Twelve Angry Jurors
at Duke Ellington School of the Arts

Reviewed on April 8, 2022

Clare A'Hearn
McLean High School
Submitted for publication to Cappies News

Heat, hearsay, and human nature. A lone voice for acquittal in the midst of eleven hands voting guilty. In this compelling rendition of "Twelve Angry Jurors" at Duke Ellington School of the Arts, tensions were high in the courtroom as the fragility of the human condition was put on trial.

Written by Reginald Rose and originally known as "Twelve Angry Men," based on the 1954 teleplay, "Twelve Angry Jurors" centers around the case of a nineteen year old who stands accused of murdering his father in the first degree. Twelve jurors of different genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses sit in a locked room tasked with deciding one man's fate. The premise is simple, but the decision the jurors must reach is not.

Standing alone as the singular "not guilty" vote was Santiago Moriarty as Juror 8. Juror 8's adamance about the weight of their decision was underscored by Moriarty's thought-provoking sermons and slammed fists in an outburst of emotions. He balanced these varying emotions through adroit line delivery and consistent composure, presenting contradictory arguments to discover reasonable doubt in the case, a feat that required firmness and silent strength from Moriarty.

Challenging any expression of doubt was Nasir Gosmon-Walker as Juror 3. He maintained confidence in the guilt of the accused despite the realizations of the other members of the jury. Gosmon-Walker proved to be more than the antagonist. He built complexity in the stillness of his portrayed anger, and his rigid posture allowed for an unanticipated eruption and familiarity with violence. Jurors 3 and 8 were set in direct opposition with one another, but Moriarty and Gosmon-Walker utilized such tension to illustrate an engaging portrait of the human condition through lines and through silence.

With a commanding stance and tone, Sky Jabali-Rainey as Juror 4 depicted the logical arguments and unfeeling interpretation of the case. Jabali-Rainey maintained an even temperament and clear voice through the sequences of high emotions from the other jurors. Juror 5, depicted by Demonte Addison, provided an outlook to tenement life essential to the case. In the emotional arc of the character, Addison depicted depth and expertly maneuvered a switch blade knife with sudden movement in order to instill reasonable doubt in the members of the jury.

Juror 11 presented an immigrant's perspective to the case and was portrayed by Aniya Newsome. She sustained incredulous reactions at the absurdity of certain arguments and aptly employed a Ghanaian accent that differentiated her view from the onset of the deliberations.

Nadia Jimaw as Juror 7 and Eric Curry III as Juror 2 added lighthearted feeling to the serious nature of the show. While Jimaw expressed comical annoyance at being kept from attending a Dreamgirls show, Curry's humor centered around his erroneous usage of a timepiece to count the seconds of the jurors' experiments.

The entirety of the ensemble employed subtle cues to indicate the age of the character they were depicting and developed characterization with properly placed eye rolls and genuine smiles. Through deliberate movements and murmurs, the ensemble prevented stagnation even as emotions would linger in seconds of silence.

The technical aspects of the production emphasized the severity of the task at hand. Performing in a smaller theater allowed for an intimate setting with the audience's closeness to the stage providing a more immersive and impactful experience.

The jurors' verdict was final, but the audience was left to ponder the emotions displayed in the courtroom and if justice was truly served at Duke Ellington School of the Arts' admirable production of "Twelve Angry Jurors."

Katie Brusseau
Lake Braddock Secondary School
Submitted for publication to Cappies News 2

"Not guilty." Two simple words that transformed in meaning over the two hours that twelve jurors spent in a locked room. What began as one juror's notion of reasonable doubt amidst eleven eager-to-leave fellow jurors became a question of innocence, prejudice, and integrity. This weekend, Duke Ellington School of the Arts brought Twelve Angry Jurors to life.

Based on the familiar classic Twelve Angry Men, a 1957 film by Reginald Rose, the show revolves around a jury of twelve individuals summoned to determine the fate of a young man accused of murder. The play takes place in a single room and consists entirely of dialogue between the jurors as they debate the accused man's innocence. The decision must be unanimous, so they decide to take an initial vote which results in eleven votes in favor of a guilty verdict, and one dissenter.

The first to express "reasonable doubt" is Juror 8, a composed, older man portrayed by Santiago Moriarty. Moriarty gave an extremely compelling performance throughout the show. The character always had intention: from the calm objections at the dismissal of his opinions to his outbursts of anger at the ignorance of others. The balanced emotion Moriarty portrayed demonstrated Juror 8's loyalty to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.' Juror 3, portrayed by Nasir Gosmon-Walker, served as a foil to Juror 8 because he insisted on the accused's guilt. Despite being the clear antagonist in the story, Gosmon-Walker's dynamic voice and potent body language illustrated a complexity not outlined in the dialogue. The unsavory but passionate characterization gave great depth to the character, encouraging sympathy for someone clearly in the wrong.

Though the conflict between Juror 3 and Juror 8 fueled disputes over the verdict, the supporting characters brought new perspectives to the jury room, as did the actors playing them. Sky Jabali-Rainey, playing Juror 4, gave an excellent performance of a rich woman. She displayed a mildly haughty attitude present in every move, word, and reaction. In addition, Nadia Jimaw's brazen and vivacious portrayal of Juror 7 energized the stage with every line.

Twelve Angry Jurors is clearly an ensemble production, and the cast achieved this in the highest regard. They worked together to establish the reality of a 1980s jury room setting; from consistently fanning themselves after describing the heat to flawlessly interrupting each other and giving the dialogue a natural beat. The actors blended wonderfully, painting a cohesive portrait of civilized discord. However, that did not stop them from clearly distinguishing themselves among the other jurors. Destinee Coburn and Demonte Addison showed outstanding specificity in temperament as Jurors 9 and 5, respectively. However, all the actors had perceptible attributes allowing for the opinions and background of the characters to be inferred based on how they carried themselves.

It is performances like Duke Ellington's that have allowed Twelve Angry Jurors to stand the test of time. Their incredible characterization as individuals and as an ensemble created an unforgettable production that brought to light the importance of integrity and humility amongst a group of twelve angry strangers.

Arielle Else
McLean High School
Submitted for publication to Patch.com

Twelve strangers locked in a room together, congested by heat, fervent yelling, and strong opinions, makes for a nightmarish scenario. However, Duke Ellington School of the Arts' showcase of Twelve Angry Jurors had the audience on the edge of their seats, watching reason and prejudice collide as the group decided the fate of a young man on trial for murder.

In Reginald Rose's 1954 drama Twelve Angry Jurors, tempers erupt when the jury initially votes eleven to one in favor of the young man's guilt. The spotlight is on a single person, Juror 8, as a legally mandated unanimous vote by all twelve jurors is needed in order to pass judgment. Evidence is reassessed, and doubts are raised as the eleven jurors attempt to persuade the independent Juror 8 to decide that the young man is guilty. As a result, the twelve jurors are obliged to consider whether there is reasonable doubt and save the young man's life. As justice is pursued, Twelve Angry Jurors throw the morals and integrity of individuals into question.

The incredible chemistry between the group and the authenticity displayed by each particular juror as they took on complex, distinct character archetypes grounded the performance. The naysayer, Juror 8 (Santiago Moriarty), convincingly portrayed the emotions his character encountered. He helped the audience grasp his perspective through the utilization of intentional, controlled body movements and facial expressions. Despite opposing his character's argument, the audience was captivated by the fury and indignation that Juror 3 (Nasir Gosmon-Walker), the antagonist, exuded. Gosman-Walker's performance represented a broad spectrum of emotions, and amid the drama, he brought perfectly delivered humor at moments. His crystal-clear diction commanded the stage, demonstrating full embodiment and comprehension of his character.

The group of jurors as a whole was endearing; constantly fanning themselves with notepads and moving about, they properly depicted the reality and chaos of a deliberating jury room. Among them, three jurors stood out: Juror 7 (Nadia Jimaw), Juror 11 (Aniya Newsome), and Juror 2 (Eric Curry III). In line with her character, Jimaw shined with her confident physicality and sarcastic yet sweet remarks, expressing the spirit of her persona. Newsome and Curry served as buffers between the craziness of the other jurors, effectively demonstrating different ways individuals deal with difficult situations in unique approaches fueled by personal experience. The actors vitalized the stage in a static set, keeping up energy and maintaining a steady, engaging pace.

Duke Ellington School of the Arts effectively handled the portrayal of challenging topics such as injustice, morality, and conformity. As the lights went down, the theater was struck with contemplation, wondering how they might make a difference and stand up for their beliefs. Humanity only has the potential to grow more passionate through discard of bias and self-interest, and Duke Ellington School of the Arts' performance of 12 Angry Jurors projected this message without any reasonable doubt.

Zoe Benton
Tuscarora High School
Submitted for publication to Georgetowner

The courage to reasonably doubt can save a life. This message was exemplified in Duke Ellington School of the Arts' performance of Twelve Angry Jurors. These performers did not miss a beat as they debated a life or death situation.

Twelve Angry Jurors is an adaptation of Reginald Rose's 1954 teleplay "Twelve Angry Men," an intense struggle of the jurors in a murder trial that initially appears to be an instant guilty verdict. One juror, however, could not justify beyond a reasonable doubt the execution of a young man. An introspective look into the justice system of the United States, this play is filled with intense tension between twelve angry jurors.

The students at Duke Ellington School of the Arts showcased immense skill and dedication in this production. From the first entrances to the closing moments, every actor had entirely become their character, with each having their own unique mannerisms.

Among eleven guilty votes, Juror Eight (Santiago Moriarty) was the only innocent vote. This actor perfectly expressed the hope and desperation that another juror might join him in saving a possibly innocent boy. Even before the initial vote was cast, his deep internal reflection could be seen, and it drew the audience in. Juror Four, played by Sky Jabali-Rainey, contested Juror Eight's vote with reason and evidence, exuding a kind of determined sophistication in each line that so perfectly matched her character. She was sharp and witty, leaving no gaps in between lines or logic. Demonte Addison, Juror Five, reacted to every moment of the discussion with clear character intent, and when he discussed his youth, it felt as if the actor was truly recalling a memory. Aniya Newsome, Juror Eleven, provided some much-needed external voice regarding the United States judicial system, and her love for America could be felt in every moment. Newsome never missed a beat. She even provided some comic relief at times, and stole the show with her excellent character realism.

In such a serious and tense show, some humor is vital to breaking up the most crucial moments. Eric Curry III timed his watch shenanigans perfectly as Juror Two, and his constant commitment to his role made these moments even more entertaining. Of course, this kind of comedic patience did not sit well with Juror Seven (Nadia Jimaw), as she was hurrying the proceedings along at every moment. Jimaw's constant motion added to the restlessness of this juror, and to the overall energy of the show. Popping in for evidence and wisecracks was the irritated Guard, played by Moyo Ifafore. The guard's delivery was precisely what was expected from a worker on a Friday night and received outbursts of laughter every time.

All of the Jurors truly embodied their characters, and their discourse felt authentic and articulate. From fanning themselves in the heat to cutting each other off, every moment of the production was full of life. They each used the space of their theater in the round extremely well and were consistent in their utilization of different spaces.

Just as he was the only juror to vote not guilty at the start of the show, Juror Eight was the last one on stage at the end of the show. The light faded, and Duke Ellington School of Arts closed their production of Twelve Angry Jurors. A show that raises money for their community through Theater for Change, and a fantastic display of hard work, this performance was astounding without a reasonable doubt.