Sermon-Twelve Angry Men

Still from the film Twelve Angry Men (1957)

A sermon given during Evensong at St Giles-in-the-Fields on Sunday 15th September 2024, based on the text of Matthew 7.1-14

Is the classic 1957 film Twelve Angry Men a dramatization of Matthew 7.1-14?

Thanks to the parliamentary record established by Luke Hansard, whose memorial hangs on a column at the back of this church, we are able to read a fascinating digression during the debate of a criminal justice bill, when members began to speculate on the origins of the black cap worn by judges when they hand down a death sentence. One MP understood that the custom had its roots in scripture - specifically St Paul’s prohibition on men covering their heads in church as a mark of respect. In the court, a judge would place their cap - more like a bit of cloth really - on top of their head as a sign that judicial homicide is the ultimate disrespectful act of effectively taking the life of one of God’s children.

 

MPs didn’t reach a conclusion as to the origins of the practice before the Speaker called them back to the main point of the debate. 

 

Wearing the black cap isn’t the only legal custom with apocryphal links to Christianity. 

 

The use of twelve jurors is claimed to date to the year 725 when King Morgan (then ruler of part of south east Wales) is said to have established the first trial by jury, apparently saying these words:

 

“For as Christ and his twelve apostles were finally to judge the world, so human tribunals should be composed of the king and twelve wise men.”

 

Twelve Angry Men regularly tops the charts as one of the best films of all time. The 1957 production starring and co-produced by Henry Fonda follows a twelve-man jury in a sweltering New York County Court House as they consider the case of a teenager from the slums charged with the murder of his abusive father. 

 

The film begins as the judge - who appears thoroughly disinterested in the case - tells the jury before they begin their deliberations that their verdict must be unanimous and that if there is any reasonable doubt they must find the defendant not guilty. A guilty verdict will result in the death of the boy, by electric chair. 

 

Through their discussion of the case while locked in the jury room, we learn it has been presented as open and shut.

 

A neighbour testified as witnessing the boy stabbing his father when she got out of bed and looked out from her apartment through the windows of a passing train. A second witness stated they heard the stabbing take place, heard the body of the boy’s father falling to the floor and then saw the boy running away. An unusual knife - matching the description of one recently bought by the boy (which he claims he lost) was found at the murder scene, wiped clean of finger prints. 

 

The foreman of the jury calls a preliminary vote. Eleven come down in favour of a guilty verdict. One man, Mr Davis, an architect played by Henry Fonda, votes not guilty. He argues that not all the facts presented seems to add up - and feels the boy’s court-appointed lawyer didn’t sufficiently challenge the evidence offered by the prosecution. Mr Davis pulls out an identical knife he bought in the neighborhood where the boy lived -  proving it is not a unique design as was claimed in court. He suggests another vote, at which he will abstain. If all vote guilty, he will not raise any further objections. Again one person votes not guilty, this time the elderly Mr McCardle, who was convinced by Davis’ appeal for further discussion.

 

Davis goes on to argue that the noise of the passing train would have obscured everything the second witness claimed he had heard.

 

Slowly more jurors begin to have doubts about the evidence against the boy - and start looking deeper at what was presented to them in court. They change their votes to not guilty. The tally reaches a stalemate.

 

The tenth man on the jury states that because the boy is Latino he must be guilty - as people like him from the slums are always up to no good and killing each other with knives. He calls on the jury to reach a guilty verdict so they can all go home. His racist outburst irritates and embarrasses the others and he is ordered not to speak again. Mr Davis explains how it is impossible for anyone to see through all their prejudices. 

 

Another juror, a strait-laced stockbroker, remains convinced the defendant is guilty and considers the testimony of the first eye-witness to be unchallengeable. After he has finished speaking, he removes his glasses and rubs the bridge of his nose where they keep pressing into his skin. Mr McCardle remembers the first witness doing the same, even though she didn’t wear any glasses to court. This is the stockbroker’s epiphany moment. While his glasses are off, he begins to see more clearly. He starts to doubt the testimony he heard - unsure whether the first witness could have really seen what she claimed as she got out of bed without her glasses. He changes his vote and the remaining jurors bar one follow suit.

 

The final juror to hold out for a guilty verdict eventually changes his mind, realising his own poor relationship with his son is preventing him from seeing the defendant’s point of view. 

 

The jury decides unanimously that the boy is not guilty. The verdict is given by the judge off-screen and the jury walk out of the Court House. The sweltering heat having given way to refreshing rain.

 

Inside the courtroom the twelve men think they are seeing the facts presented before them. Seeing a diligent judge and lawyers at work. They all see the holes in the evidence, but say nothing at the time, taking everything at face value; groupthink driven by their various prejudices against the boy clouding their vision. But one by one in the jury room, beginning with Mr Davis, they each have an epiphany moment. They each begin to see the possibility that the boy may not be guilty - but a victim of injustice by a system and a society that sees young men like him in only one way. 

 

This captivating courtroom drama urges us to take a good look at ourselves before we judge others; to be aware of the prejudices clouding our vision; to remain hopeful that justice will prevail for all those who keep knocking at its door; that we will act rightly when the time comes as we hope others would do for us; and to be prepared that the path to the truth can be narrow and difficult to navigate. 

 

Twelve Angry Men seems to me to be a dramatisation of the passage from Matthew’s gospel that we heard this evening.

 

Or perhaps - like the black cap and the twelve members of the jury - I’m seeing yet another questionable link between Christianity and the legal world?!

 

I invite you to watch the film - and judge for yourselves!