Deepening Literature Study by Teaching with Primary Sources Twelve Angry Men and the Evolving History of a “Jury of Peers”

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

Reginald Rose's teleplay Twelve Angry Men (1955, screenplay 1957) is often taught in high school classrooms as a character study or a lesson in rhetoric and persuasion. Teachers and students grapple with questions over which juror applies persuasive moves to whom, and how characters evolve and respond to rhetorical pressures. But the play is also a dramatization of an 800-year-old unresolved question that the American legal system has never fully settled: what, exactly, is a jury of peers, and who gets to decide who qualifies as a peer? Pairing the play with a curated set of primary source texts allows students to read Rose's twelve unnamed jurors not as isolated fictional characters, but as the latest entry in a long historical argument—one that was still being fought in real courtrooms the same year Rose wrote his teleplay—and is still evolving today.

Twelve Angry Men (Rose 1957/2006) Penguin Random House.

Why Teach Literature with Primary Sources and Visual Texts?

Existing empirical research explores how humanities teachers (e.g., ELA and social studies) integrate visual texts in instruction to support student learning and comprehension of disciplinary content (Brugar, 2017; Capello & Walker, 2016; Guo et al., 2024; Pantaleo, 2015; Roberts & Brugar, 2014; 2017). Brugar (2017) surveyed K-12 social studies teachers who reported using artifacts, diagrams, graphs, illustrations, maps, and other visual texts, finding that many integrated primary sources and visual texts for largely decorative purposes and initial student engagement. Guo et al. (2024) explored how ELA and social studies preservice teachers used visuals for instructional purposes, finding they most often used them to conduct teacher-led activities, such as aiding lectures or prompting student recall. Using visuals to conduct student-centered activities such as student presentations or discussion were present but occurred least often in PST lesson plans (Guo et al., 2024). Further empirical work examines the influence of visual texts on literacy development in elementary grades (Roberts & Brugar, 2014; Roberts & Brugar, 2017) finding that students require explicit, direct instruction about how to interpret visual texts. Similarly, Pantaleo (2015) found that when provided with the opportunity and instruction in ELA class, students were able to develop awareness of the characteristics of visuals that influence understanding and meaning. This brief overview indicates that learning activities can be deepened with the inclusion of primary sources, data visualizations, and visual texts, and importantly, that teachers should thoughtfully select, curate, and integrate these materials to serve disciplinary learning, community building, and student curiosity.

The Library of Congress and National Archives are both essential resources for English language arts teachers looking to extend, critique, and intensify literature study in their classrooms through the inclusion of primary source documents and visual texts. The Library of Congress devotes considerable resources to supporting educators to research, select, and curate primary sources for classroom instruction. The TPS Collective has ample practical, peer-reviewed resources teachers can explore for lesson planning ideas, as well as a collection of reflective practice articles. ELA teachers building their familiarity with visual literacy and primary source integration can begin with the Library of Congress’s Primary Source Analysis Tool to support students' critical analysis and ability to engage in slow looking.

Slow looking is defined by Shari Tishman (2018) as “taking the time to carefully observe more than meets the eye at first glance” (p. 2). Tishman (2018) argues that the act of slow looking is a “mode of learning” and through sustained observation we gain “knowledge about the world” that supports critical thinking skills (p. 2). She presents three reasons why it is important for us to attend to slow looking: it is a “counterbalance to our habit of “fast looking,” it’s typically “underemphasized in general education,” and that—as humans—we share the value of “careful observation” (Tishman, 2018, p.  5-7). Tishman (2018) believes that slow looking is a skill we are all capable of learning which can deepen our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Connected to the concept of slow looking, the work of Capello and Walker (2016) explores upper elementary and middle school teachers’ use and perceptions of Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) finding visuals to be valuable tools for teaching “core curriculum” and increasing accessibility for all learners.

 Educator resources at the National Archives also support document analysis and interdisciplinary study of literature through civics education, history and historical perspectives, and place-based lenses that widen the interpretive aperture of literary texts. Widening a reader’s gaze takes them both into and beyond the text, inviting students to consider the time, place, and intention of the author as well as larger social/cultural movements and historical events. We also refer to Smithsonian resources, including art from the National Portrait Gallery, as visual texts to electrify classroom conversation and help students orient the modern moment to historical contexts.

12 Angry Men film poster. 1957.

In the following sections we use Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose as a shared whole-class text study organized around two essential questions. In addition to using the film version of the teleplay, our goal is to highlight primary source documents that would support inquiry and enrichment through visual text investigation. Our hope is that this multimodal text set serves as an example of how ELA and humanities teachers can curate texts for powerful interdisciplinary investigation that deepen our connections to literature and push us out into the world.

Two essential questions, two different kinds of evidence

Teaching Twelve Angry Men with a curated set of primary source documents and visuals enriches students inquiry into any number of essential questions (EQ), including the ones guiding this example. To investigate the EQ: What is a jury of peers? we propose examination of a series of aspirational, philosophical documents and visual texts including paintings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, accompanying their words describing representative government and trial by jury.

​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.

Image 3 of The Stamp Act, 1765. Library of Congress.

A view of the obelisk erected under Liberty-tree in Boston on the rejoicings for the repeal of the ---- Stamp Act 1766. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Patrick Henry before the Virginia House of Burgesses May 30, 1765, Engraving by Jones, Alfred,1852. Title from original painting by Peter F. Rothermel after which the engraving was made. Painting in collection of Red Hill, Patrick Henry National Memorial, Brookneal, Virginia. Engraving, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

President John Adams, artist unknown; National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.

Thomas Jefferson, writing to Thomas Paine, July 11, 1789, described the need for trial by jury to be taken up as legal practice across the fledgling country; stating, “the trial by jury . . . I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it’s constitution.” Jefferson’s emphasis, and the fervent belief of other founders, that trial by impartial jury, the right not to incriminate oneself, and the protection against double jeopardy became integral components of the Bill of Rights. Rose's play and the jurors within it engage, debate, and contradict these beliefs in real time. In Act II, the 10th Juror shows clear prejudice against the defendant and people like him:

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.

In Act I, the 3rd Juror hints at his inability to remain impartial by explaining the strained relationship he has with his son, who is about the same age as the defendant, "He's twenty... when he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotton kid." (p. 17-18). The 3rd Juror is projecting the issues he has with his son onto the case which made it personal for him. This has caused him to become an unfairly harsh and biased juror.

​Jefferson’s entire letter can be found in the National Archives Founders Online collection.

Thomas Jefferson by David Edwin after Rembrandt Peale, 1801; National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.

Students reading the play can consider the importance across time periods of trial by jury. Why would the early founders of the United States be so committed to this concept? How do the jurors in the play respond to the 8th juror’s honest confusion and concern over his feelings of responsibility in acting as a juror? Other jurors want to rush ahead with their decision; “it’s practically all said already. We can talk about it forever.” (7th Juror, p. 17) and “Listen, I don’t see what all this stuff about the knife has to do with anything. Somebody saw the kid stab his father. What more do we need? I got three garages of mine going to pot while you’re talking. Let’s get done and get outa here” (10th Juror, p. 25).
​
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. 

Through the Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Students can view James Madison’s personal copy (1789) of the Proposed Articles of Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which would become the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. 

​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. 

A bill of rights as provided in the ten original amendments to the constitution of the United States in force December 15, 1791. Created in 1950. Library of Congress Printed Ephemera Collection; Portfolio 244, Folder 44.

The United States hosted the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta for the 1939 New York World’s Fair. British government saw this exchange as an opportunity to strengthen ties with the United States during the rising crisis in Europe. This effort was cultural and historical as much of both legal systems and citizen’s rights were influenced by the Magna Carta. The British Magna Carta’s stay in the United States was extended due to risks from travel during wartime. It traveled from New York to the Library of Congress, with consent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was later returned to Lincoln Cathedral in 1946.

Title: Public views Magna Carta after deposited in Congressional Library. Washington, D.C., Nov. 28, 1939. Shortly after the historical Magna Carta was placed in the Congressional Library for safekeeping by British Ambassador Lord Lothian. Today the public was allowed to view it under the watchful eyes of library guards. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2016876673/

A second EQ, Who defines “peers”? can be explored with students through a very different, more complex set of primary source texts. This exploration highlights the patriotic core conveyed through Rose’s play and the theme that all people are deserving of equal rights, opportunities, and humanity. The following set of documents for inquiry demonstrates how within American jurisprudence, the idea of who constitutes a jury of peers and who can and should define “peers” has dramatically changed over time.

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. 

A grand jury indicted within a week (from left) Clarence Norris, 19; Olen Montgomery, 17, Andrew Wright, 19 Willie Roberson, 17, Ozie Powell, 16, Eugene Williams, 13, Charlie Weems, 19, Leroy Wright, 13, and Haywood Patterson,18. Bettman, Getty Images.

On April 19, 2013, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed legislation officially pardoning and exonerating all nine Scottsboro Boys. Their bravery should inspire high school readers, as themes of prejudice and preconception are woven throughout Rose’s text.

U.S. Reports: Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935). Library of Congress.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 created space for wider groups of people to serve as jurors; yet the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 then rescinded those rights. Students can also investigate additional distinctions between legal precedence and exclusionary everyday practice – as when considering the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), students may assume it put women on juries. However, the honest answer is that it didn’t, not really, not until Taylor v. Louisiana in 1975 finally struck down laws letting women opt out by default. The United States’ history of legal exclusion and loopholes is still very present. The Thirteenth Amendment was set to purge slavery from the U.S., except through the means of criminal punishment. This criminal punishment clause still exists today.

Title. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865).

This Constitutional amendment, ratified in 1865, declared slavery illegal, except as a means for criminal punishment. Our current criminal justice system still includes acts of inequality and unfairness, as some would argue that prisoners within state and federal prisons can work for little to no pay.

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, declared that the right to vote could not be infringed on account of sex. This became the first big leap in women's rights, as it allowed women to have their own influence in American politics and laws. However, only after the 1975 Taylor v. Lousiana decision was it confirmed in statute that women had the right to serve on juries.

U.S. Reports: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). U.S. Reports: Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). | Library of Congress Library of Congress.

Supplementing a shared reading of Twelve Angry Men with primary source documents can enrich students’ understanding of the play’s themes, while also building civic education. Our suggestions are only introductory ideas for collaborating with your students and colleagues to build an interdisciplinary text set that asks new questions and excites readers. The responsibility of serving as a juror is a core civic service to our communities for all Americans. Investigating visual texts and primary sources can develop critical analytic skills through slow looking and parsing the text features and rhetorical/visual structures used by artists, writers, and historical figures. We leave you with the words of the 8th Juror, speaking on behalf of the power of trial by jury:

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).