12 Angry Men

Directed by Ric O’Dell


Auditions will be held on Sunday, June 23rd and Wednesday, June 26th, 2019 at 7:00pm at the Northwind Wireless Fibe Centre (community centre) in Constance Bay (directions). 

All are welcome, and women are invited to audition. 

At the director’s discretion, jurors can be cast as women in which case the play will be billed as 12 Angry Jurors.


The drama depicts a jury forced to consider a homicide trial. At the beginning, they have a nearly unanimous decision of guilty, with a single dissenter of not-guilty, who throughout the play sows a seed of reasonable doubt. The story begins after closing arguments have been presented in the homicide case, as the judge is giving his instructions to the jury. As in most American criminal cases, the twelve men must unanimously decide on a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”. (In the justice systems of nearly all American states, failure to reach a unanimous verdict, a so-called “hung jury”, results in a mistrial.) The case at hand pertains to whether a young man murdered his own father. The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. These twelve then move to the jury room, where they begin to become acquainted with the personalities of their peers. Throughout their deliberation, not a single juror calls another by his name because the names are unknown to the jurors. Several of the jurors have different reasons for discriminating against the defendant: his race, his background, and the troubled relationship between one juror and his own son.


Juror #1Non-confrontational, Juror #1 serves as the foreman of the jury. He is serious about his authoritative role and wants to be as fair as possible.
Juror #2He is the timidest man of the group, and is easily persuaded by the opinions of others, and cannot explain the roots of his opinions.
Juror #3Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper and often infuriated when other members disagree with his opinions.
Juror #4A logical, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror #4 urges his fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion.
Juror #5This young man is nervous about expressing his opinion, especially in front of the elder members of the group. He grew up in the slums. He has witnessed knife-fights, an experience that will later help other jurors form an opinion.
Juror #6Described as an “honest but dull-witted man,” Juror #6 is a house painter by trade. He is slow to see the good in others.
Juror #7A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman, Juror #7 admits during Act One that he would have done anything to miss jury duty. He represents the many real-life individuals who loathe the idea of being on a jury.
Juror #8Described as thoughtful and gentle, Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the most heroic member of the jury. He is devoted to justice and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old defendant.
Juror #9Juror #9 is described as a “mild, gentle old man, defeated by life and waiting to die.”
Juror #10The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror #10 is openly bitter and prejudiced. During Act Three he unleashes his bigotry to the others in a speech that disturbs the rest of the jury.
Juror #11As a refugee from Europe, Juror #11 has witnessed great injustices. That is why he is intent on administering justice as a jury member. He sometimes feels self-conscious about his foreign accent. He conveys a deep appreciation for democracy and America’s legal system.
Juror #12He is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. He is anxious for the trial to be over so that he can get back to his career and his social life.