Huge spoilers ahead!
The jury, in particular the main protagonist, seemed to wade into illegal territory more than once. But being a complete layman who’s never been on a jury, I don’t know for sure.
Doing one’s own research and bringing one’s own “evidence” into the jury room, and not presenting it to the prosecution or defence, seems like a no no. The knife the protagonist finds in a store and brings in to show his fellow jurists that the prosecutor was wrong about its uniqueness; this feels like mistrial levels of inappropriate. Making judgements about credibility based on whether or not someone was wearing their glasses in court by noticing their nose has the telltale markings of a glasses wearer, something not pointed to by the defence as worthy of note, likewise seems off limits.
Is it not the case that the jury has to work only with information and evidence presented during the trial? And in fact can be told to ignore certain evidence from the trial if the judge deems it stricken from the record? Is it expected or acceptable for jurists to come up with their own alternate scenarios and narratives that fit the evidence or are they bound only to consider the theories presented by the defence and the prosecution?
Perhaps in the '50s this was all above board but the law changed since then. Or maybe my movie-based understanding of juries is a Frankenstein mishmash of true and bullshit. Probably that.
Great film deserving of its place atop “best films ever” lists, and I even liked the '90s remake!
I don’t believe it was legal, no. However, that does not necessarily work against the film as jurors frequently ignore the court’s instructions and do their own thing (including doing their own independent research and discussing/introducing that to their other jurors). You hear about it when they get caught, but I have to assume that in many cases they do not. I guess it adds a further interesting dynamic to the film. Was it right for the juror to disobey the court’s instructions in pursuit of his own belief that the accused was innocent? Is strict adherence to the laws our society’s function under more important than adherence to our own moral code?
There was a reality TV show in Australia last year where a jury of 12 people sat through a full re-enactment of a real manslaughter trial that occurred in Australia and then had to reach their own verdict. The real life verdict was only revealed after they’d submitted theirs. It was pretty interesting how difficult it was for certain people to follow the court’s instructions, put aside their own beliefs and preconceptions and focus on the facts of the case. I get the feeling that if someone these people had been called up for jury duty in real life, they 100% would have pulled a Juror 8 and just done whatever was necessary to reach the “right” verdict.