12 Angry Men (1957) remains one of the greatest courtroom dramas. Directed by Sidney Lumet from a screenplay by Reginald Rose, the film stars Henry Fonda as the hold-out juror among his peers who are ready to quickly convict a teenager charged with murder in a New York court.  Through a series of dramatic moments, Fonda eventually persuades his fellow jurors that there remains a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s innocence, forcing them to address their own preconceptions and prejudices in the process. Fonda (who coproduced the film), teams up with a sensational ensemble cast that includes Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, and Jack Klugman. I’m joined by Elkan Abramowitz, one of America’s leading criminal defense attorneys, whose many notable clients include Woody Allen, to explore why 12 Angry Men remains essential viewing even as much has changed about the American jury system since it was made.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:48     Why 12 Angry Men still resonates today5:15     How juries have changed6:47     Why serving on a jury can be so meaningful10:04   The beyond a reasonable doubt standard15:01   Bigotry and prejudice in the jury room 17:28   Selecting the jury22:59   Group dynamics on juries26:24   The problem with eyewitness cases28:01   Jurors doing outside research30:56   The vanishing jury 34:07   Just down the block: New York v.  Trump39:26   How juries deliberate43:22   Why the film holds up so wellFurther Reading: Asimow, Michael, “'12 Angry Men’: A Revisionist View,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 711 (2007), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095488Ellsworth, Phoebe C., “One Inspiring Jury,” 101 Mich. L. Rev. 1387 (2003), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=reviewsGertner, Nancy, “‘12 Angry Men’ (and Women) in Federal Court,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 613 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=cklawreviewHans, Valerie P., “Deliberation and Dissent: ‘12 Angry Men’ vs. The Empirical Reality of Juries,” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev., 579 (2007), https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=facpubLandsman, Stephan, “Mad about '12 Angry Men,'” 82 Chicago-Kent L. Rev. 749 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=cklawreviewpMartin, Adrian, “Review: ‘12 Angry Men,’” https://www.filmcritic.com.au/reviews/t/12_angry_men.htmlWeisselberg, Charles D., “Good Film, Bad Jury,” 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 717 (2007), https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3598&context=cklawreview  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a law professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated many important cases to protect civil liberties and defend human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is also a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can follow him on Twitter @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on Twitter @LawOnFilm