yet consistent in a liable vote, he will submit to their choice. The mystery polling form is held, and a new "not blameworthy" vote shows up. This acquires serious analysis from Attendant 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who glaringly blames Hearer 5 (Jack Klugman) who had experienced childhood in a ghetto of changing out of compassion for ghetto kids. In any case, Member of the jury 9 (Joseph Sweeney) uncovers that he personally changed his vote, feeling that Attendant 8's focuses merit further conversation.

Member of the jury 8 presents a persuading contention that one of the observers, an old man who professed to have heard the kid shout "I will kill you" not long from now before the homicide occurred, could never have heard the voices as obviously as he had affirmed because of a raised train sitting back; as well as expressing that "I will kill you," is frequently said by individuals who don't in a real sense would not joke about this. Legal hearer 5 changes his vote to "not blameworthy". Before long subsequently, Legal hearer 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether it is sensible to assume the respondent would have run away from the area, having cleaned the blade of fingerprints yet abandoning it, and afterward return three hours after the fact to recover it (having been left in his dad's chest). Legal hearer 11 then changes his vote.

Member of the jury 8 then makes reference to the man's subsequent case: after hearing the dad's body hit the floor, he had hurried to the entryway of his loft and seen the litigant running out of the structure from his front entryway in 15 seconds. Hearers 5, 6 and 8 inquiry whether this is valid, as the observer being referred to had suffered a heart attack, restricting his capacity to walk. Upon the finish of a trial, the jury finds that the observer could never have come to the entryway in sufficient opportunity to really see the executioner running out. Member of the jury 8 presumes that, according to what he professes to have heard before, the observer should have simply accepted it was the litigant running. Member of the jury 3, developing more disturbed in the meantime, detonates in a tirade: "He must consume! He's getting past us!" Member of the jury 8 berates him, considering him a "self-designated public justice fighter" and a savage, saying he maintains that the respondent should bite the dust due to individual longing instead of current realities. Member of the jury 3 yells "I'll kill him!" and starts lurching at Hearer 8, yet is limited by Attendants 5 and 7. Attendant 8 tranquilly answers, "You don't exactly mean you'll kill me, isn't that right?", making his past statement.

Hearers 2 (John Fiedler) and 6 (Edward Binns) additionally choose to cast a ballot "not blameworthy", tying the vote at 6-6. Before long, a rainstorm raises a ruckus around town, obviously deferring the ball game for which Member of the jury 7 has tickets, hence permitting him to unwind and focus with that timetable tension eased.

Hearer 4 (For example Marshall) keeps on expressing that he doesn't completely accept that the kid's explanation, which was being at the motion pictures with a couple of companions at the hour of the homicide, on the grounds that the kid couldn't recollect what film he had seen when addressed by police not long after the homicide. Member of the jury 8 makes sense of that being under personal pressure can cause you to fail to remember specific things, and tests how well Hearer 4 can recall the occasions of earlier days. Member of the jury 4 recollects, with some trouble, the occasions of the past five days, and Attendant 8 brings up that he had not been under close to home pressure around then, consequently there was not a glaringly obvious explanation to figure the kid ought to have the memorable option the specifics of the film that he professed to have seen.

Member of the jury 2 raises doubt about the indictment's case that the blamed, who was 5'7" tall, had the option to incur the descending cut injury found on his dad, who was 6'2". Members of the jury 3 and 8 lead an investigation to check whether it's feasible for a more diminutive individual to cut descending into a taller individual. The examination demonstrates the chance, however Member of the jury 5 then makes sense of that he had grown up in the midst of blade battles in his area, and shows, through exhibiting the right utilization of a switchblade, that nobody such a ton more limited than his rival would have held a switchblade so as to cut descending, as the hold would have been too off-kilter and the demonstration of changing hands also tedious. Rather, somebody that a lot more limited than his rival would cut wicked at an upwards point. This disclosure expands the conviction of a few of the legal hearers in their conviction that the respondent isn't liable.

Progressively fretful, Hearer 7 changes his vote just so the consideration might end, which acquires him the rage of Attendants 3 and 11, the two on inverse sides of the conversation. Attendant 11, an outsider who has over and again showed solid energetic pride, squeezes Member of the jury 7 hard about utilizing his vote pointlessly, and at last Legal hearer 7 concedes that he presently really accepts the respondent isn't blameworthy.

The following hearers to change their votes are Attendants 12 (Robert Webber) and the Jury Foreman (Martin Amber), making the vote 9-3 and leaving just three nonconformists: Members of the jury 3, 4 and 10. Insulted at how the procedures have gone, Member of the jury 10 goes into a fury on why individuals from the ghettos can't be relied upon, of how they are minimal better than creatures who joyfully kill each other off for no particular reason. His discourse annoys Legal hearer 5, who turns his back to him, and individually the other attendants begin getting some distance from him. Confounded and upset by this response to his tirade, Hearer 10 go on in a consistently blurring voice and way, easing back and eventually stopping with "Pay attention to me. Listen..." Legal hearer 4, the main man actually confronting him, briefly answers, "I have. Presently plunk down and don't open your mouth once more." As Legal hearer 10 maneuvers to sit in a corner without anyone else, Member of the jury 8 talks unobtrusively about the disasters of bias, and different members of the jury gradually continue their seats.

While those leftover for a blameworthy vote are squeezed regarding the reason why they actually keep up with that there is no sensible uncertainty, Hearer 4 expresses his conviction that in spite of the wide range of various proof that has been raised doubt about, the reality stays that the one who saw the homicide from her window across the road (through the passing train) actually remains as strong proof. After he brings up this, Attendant 12 changes his vote back to "liable", making the vote 8-4.

Then Hearer 9, subsequent to seeing Attendant 4 rub his nose (which is being bothered by his eye glasses), understands that, similar to Member of the jury 4, the one who purportedly saw the homicide had impressions in the sides of her nose which she scoured, showing that she wore glasses, however didn't wear them to court out of vanity. Member of the jury 8 shrewdly inquires as to whether he wears his eyeglasses to rest, and Attendant 4 concedes that he doesn't wear them no one does. Member of the jury 8 makes sense of that there was consequently not a great explanation to expect that the observer turned out to be wearing her glasses while attempting to rest, and he brings up that on her own proof the assault occurred so quickly that she could not have had opportunity and energy to put them on. After he calls attention to this, Members of the jury 12, 10 and 4 all change their vote to "not blameworthy".

Right now, the last legal hearer with a blameworthy vote is Member of the jury 3. Member of the jury 3 gives a long and progressively tormented series of contentions, finishing with, "Spoiled kids, you resolve your life!" This expands on an all the more genuinely undecided prior disclosure that his relationship with his own child is profoundly stressed, and his outrage regarding this reality is the principal reason that he maintains that the litigant should be blameworthy. Legal hearer 3 at long last blows his top and destroys a photograph of himself and his child, then out of nowhere separates crying and changes his vote to "not blameworthy", making the vote consistent.

As the members of the jury leave the room, Legal hearer 8 assists the distressed Attendant 3 with his jacket in a demonstration of empathy. The film closes when the cordial Hearers 8 (Mr. Davis) and 9 (Mr. McCardle) trade names, and every one of the members of the jury plunge the town hall moves toward return to their singular lives... at no point ever to see each other in the future.