. . . . . . .  About  . . . . . .

   . . . .  Notes  . . .
Production credits

More Photos
  Page 2

Dramaturg's Diary

Director's Corner

Setting: A Jury Room
Time: The 1950's

Cast

* new to our stage

Dramaturg's Diary
By Bryon Abramowitz
A Jury of our Peers?
Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The freedom we experience and take for granted on a daily basis is unlike that anywhere else in the world. In the far reaches of the globe people are put to death for the mere suspicion of committing a minor crime, while we enjoy the rights of the United States Constitution which guarantee us access to a fair and speedy trial by jury. This is one of the many unique freedoms that we enjoy on a daily basis which separate us from many other parts of the world.

Harry Kalven & Hans Zeisel, in The American Jury (1966) wrote:

“The Anglo-American jury is a remarkable political institution…. It recruits twelve laymen, chosen at random from the widest population; it convenes them for the purpose of the particular trial; it entrusts them with great official powers of decision; it permits them to carry on deliberations in secret and to report out their final judgment without giving reasons for it; and after their momentary service to the state has been completed, it orders them to disband and return to private life….”

In an age where juries are routinely psychologically analyzed and statistically modeled, the pure nature of this centuries-old process is often under appreciated. While trial by jury is a choice we all have when facing judicial proceedings, it is a choice that is exercised in nearly all major criminal cases where a defendant pleads anything other than guilty. I guess the thought is that you are more likely to sway the belief of 12 anonymous individuals rather than one highly educated and experienced judge. While we all have a choice for a jury trial rather than a bench trial, In Kalven & Zeisel’s research, they found that in greater than 80% of jury cases studied, the outcome would have been identical if a judge rather than a jury decided the case. Of interesting note is that many states actually require a jury trial in cases involving murder charges.

The impaneling of a jury is a rather complex and fascinating process by which a pool of prospective jurors are summoned and questioned on their background and beliefs in an effort to determine if they can serve as an impartial member of the jury. In this process, called voir dire (French for “to speak the truth”), lawyers for both the prosecution and defense are given a number of challenges, including peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Challenge for cause is when a prospective juror says or otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney’s case. Peremptory challenges, which are limited to a specific number determined by the Judge in the case, are used to eliminate prospective jurors without any specific reason. Once the parties agree on twelve individuals (and necessary alternate jurors), they are impaneled and sworn in as the jury for that case. For many years, peremptory challenges were used routinely to exclude woman and minorities from serving on juries. Peremptory challenges do not need to be explained, they are merely an attorney’s way of removing a juror from the pool who may be viewed as detrimental to the case being won.

Since the founding of our country the concept of a jury of your peers generally meant Caucasian men, regardless of the race or gender of the defendant. The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution that provided women with the right to vote was also believed to provide women the right to serve on juries. At the time of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment women were already lawyers, criminal defendants, legal clerks, and parties to lawsuits, but were not guaranteed the right to serve on a jury.

It has been only in the last 48 years that this standard began to change. In 1957 the Civil Rights Act provided the right of women to sit on juries in federal cases. Five years later, however, in 1962 only twenty-one states allowed women to sit on lower level juries with men. While the first woman sat on a jury in 1701 in Albany, New York, it wasn’t until 272 years later, in 1973 that women could sit on a jury in all 50 states. Even with the various legislative and legal efforts, it wasn’t in 1975 that excluding women specifically from serving on juries was expressly declared unconstitutional in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975). In all, women have served on juries in the United States for over 300 years, yet only over the past 30 years was this right absolute.

In the process of compiling all the various data elements in preparation for this play, the fact that I

found most incredible was the one that I didn’t find. We’ve been taught that the constitution provides us the right to a jury by a trial of our peers, yet in classic ambiguity, these words never actually appear in the Sixth Amendment.

Production Credits

Director Jack Phillips
Technical Director Troy Lee Brasuell, Jr.
Stage Manager Judy DiVita
Assistant Stage Managers Linda Auer, Carole Borg
Costume Co-Chairs Mary Dempsey, Karla Hudson
Costume Crew Linda Bugielski, Christine Dahl, Pat Giesler, Darla Goudeau, Terry Harrold, Nancy Obern, Mary O'Dowd, Mary Smith, Jane Stacy
Dramaturg Bryon Abramowitz
Hospitality Chair Carol Clarke
Hospitality Crew Hedy Bosch, Jeannie Burch, Susan Cardamone, Brian Centers, Christy Dahl, Sharon Feldt, Carol Hudson, Dennis Hudson, Mike Huth, Pat Huth, Ginny Lennon, Bill Love, Joyce Love, Debbie McHenry, Debby Mills, Jon Mills, Roxanne Moreno, Janel Palm, Jim Stork, Marybeth Stork, Dorothy Tressler, David Valenta, Sue Valenta, Brian Wacker, Mark Wroczynski
Lighting Designer Dick Jacoby
Lighting Crew Keith Burzinski, Tom Frohnapfel, Peggy Jacoby, Paul Roach, Betsy Stiles
Makeup Designers Mary Ellen Druyan, Darla Goudeau
Makeup Crew Bridget Bittman, Peggy Carlson, Holly Cejka, Eileen Crow, Lori D’Asta, Pat Huth, Norma Main, Arlene Page, Marilyn Weiher
Properties Designer Rich Kropp, Susan Maurer
Properties Crew Bob Erck, Bill FitzGerald, Dennis Hudson, Julie Knoch, Mike Mallon, Linda Metz, Tom Pfeil
Set Construction Chairs Art Kelly, Rob Snyder
Set Construction Crew Mike Huth, Amanda Ragan
Set Designer Stephanie Bullwinkel
Set Dresser Donna Sauers
Set Painting Chair Kelli Kubicki
Set Painting Crew John Allen, Rob Cramer, Robert Erck, Tom Frohnapfel, Ceri Hartnett, Jim Kopp, Sue Kuehnhold, Rob Nardini, Mary Pavia, Brian Wacker
Sound Designers Cal Turner, Stephanie Williams
Sound Crew Karen Arnold, Dick Jacoby, Kelli Kubicki, Betsy Stiles
Box Office ChairMary Ellen Schutt
Box Office Crew Ed Barrow, Kelli Kubicki, JoAnn Mallon, Jill Neely, Lori B. Proksa, Patti Roeder, Carol Suda, Marilyn Wilson
House Manager Chair Bill Wilson
House Managers Dave Bremer, Susan Cardamone, Rob Cramer, Roland Imes, Mike De Kovic, Joe Delaloye, Terry Locke, Jon Mills, Noel Smith, Denny Wise
Front Row Center flyer Joe Petrolis
Group Sales Co-Chairs Ceri Hartnett, Betsy Stiles
Poster Distribution Kathleen Kusper
Production Coordinator Linda Roberts
Program Advertising Peggy Carlson
Publicity Chair Carol Dapogny
Program Editor Stephanie Williams
Program Crew Marion J. Reis
Website Judy DiVita

Director's Corner
By Jack Phillips

There are a great many plays about a trial. Some plays want us to see the trial itself as important while other plays have us look at the participants - either the attorneys or the plaintiff or defendant. Twelve Angry Women has a unique difference. The play takes us into the jury room and has us watch the drama of deliberation. Most of us would have loved to overhear the discussion that went on in several recent trials. Many of us have asked, “How did they ever get THAT decision “? This powerful play deals with several legal questions we often take for granted. What is the “burden of proof” and what is “reasonable doubt”? How do jurors affect each other? We hope you enjoy this theatre experience and that the play can open some discussion on these important questions.

Thursday Nights
are audience Talkback nights.

Join us immediately following the show
for a discussion with the cast, crew, and
experts in the subject.

Dates of Note:

1701 -- First woman on a jury – Albany, New York.

1939 -- Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644 (1939), Due process challenge to all-male juries was lost. Florida's high court interpreted the Nineteenth Amendment narrowly, concluding that men were fairer jurors than women and that women were barred from jury rooms for their own protection

1947 -- Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court said women are equally qualified with men to serve on juries, but are granted an exemption, and may or may not serve as women choose.

1957 -- The Civil Rights Act of 1957 insured the right of women to sit on federal juries.

1961 -- In Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961): The U.S. Supreme Court upholds rules adopted by the state of Florida that made it far less likely for women than men to be called for jury service on the grounds that a “woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life.”

1975 -- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), denies states the right to exclude women from juries.