Juror 7’s character is created to provide maximum irritation to the other jurors and the audience. He is obsessed by baseball and constantly brings the idea of baseball into all the discussions. The first impression of him is negative; he is impatient, dismissive and sarcastic. His focus is on himself, “Yeah, let’s vote. Maybe we can all go home.” He’s made it clear that the baseball game that evening is his priority. He has already made his mind up that the defendant is guilty.
”I mean asking grown-up people to believe that kind of bullshit.” The fact that the defendant has a record is confirmation for Juror 3 that he must be guilty and he doesn’t see the need for any discussion. He’s already made it clear that he sees the whole process as a “goddamn waste of time.”
In Act II, Juror 7 dismisses the idea there could be reasonable doubt and is keen to tell the judge that they have a hung jury “this kid wouldn’t stand a chance with another jury and you know it.” He reveals his prejudice when he insults Juror 11 calling him “arrogant” and dismissing refugees as “all alike” and threatening to “knock his goddamn Middle-European head off.” When Juror 7 announces “I’m changing my vote to not guilty” the other jurors are shocked that he could be so shallow. Juror 11 asks him “don’t you have the guts to do what you think is right?” It’s clear that “some baseball tickets are burning a hole in (his) pocket” are more important to him than making a decision that affects a man’s life. Rose makes Juror 7’s change to not guilty shocking to the audience and the other jurors, because Juror 7 clearly attaches so little importance to the decision they have to make.
Juror 4 has nothing in common with the defendant; he is a stockbroker, self-assured and intelligent. He makes his prejudice clear when he refers to “slums” as the “breeding grounds for criminals” and sees the defendant as “a product of a filthy neighbourhood and a broken home.” Juror 4 bases his confidence on the defendant’s guilt by logically going through the facts. He itemises them and concludes that “This is the charming and imaginative little fable the boy invented.” However, his reliance on ‘the facts’ as he sees them is immediately undermined when Juror 8 produces an identical knife.
Juror 4 is still convinced of the boy’s guilt. His calm nature is ruffled when the 8th Juror applies the same pressure and relentless questioning, asking him the details of “the second feature” of the previous Monday night. “4th juror takes a handkerchief and wipes his suddenly sweating forehead.” The 8th juror asks “and you weren’t under an emotional, were you?”
Juror 4’s certainty of the defendant’s guilt is still unshaken and he still puts his reliance on facts. The last fact being the woman eye-witness’ unshakeable
testimony.” However, this is also demolished when he realises as a fellow eye-glass wearer that “no-one wears eye-glasses to bed.”
