Goofs for
12 Angry Men (1957) More at IMDbPro »

• Miscellaneous: When Juror #8 wants to time how long it would take an injured man to walk down the hall, Juror #2 starts and stops the timing and announces it as "exactly 41 seconds". In reality, and considering that the scene does not cut away, the time is 30 seconds.
  
  
• Continuity: Many shots of the jurors' watches are inconsistent with "film time".
  
  
• Boom mic visible: At 20:07 into the film, as the camera pans from Juror #6 to Juror #7, the shadow of the boom mic is visible on the wall behind them.
  
  

• Crew or equipment visible: When Juror #8 is imitating the old man going to the door, as he is completing the first leg of his walk the shadow of the camera following him is clearly visible on the floor by his feet.
  
  
• Continuity: Within the last half hour of the movie, the clock on the wall in the jury room can be seen indicating 6:15. Several minutes later, E.G. Marshall states that it is "a quarter after six". Several minutes after that, the wall clock is seen again, but still shows 6:15. Still later, when Lee J. Cobb leans over the table after he tears up the snapshot from his wallet, his watch can be seen indicating 5:10.
  
  
• Continuity: When juror #12 is sitting on the back of the chair smoking a cigarette, in the long shot the cuffs of his shirt are rolled back, but in the closeup the cuffs are fastened with cuff links, and then in the next long shot the cuffs are rolled back again.
  
  

• Factual errors: SPOILER: Several of the techniques used in the jury room, including Juror No. 8's (Henry Fonda's) purchase of the switchblade and the attempt to recreate the time it took the handicapped neighbor to move around his apartment, are known as "jury experiments" and are highly improper. Jurors are not supposed to investigate a case nor to try to re-enact events by acting them out in the jury room. Because the case resulted in an acquittal, it probably would not have affected the outcome here; but had this been a civil case or had it resulted in a conviction, these actions, if they became known to the attorneys or judge involved, would have been grounds for declaring a mistrial.
  
  

Related Links