In the movie, 12 Angry Men, the jurors wanted to say the defendant was guilty so they could get on with their lives. In the beginning of the movie, the audience doesn't know anything about the case's facts. All we know is that the defendant is charged with murder. All except one juror votes he is guilty. The one man who thinks he isn't guilty doesn't know why he thinks he isn't guilty, but knows he doubts the facts he was given. The man who doesn't believe the defendant is guilty uses facts about how the boy grew up. The defendant was beaten as a kid and lived in a poor area. Another thing I noticed, was the old man juror believes the defendant is guilty because a witness said that she saw the defendant kill his father. The juror who believed the defendant wasn't guilty said that the witness is the same as the defendant. We can assume from this statement that the old man's reasoning comes from some racial bias. In fact, other jurors had some sort of racial bias against the defendant such as, believing he was a murder because he grew up in the slums. According to some jurors, growing up in the slums creates criminals. This is also, a racial bias against the defendant. The jurors take another vote without the one juror who believes the defendant is not guilty. The result comes in as all jurors think the defendant is guilty except one. The juror that changed his vote is the old gentleman. His reasoning is because he is know doubting the facts of the case. From the first half of the movie, we learn what the true meaning of a reasonable doubt means from these two jurors. This movie is similar to the Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado case, because both have jurors that have some sort of racial bias against the defendants. Towards the second half of the movie, the jurors are now 6 to 6. A lot of the jurors that believe the boy is guilty comes from the fact that he was born in the slums. It shows that the jurors are using his race and background to come up with their verdict. According to the Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, jurors can not have racial bias affect their decision on whether a defendant is guilty or not. Towards the end of the film, the jurors voted again and voted 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal. One juror got up and started saying some racist, prejudice things about the defendant's race and background. The other jurors all got up and gave their back to him because they all agreed that his comments are inappropriate. This scene in the movie is very similar to what happened in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. In that case, two of the jurors made some racial comments about the defendant when with the other jurors. Later two of the jurors told the court that his verdict came from a racial bias. The Supreme Court reviewed this case and agreed that verdicts made with a racial bias are invalid. At the end of the movie after some of the jurors realized their prejudice regarding the defendant,they all agreed they had reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. This movie and case teaches us that racial biases and prejudices about an individual's background is never appropriate in the court of law and life.

2. reply to the comment below on why you agree.

In the case of Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in the state court trial. When Pena-Rodriguez entered the guilty verdict there was an accusation from two jurors that one of the other jurors had made a racially biased statement against Pena-Rodriguez and the alibi witness during the jury deliberations.There was a racial bias statement that was made against the convicted and the witness alibi which can contradict the jury deliberation. In the movie the 12 Angry men it is briefly about a young teen who was convicted of murder, stabbing his father to death and there are 12 jurors that are involved in the jury deliberation for the eighteen year old teen. Since the conviction is first degree murder the eighteen year old boy will be charged with the death penalty. All the jurors had pleaded that the young boy was on a guilty verdict except the 8th juror who was said to plead that the eighteen year old boy was not guilty. The eight juror was an architect. Also as the other eyewitness begins to fall apart under scrutiny the 3rd juror emerges as a hold out, so then becomes forced to admit his bias against the accused eighteen year old is rooted in his estrangement from his own son. Then the 3rd juror changes his verdict and the jury delivers a unanimous verdict of "non-guilty".

In the case Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado and in the movie of the 12 Angry Men, they are both similar because they both had similar experiences of discrepancy within the jurors. In the Pena-Rodriguez case the juror had experienced that there was a racial bias comment made of the suspect and the witness alibi which means that there was basically a racist point of view that was made against the convict and it becomes like a flimsy deliberation. The racial bias comment and point of view then seems to be faulty and also makes the said statements faulty and the alibi witness faulty. The whole debate then becomes questionable and not reliable. In the movie of the 12 Angry Men it was technically the same way; there was a juror who gave a different verdict from the rest of the other jurors and even admitted being that the only reason why there was a racial bias contradiction was because of the young eighteen year old was no longer a friend to the jurors son; it was the estrangement relationship between the son. The racial bias contradictions between the jury deliberations are the reason why the lawyers challenge the jurors to begin with to avoid all racial bias that can take place as the deliberations begin. Racial bias tends to be very racially divided between the convict and the jurors based on their backgrounds, culture and the minorities. Therefore, between the two sources of the 12 Angry Men and the case of Pena-Rodriguez they become similar due to the fact that they both had the faulty jurors that the racial bias took place in.

Question:Describe how 12 Angry Menis similar to the case brief you read this week, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado?

https://archive.org/details/12AngryMen1957

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18403433870757583597&q=Pena-Rodriguez+v.+Colorado&hl=en&as_sdt=2006