This is a 1990 film adaptation of the best-selling novel of the same name by Scott Turow. It was directed by Alan J. Pakula, the film stars Harrison Ford, John Spencer, Brian Dennehy, Raul Juliá, Bonnie Bedelia, Paul Winfield and Greta Scacchi.
The lead character is Rozat “Rusty” Sabich who is a prosecutor of Kindle county and the right hand man of the chief prosecutor Raymond Horgan. He is shocked by the murder of his ex-mistress Carolyn Polhemus and is put in charge of the investigation by Horgan. Polhemus had dumped Sabich after learning about his friend ship with Horgan and his lack of ambition. Sabich had since made up with his wife Barbara but could not erase Polhemus from his mind. The head of homicide Tommy Molto has left to assist Nico Della Guardia in his election campaign. Both Molto and Della Guardia are enemies of Sabich.
As the investigation progresses incriminating evidence come up against Sabich. This included Beer glasses with his finger prints, Carpet threads from his home and sperm recovered from the body of Polhemus are incriminating evidences. These proofs even turns Horgan against Sabich and he feels that Sabich had taken charge to in the case to cover up the investigation trail against him. Sabich is truly trapped and calls his friend Lipranzer to narrow the investigation to keep his affair with Polhemus away from the case. But more bad news arrive with Della Guardia’s victory. Both Guardia and Molto aggressively pursue the evidence and try to frame Sabich.

In his desperation Sabich enlists the help of his rival attorney Stern to help him. Stern soon starts chipping at the evidence. He notices that the beer glass has been missing as evidence and persuades the Judge Lyttle to keep this from the Jury. Lipranzer also find evidence that Polhemus was acting as a courier for an high official in a bribery scandal. The high official turns to be Judge Lyttle. The missing beer glass and other evidences make the defense arguments weak and Lyttle fairly dismisses the case against Sabich. Stern tells Sabich about the bribery scandal and tells him that Lyttle is essentially a good judge and deserves a chance.
Sabich is highly bitter as he feels that the stain of murder is not completely not washed from his head. But in an unusual twist while gardening he comes across vials of Blood and Polhemus’s hair. He confronts his wife Barbara with the evidence. Barbara confesses that she had fallen in to depression after his affair with Polhemus and had killed the mistress to avenge her shame. She had planted the beer glasses and the carpet threads to frame Sabich.
Sabich is stunned but cannot bring himself to to separate Barbara from their son and he tosses the evidence out. This movie did an average business at the box office. It won the Edgar Allan Poe award for best film and was favorite with the critics. A good movie if you are a action buff and are interested in court room intrigues.

This movie was adapted from a book by Maxwell Anderson, “The True story of Christopher, Emmanuel Balestrero” and is based on a true life incident.
It deals with a couple who fight for justice when the husband is convicted as a result of a mistaken identity. Manny Balestrero, a musician in a night club and his wife Rose live a hand and mouth existence. He tries to borrow money against Rose’s insurance for some dental work which needs to be done. While he is at he insurance office, the clerk notices that he resembles the armed robber who had robbed the office. He calls in the police and soon the witnesses are marched in who swear to have seen him robing the office. Manny tries to prove his innocence, but fails. Even in his handwriting sample, in his nervousness, he misspells the same words that the robber himself had mis-spelt. Soon Manny is taken in to custody and the trial begins.
The couple hire Frank O’Connor as the defense attorney who builds up the case in their favor. He argues that Manny and Rose were on a vacation during the first robbery. But the 3 witnesses who had seen them during the vacation had died and this alibi also fails to impress. During the second robbery Manny had a swollen jaw which would have been easily noticeable by the insurance agency employee.

Rose is unable to bear the strain of this ordeal and soon buckles under pressure. She is confined to the sanitarium and is treated for depression. During the trial a bored Juror passes a remark which makes the judge to declare a mistrial. Manny is forced to await another trial in prison. As luck could have it the real robber is arrested and Manny is set free. He reaches Rose with the happy news but finds her apathetic. Soon Rose is cured and the family moves to Florida.
This movie was based on a true life story and is the last movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock for Warner bros. After this he made pictures only for Paramount. This movie is said to have been the only true story in Hitchcock’s entire body of work. He is said to have hated the police and this sentiment is amply reflected in this movie. Hitchcock even did a cameo as the story teller in the movie and this is the only time he has appeared in any one of his pictures. He even cast the real Balesstrero witnesses in small parts for the movie. The real life Frank O’Connor is a New York Senator who rises to a appellate Judge.
The wrong man failed to impress at the box office, but is considered a classic. This movie has significant influence on many directors, and was influenced in making of the 2006 movie Lucky Number Slevin.

12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama adapted from the tele-play of the same name by Reginald Rose. It was directed by Sidney Lumet and is the only film co-produced by Henry Fonda. It tells the story of a jury, made of twelve men, who has to find a defendant guilty or not guilty and also come up with the appropriate sentencing. This entire 96 minutes of the movie takes place in the jury room adjoining the court room. So ultimately this movie utilizes only one set and is said to have been shot with a very low budget.
This jury of twelve men has to deliberate whether the defendant, a slum boy, is guilty of killing his father. The two witnesses are one old man and a lady across the street. The boy has a very weak alibi and there are considerable number of witnesses who heard cries or saw him checking the wound. The most interesting part of this movie is the fact that almost all the characters are unnamed except for the two jurors, at the end. At first, all the jurors except juror No. 8 vote for a guilty verdict. Since American law states that for a criminal offense, all the jurors should give a unanimous verdict, or it may result in a mistrial.

At the insistence of juror No. 8, the others start examining the evidence again and soon start having doubts. Soon juror No. 9 switches sides, and votes with No. 8 resulting in a stalemate. Soon other dissenting voices crop up as they further examine the evidences. Juror Nos 5, 6 and 11 also vote with No. 8 and No.9. These deliberations tire No. 7, who just takes their side to get it over with.
Soon the personality clashes wand psychological conflicts come up to the surface. Angry exchanges and outbursts also undermine the process. Juror number one is so consumed by racial hatred that he just thinks the boy guilty because of his Hispanic origin. The last jury member, No. 3, confesses that his own past would have colored his actions. No. 3 has a running feud with his son, who had raised his hand on the father for trying to mend his ways. These deliberations bring forth the buried feelings to the fore and he breaks down and cries. Juror No: 3 takes out the photograph of him and his son and tears it apart and votes for the “not guilty” verdict. Juror No.8 comforts him and slowly a consensus is build among the members.
The jury gives the verdict of “Not Guilty” and the defendant is acquitted. At the end of the movie, juror No. 8 and juror No. 9, who have become friends exchange pleasantries and names. This movie was not a big box office success, but is considered as a classic. It is preserved in the US National Film Registry as a very culturally, nationally and aesthetically significant film. It did not win any Oscars even though it was nominated for 3 categories, best picture, best director, and best screenplay. It won the Golden Bean award at the 7th international Berlin film festival.

The title above may seem like it is describing a man fighting for justice for himself, but in fact, the story is about a man fighting to get proper justice for an accused. In the United States, decisions for criminal cases are supposed to be evaluated by a jury made up of fellow citizens, who listen to the evidence, and its presentation by the prosecutors and by the defense; in the end, the jury has to reach a verdict that the judge follows. The movie hinges on the fact that for serious crimes, the verdict of the 12 member jury has to be unanimous, and if even one juror objects and does not agree to a unanimous verdict, the jury is called a hung trail, with the case being declared as a mistrial. There is pressure on the minority jury members to reach a verdict, else the jury has to sit for as long as it takes to reach a verdict; it is only if the foreman reaches a decision that a unanimous verdict cannot be reached, does the jury get dismissed.

The movie is about the murder trial of a teenager from poor and disturbed circumstances, who is accused of killing his father. The presentation of evidence is over, the lawyers have made their arguments, and the jury is now deliberating on the judgment. They have been instructed by the judge that they need to reach a verdict of whether the defendant is guilty of murder or not, and if they do reach a verdict of guilty, then the defendant will be sentenced to a mandatory sentence of death.
When a quick vote is taken, it is found that 11 of the jurors (all 12 are white men) are in favor of a death sentence, only Juror # 8 (Henry Fonda) does not vote guilty. In fact, Henry Fonda is not sure about the guilty or not, but believes that some of the evidence presented is circumstantial, and that the jurors must do a fair deliberation before judging the accused to be guilty (and sending him to his death). And thus, you have an excellent movie where you can see the mood of the jury (and individual jurors), as they go through the evidence, deliberate, and review their vote. Jurors change their votes depending on the evidence they hear during the discussion, with a few of them reversing their votes, and one of them voting guilty only because he is bigoted. Eventually, all of them change their vote to Not Guilty.
The movie was based almost entirely in one room, through the deliberations by the jury members, excepting for a couple of scenes in a washroom, and beginning and closing scenes on the steps of the courtroom. The movie did not so well commercially, but has now been recognized as a classic movie, with the role of Juror # 8 being one of the top 50 heroes.