12 Angry Men

Visible crew/equipment: In the scene where Henry Fonda is recreating the testimony of the old man getting out of bed & walking down a hall, you can clearly see a shadow of the camera on the floor.

Visible crew/equipment: When Juror 8 is approaching Juror 4 following the revelation of the witness across the street's eyesight being put under question, as the camera moves in, its shadow is seen moving across the back of Juror 3. (01:28:55)

RVDDP2501

Visible crew/equipment: When Juror 8 is approaching Juror 4 following the revelation of the witness across the street's eyesight being put under question, as the camera moves in, its shadow is seen moving across the back of Juror 3. (01:28:55)

RVDDP2501

More mistakes in 12 Angry Men

Juror #3: That business before when that tall guy, what's-his-name, was trying to bait me? That doesn't prove anything. I'm a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
Juror #4: He did an excellent job.

More quotes from 12 Angry Men

Trivia: Although it's not mentioned by name, the city is obviously New York City, as evidenced by the sighting of the Woolworth Building.

hifijohn

More trivia for 12 Angry Men

Question: Were all-male jury panels the norm in the 1950s?

Answer: Depends where, and the type of case. At the time the film was made, women were still barred from juries in three states (South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama); it wasn't until 1994 that the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers could not strike women from juries solely on the basis of gender. SCOTUS had ruled in 1942 that all-male juries were constitutionally acceptable. New York State (where the story is set) had granted women the right to serve on juries in 1927, so an all-male jury may not have been the norm across the board, but the nature of the crime (murder) would have, at the time, allowed lawyers to exclude women at the jury selection stage by citing the unsavoury aspects of the crime and arguing that the details of the case were not "suitable" for women to hear (being such delicate creatures, you understand /s).

More questions & answers from 12 Angry Men