Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / RogueJuror

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Literature/JuliusKatz'': In "Eleven Angry Jurors and One Befuddled Julius," Julius serves on a jury in a murder case that seems to prove the defendant's guilt definitively but, unlike his fellow jurors, picks up on signs that the man is innocent. However, rather than try to convince the other jurors, he asks the judge and lawyers to let him conduct a private SummationGathering with the key parties. If he exposes the killer, then the case won't have to go to the jury, and if he doesn't, then he'll get booted off the jury for having formed such strong opinions and be replaced with an alternate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** One ''ComicBook/TheBatmanAdventures'' story has Bruce Wayne selected to sit on the jury of a man whom he, as Batman, had arrested trying to kidnap a wealthy couple's baby. As the rest of the jury are taken in by the defendant's innocent act, he has to convince them that the defendant is actually ''guilty''. In an amusing moment, Bruce honestly answers a jury selection question about whether he is fit to sit on the jury by [[SarcasticConfession confessing]] that he is prejudiced about the case because he's actually Batman -- and after everyone stops laughing, the judge tells him to stop jerking around and take things seriously.

to:

** One An issue of ''ComicBook/TheBatmanAdventures'' story has Bruce Wayne selected to sit on the jury of a man whom he, as Batman, had arrested he caught trying to kidnap a wealthy couple's baby. As the baby, (as Batman, not Bruce). The rest of the jury are taken in by the defendant's innocent act, so he has to convince them that the defendant is actually ''guilty''. In an amusing moment, Bruce honestly answers a jury selection question about whether he is fit to sit on the jury by [[SarcasticConfession confessing]] that he is prejudiced about the case because he's actually Batman -- and after everyone stops laughing, the judge tells him to stop jerking around and take things seriously.



** On [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MonkS2E9MrMonkAndTheTwelfthMan Mr. Monk and the 12th Man]], Monk deduces that the victims of a series of seemingly unrelated murders had all served on the same jury. As it tuns out, the suspect was being blackmailed by one of them. However, he didn't know which member of the jury it was, so he [[SerialKillingsSpecificTarget opted to kill everyone in the jury.]]

to:

** On In [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MonkS2E9MrMonkAndTheTwelfthMan Mr. Monk and the 12th Man]], Monk deduces that the victims of a series of seemingly unrelated murders had all served on the same jury. As it tuns out, the suspect was being blackmailed by one of them. However, he didn't know which member of the jury it was, so he [[SerialKillingsSpecificTarget opted to kill everyone in the jury.]]



* On one episode of ''Series/QuincyME'', the titular character found himself on a jury in an apparently open and shut murder case and proceeded to annoy everyone by continually asking questions about the evidence (and deducing the real killer, of course). This also doubles as an ActorAllusion -- Jack Klugman (Quincy) starred as Juror #5 in the 1957 movie version of ''Film/TwelveAngryMen''.

to:

* On In one episode of ''Series/QuincyME'', the titular character found himself on a jury in an apparently open and shut murder case and proceeded to annoy everyone by continually asking questions about the evidence (and deducing the real killer, of course). This also doubles as an ActorAllusion -- Jack Klugman (Quincy) starred as Juror #5 in the 1957 movie version of ''Film/TwelveAngryMen''.



%%* ''Series/{{Newhart}}'' took a turn with this plot too.

to:

%%* ''Series/{{Newhart}}'' took * ''Series/{{Newhart}}'': In "Twelve Annoyed Men and Women", Dick and George have tickets to a turn with this plot too.New England Patriots game. Dick is the foreman of a jury that has trouble agreeing, and he may miss the game.

Added: 460

Changed: 984

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Parodied in ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'': Homer votes "not guilty" just to deadlock the jury, because he's enticed by the notion of being sequestered in a free hotel room with free food, free HBO, a free swimming pool, and Film/FreeWilly. It's just coincidence that the defendant was actually innocent.

to:

* Parodied in ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'': [[Characters/TheSimpsonsHomerSimpson Homer Simpson]] votes "not guilty" just to deadlock the jury, because he's enticed by the notion of being sequestered in a free hotel room with free food, free HBO, a free swimming pool, and Film/FreeWilly. It's just coincidence that the defendant was actually innocent.



** There is an episode centered around this trope, except the trial was a focus group for the new bells-and-whistles lawnmower that would render Hank's lawnmower obsolete. Hank insists the focus group (including his neighbors and his dad) remain for the scheduled length as he convinces them that the new mower is junk.
** In another episode, Hank is a member of the city council because he objects to the new law that makes it illegal to install normal toilets in Arlen; it turns out that one of the other councilmen owns the company that makes low-flow toilets and got the law passed. The other councilmen have never used the new toilets, but since city hall has them installed, Hank pulls a filibuster until everyone needs to go to the bathroom and realizes that they're junk.

to:

** [[Characters/KingOfTheHillHankHill Hank Hill]]
***
There is an episode centered around this trope, except the trial was a focus group for the new bells-and-whistles lawnmower that would render Hank's lawnmower obsolete. Hank insists the focus group (including his neighbors and his dad) remain for the scheduled length as he convinces them that the new mower is junk.
** *** In another episode, Hank is a member of the city council because he objects to the new law that makes it illegal to install normal toilets in Arlen; it turns out that one of the other councilmen owns the company that makes low-flow toilets and got the law passed. The other councilmen have never used the new toilets, but since city hall has them installed, Hank pulls a filibuster until everyone needs to go to the bathroom and realizes that they're junk.



* [[InvertedTrope Inverted]] in one episode of ''WesternAnimation/AmericanDad.'' One of [[JerkAss Roger]]'s personas is on trial and despite the fact that it's blatantly obvious that he did it, he uses his charm to try and KarmaHoudini his way out of it. In this case, Stan is the Rogue Juror, in that he sees right through Roger's act and is sick and tired of him weaseling his way out of being accountable for his actions. In the end, he gets the jury to convict, but '''everyone''', even the judge, is sobbing like a baby.
* ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'': In the episode "12 and a Half Angry Men", a WholePlotReference to ''Film/TwelveAngryMen'', Mayor Adam West is on trial for murdering an aide that was planning to blackmail him, and despite Mayor West being covered in blood during a press conference and the knife used belonging to him, Brian votes not guilty. Eventually, he is able to convince everyone that Mayor West is innocent and he is exonerated. The episode's last scene reveals that West was in fact innocent and that the murder was the work of a serial killer. One that cuts the Griffins' power...

to:

* [[InvertedTrope Inverted]] in one episode of ''WesternAnimation/AmericanDad.'' One of [[JerkAss Roger]]'s personas is on trial and despite the fact that it's blatantly obvious that he did it, he uses his charm to try and KarmaHoudini his way out of it. In this case, [[Characters/AmericanDadStanSmith Stan Smith]] is the Rogue Juror, in that he sees right through Roger's act and is sick and tired of him weaseling his way out of being accountable for his actions. In the end, he gets the jury to convict, but '''everyone''', even the judge, is sobbing like a baby.
* ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'': In the episode "12 and a Half Angry Men", a WholePlotReference to ''Film/TwelveAngryMen'', Mayor Adam West is on trial for murdering an aide that was planning to blackmail him, and despite Mayor West being covered in blood during a press conference and the knife used belonging to him, [[Characters/FamilyGuyBrianGriffin Brian Griffin]] votes not guilty. Eventually, he is able to convince everyone that Mayor West is innocent and he is exonerated. The episode's last scene reveals that West was in fact innocent and that the murder was the work of a serial killer. One that cuts the Griffins' power...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Earlier in the 2nd season, a wealthy man was blackmailed by a rogue juror for killing his wife,got tired of being in thumbscrews, and decided to kill his blackmailer. However, he didn't know which member of the jury it was. so he opted to kill everyone in the jury.

to:

** Earlier in On [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/MonkS2E9MrMonkAndTheTwelfthMan Mr. Monk and the 2nd season, 12th Man]], Monk deduces that the victims of a wealthy man series of seemingly unrelated murders had all served on the same jury. As it tuns out, the suspect was being blackmailed by a rogue juror for killing his wife,got tired one of being in thumbscrews, and decided to kill his blackmailer. them. However, he didn't know which member of the jury it was. was, so he [[SerialKillingsSpecificTarget opted to kill everyone in the jury.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Played by ''Series/{{Castle}}'' in a case where a juror is poisoned; he's killed before deliberations start, but it's revealed that he managed to get himself placed on the jury in the first place in order so that he could act as one of these. [[spoiler:Specifically, he knows that the defendant didn't commit the crime because his brother was with the person who did at the time, but while he doesn't want to throw his brother to the wolves he can't in good conscience let an innocent man go to jail for it.]]

to:

* Played by ''Series/{{Castle}}'' ''Series/{{Castle|2009}}'' in a case where a juror is poisoned; he's killed before deliberations start, but it's revealed that he managed to get himself placed on the jury in the first place in order so that he could act as one of these. [[spoiler:Specifically, he knows that the defendant didn't commit the crime because his brother was with the person who did at the time, but while he doesn't want to throw his brother to the wolves he can't in good conscience let an innocent man go to jail for it.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The arc regarding Greg's AccidentalMurder of Demitrius James in the defense of a man he and a mob were beating up has Sanders trying to defend himself in court and, overall, what looked like an open-and-shut case (Greg saw the crowd, he tried to scare them off with his car, James tried to attack instead, he hit him with the car because he couldn't brake in time, it's all clear) turns into a circus of accusing Greg of alleged PoliceBrutality, racism and even the possibility of having been a DrunkDriver during the act (thus ending with the James family forming IrrationalHatred for cops in general and Greg in specific) because of a jackass juror that wishes "all of the facts being brought to light" and won't vote until he hears them (even interrupting testimonies to question the witnesses).

to:

** The arc regarding Greg's AccidentalMurder of Demitrius James in the defense of a man he and a mob were beating up has Sanders trying to defend himself in court and, overall, what looked like an open-and-shut case OpenAndShutCase (Greg saw the crowd, he tried to scare them off with his car, James tried to attack instead, he hit him with the car because he couldn't brake in time, it's all clear) turns into a circus of accusing Greg of alleged PoliceBrutality, racism and even the possibility of having been a DrunkDriver during the act (thus ending with the James family forming IrrationalHatred for cops in general and Greg in specific) because of a jackass juror that wishes "all of the facts being brought to light" and won't vote until he hears them (even interrupting testimonies to question the witnesses).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


[[caption-width-right:345:Hazing the holdout, [[GoodSmokingEvilSmoking quite literally so.]]]]

to:

[[caption-width-right:345:Hazing the holdout, [[GoodSmokingEvilSmoking quite literally so.]]]]
so]].]]



** ''Comicbook/BatmanAdventures'' once had Bruce Wayne selected to sit on the jury of a man whom he, as Batman, had arrested trying to kidnap a wealthy couple's baby. As the rest of the jury were taken in by the defendant's innocent act, he had to convince them that the defendant was actually ''guilty''. Contained an amusing moment where Bruce, honestly answering a jury selection question about whether he was fit to sit on the jury, [[SarcasticConfession confessed]] that he was prejudiced about the case because he was actually Batman — and after everyone stopped laughing, the judge told him to stop jerking around and take things seriously.
** The ''Comicbook/BatmanTomKing'' storyline "Cold Days" has Bruce, questioning himself in the wake of his aborted wedding, arrange to be on the jury for Mr Freeze's trial, where he's the only juror asking hard questions about Batman's involvement, and asking if being a supervillain is necessarily evidence that Freeze is guilty of this particular crime.

to:

** ''Comicbook/BatmanAdventures'' once had One ''ComicBook/TheBatmanAdventures'' story has Bruce Wayne selected to sit on the jury of a man whom he, as Batman, had arrested trying to kidnap a wealthy couple's baby. As the rest of the jury were are taken in by the defendant's innocent act, he had has to convince them that the defendant was is actually ''guilty''. Contained In an amusing moment where Bruce, moment, Bruce honestly answering answers a jury selection question about whether he was is fit to sit on the jury, jury by [[SarcasticConfession confessed]] confessing]] that he was is prejudiced about the case because he was he's actually Batman -- and after everyone stopped stops laughing, the judge told tells him to stop jerking around and take things seriously.
** The ''Comicbook/BatmanTomKing'' storyline "Cold Days" has Bruce, questioning himself in the wake of his aborted wedding, arrange to be on the jury for Mr Mr. Freeze's trial, where he's the only juror asking hard questions about Batman's involvement, and asking if being a supervillain is necessarily evidence that Freeze is guilty of this particular crime.



* A ''ComicBook/SpiderMan'' story from the late '80s involved a jury deliberating over the fate of an accused criminal apprehended by Spider-Man. Making matters problematic is the holdout juror is Mary Jane Watson-Parker... Spider-Man's wife!

to:

* A ''ComicBook/SpiderMan'' story from the late '80s involved 1980s involves a jury deliberating over the fate of an accused criminal apprehended by Spider-Man. Making matters problematic is the holdout juror is Mary Jane Watson-Parker... Spider-Man's wife!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Independent India used to have Jury trials for criminal cases until a case called [[https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9188-case-analysis-km-nanavati-v-s-state-of-maharashtra-1961-.html Nanavati vs Maharashtra]]. In it, Commander K M Nanavati of the Indian Navy arrived back home from a naval deployment to [[{{Cuckold}} catch his wife sleeping with another man]]. An enraged Nanavati shot his wife’s lover dead, then surrendered to the authorities. In his trial, the entire jury went rogue and acquitted Nanavati despite indisputable evidence - something which incensed the trial judge. From there on, the entire judiciary banded together and forced jury trials to be abolished, as they surmised that the Indian population couldn’t be entrusted with dispensing justice in a dispassionate manner.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her view. Occasionally this will be subverted with the acquitted defendant [[KarmaHoudini turning out to actually be guilty]], or perhaps with [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome the jury remaining deadlocked and forcing the case to a retrial]].

to:

Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her their view. Occasionally this will be subverted with the acquitted defendant [[KarmaHoudini turning out to actually be guilty]], or perhaps with [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome the jury remaining deadlocked and forcing the case to a retrial]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* A 2014 ''ComicStrip/{{Crankshaft}}'' arc had Crankshaft serving on a jury for a man charged with endangerment for recklessly burning papers in his backyard on a dry, windy day. Most of the jurors think it's open and shut -- Ed believes it's exactly what any normal person would do and can't possibly be illegal.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* One episode of ''Radio/AdventuresInOdyssey'' had Eugene on jury duty refusing to convict the defendant until after they discussed the evidence to be sure. The defendant is accused of breaking into a house and robbing its vault but claims that he only broke into the house to be admitted into a gang and they framed him for the robbery. The jury eventually agrees that he is telling the truth because he would not have had enough time to break into the vault during the times between when he was seen on the day the crime took place.

to:

* One episode of ''Radio/AdventuresInOdyssey'' had Eugene on jury duty refusing to convict the defendant until after they discussed the evidence to be sure. sure, much to the displeasure of everyone else who is ready to vote Guilty. The defendant is accused of breaking into a house and robbing its vault safe but claims that he only broke into the house to be admitted into a gang and they framed him for the robbery. The jury eventually agrees Upon the reexamining the evidence, it is discovered that he is telling the truth because he would not have had enough victim's safe in question is one made to used in businesses and offices, which require more time to break into into, time the vault during defendant didn't have. As a result ten members of the times between when he was seen on jury change their vote to Not Guilty, leaving another juror becoming the day lone Guilty vote. The new lone juror, in his argument for a guilty verdict, reveals that used to be the crime took place.defendant's coach on a soccer team, and that he had issues with the defendant's behavior at the time. This naturally causes a mistrial, as the juror lied about not knowing the defendant before the trial, as saying otherwise would have immediately disqualified him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Claire Greene was this in an episode of ''Promised Land'', wanting to acquit a young woman charged with criminally negligent homicide (her son had wandered out into the street while she was asleep and been hit by a car). With every argument she made, she managed to convince other jurors of the woman's innocence. Unusually for this trope, she turned out to be ''wrong''--only after the trial did she learn that the woman had been arrested for child endangerment ''three'' times prior to this incident and that contrary to the image she'd presented in court, she'd returned to the irresponsible behavior that led to her son's death and was now jeopardizing her daughter.

to:

* Claire Greene was this in an episode of ''Promised Land'', ''Series/PromisedLand1996'', wanting to acquit a young woman charged with criminally negligent homicide (her son had wandered out into the street while she was asleep and been hit by a car). With every argument she made, she managed to convince other jurors of the woman's innocence. Unusually for this trope, she turned out to be ''wrong''--only after the trial did she learn that the woman had been arrested for child endangerment ''three'' times prior to this incident and that contrary to the image she'd presented in court, she'd returned to the irresponsible behavior that led to her son's death and was now jeopardizing her daughter.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Earlier in the 1st season, a guy was blackmailed by a rogue juror for killing his wife, but he didn't know who he was so he opted to kill everyone in the jury he was in.

to:

** Earlier in the 1st 2nd season, a guy wealthy man was blackmailed by a rogue juror for killing his wife, but wife,got tired of being in thumbscrews, and decided to kill his blackmailer. However, he didn't know who he was which member of the jury it was. so he opted to kill everyone in the jury he was in.jury.

Added: 590

Changed: 3

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* [[DownplayedTrope Downplayed]] in ''Film/TheRunawayJury'': the rogue juror's task was simply to make the other jurors follow their own predilections rather than actively changing their minds.

to:

* [[DownplayedTrope Downplayed]] in ''Film/TheRunawayJury'': ''Film/RunawayJury'': the rogue juror's task was simply to make the other jurors follow their own predilections rather than actively changing their minds.minds.
* In the early Creator/AlfredHitchcock whodunnit ''Film/{{Murder}}'', the jury at Diana Baring's murder trial initially includes seven "guilty" votes, three "not guilty", and two undecided. However, the two undecided jurors and two of the "not guilty" voters are almost immediately persuaded to vote for conviction, so that the rest of the deliberation embodies the "rogue juror" setup as the lone holdout, Sir John Menier, tries to explain why he doesn't think the evidence against Diana adds up. But as he is unable to do so convincingly, he is ultimately browbeaten into voting "guilty".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* One of ''Literature/TheDresdenFiles'''s short stories sees Harry Dresden (very grudgingly) sitting on the jury for a homicide trial. The other eleven jurors are convinced the defendant is guilty, but Harry quickly figures out that the "victim" was actually a vampire and the defendant killed him in defense of an innocent girl. Harry ends up rescuing the girl from another vampire who is holding her captive to prevent her from testifying in the defendant's defense, then refuses to give a guilty verdict, leading to a hung jury. Upon finding out that the girl the defendant saved was found, the prosecutor decides to drop the charges.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her view. Occasionally this will be subverted with the acquitted defendant [[KarmaHoudini turning out to actually be guilty]], or with [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome the jury remaining deadlocked and forcing a retrial]].

Note that in real life, many jurisdictions do ''not'' require a unanimous jury verdict, either for conviction or acquittal. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and those of its former colonies such as the United States (although the modern UK and US don't always require it, either). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.

to:

Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her view. Occasionally this will be subverted with the acquitted defendant [[KarmaHoudini turning out to actually be guilty]], or perhaps with [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome the jury remaining deadlocked and forcing the case to a retrial]].

Note that in real life, many jurisdictions do ''not'' require a unanimous jury verdict, either whether for conviction or acquittal. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and those of its former colonies such as the United States (although the modern UK and US don't always require it, either). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her view. Occasionally this will be subverted by having the defendant turn out to actually be guilty.

to:

Sometimes another main character will also be on the jury, and will try to change the Rogue Juror's mind. More commonly, the Rogue Juror will manage to gradually bring the rest of the jurors around to his/her view. Occasionally this will be subverted by having with the acquitted defendant turn [[KarmaHoudini turning out to actually be guilty.
guilty]], or with [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome the jury remaining deadlocked and forcing a retrial]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Note that in real life, many jurisdictions do ''not'' require a unanimous jury verdict, either for conviction or acquittal. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and many of its former colonies such as the United States (although the modern UK and US don't always require it, either). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.

to:

Note that in real life, many jurisdictions do ''not'' require a unanimous jury verdict, either for conviction or acquittal. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and many those of its former colonies such as the United States (although the modern UK and US don't always require it, either). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


You've seen it a million times: a character is [[JuryDuty serving on a jury]] and is the lone person holding out for a "not guilty" verdict.

to:

You've seen it this one a million times: a character is [[JuryDuty serving on a jury]] for a criminal trial, and is the lone person holding out for a "not guilty" verdict.



Note that in many jurisdictions, a unanimous jury verdict is not required either to convict or acquit. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and many of its former colonies such as the United States (the modern UK and US also don't always require it, though). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.

to:

Note that in real life, many jurisdictions, jurisdictions do ''not'' require a unanimous jury verdict is not required verdict, either to convict for conviction or acquit. acquittal. However, unanimity is a characteristic of the English judicial system and many of its former colonies such as the United States (the (although the modern UK and US also don't always require it, though).either). Outside of those countries, a Rogue Juror's objection would be futile.

Top