Meet out Contributors
| Dr. Julianna Lopez Kershen is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum at the University of Oklahoma, where she teaches English language arts and literacy education courses. Her research explores core practices for literacy learning, bridging classrooms with academic inquiry. She received the 2024 Nilsen-Donaldson Award for scholarship in YA literature from The ALAN Foundation and is an AERA-AIR Fellow in the Study of Deeper Learning. Her teaching and research are closely connected, with publications in Teachers and Teaching, English Education, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, English Journal, The ALAN Review, Children’s Literature in Education, and Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. [email protected] |
| Jackson Hall is a Senior Language Arts Education major at the University of Oklahoma. Jackson is an undergraduate researcher in the Honors Research Assistant Program in the Honors College at OU, working with Dr. Kershen on teaching with primary sources. [email protected] |
| Kacy M. Price is a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma studying visual literacy in the department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum. She previously taught high school English for five years in Oklahoma and currently works as a Graduate Research Assistant with Dr. Kershen and is a Teaching Assistant with the Oklahoma Writing Project. [email protected] |
Deepening Literature Study by Teaching with Primary Sources
Twelve Angry Men and the Evolving History of a “Jury of Peers”
by Julianna Lopez Kershen, Jackson Hall, and Kacy M Price
Why Teach Literature with Primary Sources and Visual Texts?
Two essential questions, two different kinds of evidence
The second President of the United States, John Adams, writing in the Clarendon Letters stated that trial by jury was “the heart and lungs of liberty.” Early American leaders, held firm views about the value of trial by jury, established in the 1215 Magna Carta (described below) and reaffirmed in the 1689 British Bill of Rights. However, as the American Revolution increased in power, Great Britain responded by taking away the right to trial by jury. The 1765 Stamp Act forced colonists who violated that law to appear in admiralty courts with no juries. Colonists issued a formal response to Parliament, protesting with the call of “no taxation without representation.” Trial by jury was understood to be an “inherent and invaluable right” of every British subject in the Colonies.
That kid on trial, his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as we are. Thet’s the statistic. Five times. And they are-wild animals. They’re against us, they hate us, they want to destroy us.... if we don’t smack them down whenever we can, then they are gonna own us. (p. 65).
The 10th Juror has already decided how he feels about the defendant simply because of where the defendant lives.
Jefferson’s entire letter can be found in the National Archives Founders Online collection.
Students can also explore The Magna Carta Project, especially Magna Carta’s Clause 39 (written in 1215). Clause 39 is the first appearance of the phrase “judgment of his peers” as legal language relating to trials. Clause 39 stands as the precedent for what will become every American’s right to trial by jury of peers. The concept of trial by jury travels forward across hundreds of years, being affirmed and written into the United States Constitution. While reading Twelve Angry Men students can explore a direct textual lineage from 13th-century England to America’s founding documents and the modern courtroom.
The Magna Carta was written in the early 13th century by feudal lords of England who were outraged by King John’s heavy fees and taxes, which were imposed to pay for wars that he was losing. This caused the barons to rebel and forced the king to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the monarchy’s powers to raise taxes on their own accord and guaranteed a trial by jury. The founding fathers of the United States of America used the Magna Carta as a legal framework for their newly declared free country. The Bill of Rights later amended to the Constitution includes many rights directly modeled after the Magna Carta, such as the sixth amendment, which guarantees a speedy and fair trial.
The Assize of Clarendon (1166) is worth starting with, even though it predates the Magna Carta, because it reframes the question and aligns with the positions of some jurors in Rose’s text. The Assize of Clarendon makes clear that the earliest juries weren't impartial deciders at all, but local informants reporting their neighbors while under oath. In other words, previously, jurors acted as witnesses and accusers, not impartial fact-checkers. This short video by Annenburg classroom summarizes the English History of Juries presents the Assizes and how King Henry’s writings shifted earlier concepts of what it meant to be a juror.
In the United States, the concept of what it means to be a juror, who can be a juror, and what defines a “jury of peers” has changed over time. American legal history outlines a path of exclusion from juries: colonial slave codes barring enslaved and free Black people from testifying or serving; the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause; then Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) striking down explicit racial exclusion. However, Norris v. Alabama (1935), also known as the Scottsboro case, proved racial exclusion was still practiced. The Scottsboro Nine were convicted of crimes they never committed. In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict in Norris v. Alabama which stated that the trials had been unfair because there were no Black men on the jury. This case would eventually help lead to the integration of juries. The Scottsboro cases have a long legal history.
It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. . . Nine of us now seem to think the defendant is innocent, but we’re just gambling on probabilities. We may be wrong. We may be trying to return a guilty man to the community. No one can really know. But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard that has enormous value in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure. (8th Juror, p. 66).














RSS Feed