Was he guilty?

Was he guilty?

Maybe. But not definitely.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, kiddo. And there was reasonable doubt.

We don't know. That's the point.

He was, Henry Fonda was a fucker.

Is that a face of an innocent man.

according to the law: no
but he did kill his father

He was guilt as fuck
Not 1 of the points brought up was reasonable.
The old man walked slowly to the stand therefore he couldn't have sprinted to the landing? Stupid.
The woman didn't wear her glasses to the stand therefore she couldn't see what happened? She wears reading glasses and can see distant things perfectly.
This guy couldn't remember what he had for breafast a week ago is the same as the kid who couldn't remember what he watched an hour ago? Retarded.

If any of these points had any validity to them then the defense would have brought them up

Yo Naz, you kill her?

He is. Look at his face.

So was Henry Fonda actually a mafia stooge?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Those were reasonable doubts

probably, but not enough proof to jail him

8.7/10

How are they?

>If any of these points had any validity to them then the defense would have brought them up

Guilty of being a pleb who can't remember the movies he's seen.

Did you even watch the movie? They tell you directly at the end when they all vote not guilty. It's not a fucking secret.

Why don't you go fuck yourself Tommy?

DESIGNATED

Superior version

In law school atm, someone brought up this movie in discussion and our professor laughed at them and said the movie although well acted is not realistic. If all cases worked like this, you wouldn't be able to prosecute a majority of cases. One of the major underlying themes can be seen the fragility of the US justice system and its susceptibility to influence.

WATCH IT, JURY

>She wears reading glasses and can see distant things perfectly.
You know that for sure?

damn man, woulda been quicker to just post gay porn if you wanted to sound like such a fag.

>If all cases worked like this, you wouldn't be able to prosecute a majority of cases.
>If people actually paid attention to reasonable doubt and thought carefully about the evidence, most people would walk free
Really makes you think...

The point is that the system is flawed and did not bring them up. It took a guy to merely point out possibilities to save a boy's life.

wh-wh-???

Maybe I'm wrong

Yes, if it were otherwise then the defense would have brought it up

He looks jewish. PUT HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL

>NOBODY DINDU NUFFIN! ERRBODY INOSENT!

The movie argument was the dumbest. This one juror kept grilling the other juror about every actor who was in the second movie he saw a week ago, yet he remembered the titles perfectly. That kid JUST got back from the theater. He would remember.

kek

He's going to get his own personal Shoah.