Obviously he was Juror #1. 3, who was beyond stubborn and irrational. He began to get very angry because he felt like he had been betrayed by all of them. Juror no. 8, being the civilized person that he is, urged him to give his evidence and state why he still believed the suspect was guilty. Juror no. 3 kept repeating the same old tests, which had already proven to be inaccurate. He was clearly unsure of what he believed by the way he spoke (or shouted), but he was so adamant about the boy's guilt that nothing else mattered. He begins to cry and yell indirectly about his son (who he previously said had left him). The rest of the jurors begin to understand why he is filled with hatred towards the boy: he saw the boy as his son, the one who abandoned him, and he saw the father as himself. Juror no. 8 assures him that the boy is not his son. He realizes his bias and changes his vote. The vote is therefore twelve - or all - in favor of "not guilty". (2) After all the new evidence was presented, I felt grateful that Juror No. 8 decided to vote "not guilty" and maintained his position even after being forced to change his vote. With the new evidence, I would definitely say the suspect is not guilty. (11) The public and the press would likely react negatively to the juror's "not guilty" decision because they will not have the knowledge that jurors have. Their knowledge of