Skip to main content
Article
Was He Guilty as Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based on the Circumstantial Evidence from 12 Angry Men
Chicago-Kent Law Review
  • Neil Vidmar
  • Sara Sun Beale
  • Erwin Chemerinsky
  • James E. Coleman, Jr.
Disciplines
Abstract

This essay argues that while 12 Angry Men is typically viewed as a vindication of innocence, careful consideration of the evidence suggests that the jury probably reached the wrong verdict: the circumstantial evidence pointed to guilt! The authors use this insight to discuss the potential impact of circumstantial versus direct evidence on real juries and perhaps the ways that cases are litigated. The essay suggests a number of questions requiring empirical research.

Publication Date
4-1-2007
Citation Information
Neil Vidmar, Sara Sun Beale, Erwin Chemerinsky and James E. Coleman. "Was He Guilty as Charged? An Alternative Narrative Based on the Circumstantial Evidence from 12 Angry Men" (2007) p. 691
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/erwin_chemerinsky/292/