How would you decide your verdict as a juror in a first-degree murder trial? This is the question that the people in “Twelve Angry Jurors” have to answer. The School of Dramatic Arts reproduced this all-time classic about the United States justice and legal process and put it on stage at McClintock Theatre this March.

Originally written by Reginald Rose, adapted for the stage by Sherman L. Sergel and directed by Robert Bailey, “Twelve Angry Jurors” was set on an extremely hot day in 1971. Jurors from all walks of life were locked up in a room where they would need to decide whether a 19-year-old boy was guilty of the murder of his father. While the witnesses’ testimonies and other tangible evidence presented by the court all seemed to confirm the boy’s crime, there was still reasonable doubt. 

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

Unlike others who were eager to end their jury duty as soon as possible, Juror #8 — played by Derek Rabin, a senior majoring in acting for the stage, screen and new media — requested the votes not to be cast hastily for the sake of justice. The play not only discussed the U.S. judicial process but also included other social topics such as race and immigration. 

Because of the setting, one of the challenges the production faced was the potential monotony and staticity of the single, confined scene — the jury room. 

However, the production team thoughtfully incorporated staging techniques by having a water cooler and a coffee maker on the two ends of the room. This enabled the characters to move freely while also justifying their movements and interactions with one another. The only issues were the moments when half of the jurors had their backs turned to the audience when sitting around the long table at the center of the room, affecting the overall viewing experience.

In this single-scene play with numerous actors present on stage simultaneously, the creation of distinct characters was a challenge. The actors emphasized their body language to demonstrate their personalities and other features. 

Juror #9 — played by Nathaniel Hicks, a senior majoring in acting for the stage, screen and new media — was particularly impressive. As an old man, Juror #9 hunched and wobbled. He was also slow when getting his water. Juror #2 — played by Sophie Hall, a senior majoring in theatre — also convinced audiences of their unconfident and timid character as they stood stiffly and awkwardly, fidgeting and overall presenting closed body language. 

The disagreement and conflicts were mainly between Juror #8 and Juror #3 — who was played by Emma Woodward, a senior majoring in acting for the stage, screen and new media. Juror #8, played by Rabin, was the center of the play and exhibited leadership and unwavering commitment to justice. He was the only one who never deemed the accused boy guilty of his father’s murder. It was difficult to be the only person standing against all others and then patiently persuading them with careful analysis, yet Rabin showed his confidence through his firm voice and determined look.

Juror #8 was the character with emotional and technical skill demands, which Rabin handled exceptionally well. He presented a confident figure determined for the pursuit of justice, which intrigued the audience, making them want to learn more about Juror #8’s personal story and experiences, which is slightly lacking in the play.

Meanwhile, as the one who was most insistent on the boy’s guilt and only changed her vote at the very end, Woodward’s Juror #3 was a more complex character. Juror #3 told her personal story and the conflicts with her son clarify her motivation and decision, making her anger and frustrations reasonable throughout the entire play. 

The play also touched on issues of immigration and xenophobia. Juror #11 — played by Sharlee Fuentes, a senior majoring in acting for the stage, screen and new media — is an immigrant to the U.S. who was born into poverty and didn’t even have access to movies during her upbringing. 

Whenever she tried to talk about her past and her pursuit of justice, she was often ignored. Although some of the jurors tried to express the importance of learning about other countries and their history, the argument failed to go beyond that, making it a mere slogan that did not invite the audience to contemplate.

The production is commendable for creating dynamics between characters in a single-scene play and offers a straightforward presentation of the American judicial system as well as the society overcoming personal prejudices through democratic discussions and negotiations. 

It is also especially important in offering the audience to think about the possible solutions to the current day of social polarization and division by listening and negotiating with each other with patience and respect. 

“Twelve Angry Jurors” will be in the theater until March 24.