A 16-year-old boy gets in a violent physical fight with his father in a slum neighborhood of New York at 12:10 a.m. He leaves, and arrives at a pawn shop about an hour later. He buys a one-of-a-kind switchblade and walks home. At 3:15 a.m., he stabs his father in the chest and runs away. The woman in the apartment across the elevated train tracks swears she saw him do it. The elderly man downstairs is convinced he heard the boy threaten his father’s life. No one can validate the boy’s alibi of seeing a late-night movie, and he himself cannot remember what film he saw or who starred in it. It seems like a cut-and-dry case, and that the boy is obviously guilty. “Twelve Angry Jurors” asks you and its characters the question: what if it isn’t so cut-and-dry?

The Junior Players production of “Twelve Angry Jurors,” directed by drama teacher Ms. Meredith, is a co-ed variation on Reginald Rose and Henry Fonda’s classic movie/teleplay “Twelve Angry Men.”

After a long and repetitive trial taking three hot summer days, the twelve eponymous unnamed jurors return to their chamber to vote. However, they find to find the tally to be 11-1, one shy of the unanimous decision they need to send the boy to the electric chair and go home. As the deliberations begin, the jurors begin to ask themselves deeper and deeper questions about what could have really happened that night.

On the Sunday before the show premiered on Thursday, November 2, I visited a rehearsal of “Twelve Angry Jurors.” This was the cast’s first rehearsal without the use of their scripts, and it was fun to see them work as a team to help each other with lines and improve their acting skills.

Prepared for the next day’s dress rehearsal, the “Jurors” cast expressed their desire to live up to the story.

“It’s a serious responsibility,” said junior Omeed Tartak. Tartak played Juror #8, who starts the conflict by deciding to vote “not guilty” in order to start a real discussion on whether or not the boy killed his father. “Especially as a lead role, I have a lot of lines to memorize…” Many of the cast members shared Tartak’s sentiment.

“It’s a great experience…lots of lines to memorize and lots of responsibility.” said sophomore Leeor Elias. He played Juror #11, a recent Eastern European immigrant and concerned juror.

Performing a show, especially a character-driven drama like “Twelve Angry Jurors,” is a large responsibility, but it seems like that’s part of the appeal for the actors.

“I enjoy the acting challenges,” said sophomore Daisy Korman, who played the role of a bigoted woman who is completely convinced that the boy committed the crime based on his ethnic background.

The crew and stagecraft team for “Twelve Angry Jurors,” headed by art teacher Ms. Haase, did a spectacular job creating the dry, dreary jury chamber. Everything from the books on the table to the actors’ costumes really made one feel like he had been transported to 1950s New York.

The choice in music set the mood for the tense display, and the whole set felt cohesive and well-done.

Members of the audience were clearly on their toes as they  Highlights in the show included Freddy Sion’s sadistic performance as the “easily excitable” Juror #3, Daisy Korman’s rousing monologue on bigotry as Juror #10, and Omeed Tartak’s stolid acting as Juror #8.

This truly was a fantastic show that really made you think. Everything that you think you know about the case will be, using legal terms, “overturned”.

The whole performance was fantastic, and unlike the case, that decision was open-and-shut: “Twelve Angry Jurors” was a production of unparalleled excellence.