Juror 8 (Autumn Morse) stands alone during the beginning of the play asking the other jurors to at least discuss the possibility of reasonable doubt before condemning the 19-year-old to death. Pictured (L-R): Hunter Sokoloski, Sage Clemons, Ashley Miller, Emma Stevenson, Rowan McClure, Sariah Maughan, Nicole Williams, Autumn Morse, Cecilia Ruppert, Beth Homen, Kyle Peltier, Logan Robinson. Not pictured: Will Batchelder the guard.
Juror 10 (Beth Homen) berates Juror 8 (Autumn Morse) after he asked to further discuss the evidence presented in the trial. Juror 10 later fires off a racist rant that caused everyone to get up from the table to turn their back to him because they couldn't sit and listen to his prejudice.
Juror 3 (Ashley Miller) uses the murder weapon, a switch blade knife, to demonstrate the angle at which the 19-year-old would have had to stab his father. Juror 8 (Autumn Morse) argued a skilled knife-fighter, like the 19-year-old was, would not have used an over-hand technique.
SEELEY LAKE – The Seeley-Swan High School drama class took to the stage May 2 where they presented "12 Angry Men," a play written in three acts by Sherman L. Sergel, adapted from the television show by Reginald Rose.
The play was staged in a jury room following the trial of a 19-year-old for allegedly fatally stabbing his father. The 12 jurors were tasked with the decision to acquit or condemn. However the question of guilt quickly turned to reasonable doubt about the young man's guilt as Juror 8 (Autumn Morse) is the sole vote to continue discussing the assumed open-and-shut case.
"We're talking about somebody's life here," said Morse. "We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?"
The initial vote of 11-1 to convict, gradually shifts as the group analyzes the evidence: the switch-blade knife used; the old man's testimony who heard the murder; the testimony of a woman who claimed to have seen the murder through the window of a passing L train; and the angle of the knife wound in the father's chest.
While the jurors were defined by their appearance, backgrounds, occupations in the beginning, the students artfully articulated the jurors' personalities and prejudices throughout the banter and conversation that ensued.
In the end the jury swung. While they never proved the 19-year-old's innocence or solved the crime, they all agreed that there was enough holes in the evidence to let him walk.
Reader Comments(0)