Juror #3 pipes up and says he thinks the kid killed his father because kids these days don't have enough respect or discipline. He claims that he has his own son and tells the story of how embarrassed he was one time when his kid ran away from a fight. His son was only 9 years old, but #3 said he'd make a man out of him, and in his words, he did. But then when Juror #3's son was fifteen, they had a fight, and the boy hit him hard in the jaw. At the time of the story, it has been three years since Juror #3 has seen his son.
A couple of the jurors say the kid must be a criminal because he came from a slum, but Juror #5 takes exception to this because he came from a slum, and he turned out okay. The men say they're not talking about him and tell him not to take it personally.
A bunch of the men start arguing, and Juror #1 works to keep things in order.
Finally, Juror #8 talks about why he's given a "Not Guilty" verdict. He says that he's suspicious of the lawyer who was defending the kid on trial. He thinks that the lawyer let too many things go by in his cross-examination of the witnesses. For him, the defense attorney is either incompetent or corrupt. He reminds the jurors that there was only one witness and one person who heard what happened, and they were never properly cross-examined.
At this point, Juror #3 explains that the murder weapon was a very unique kind of knife that was purchased by the kid on the same day of the murder. The kid claims that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket while he was on his way to the movies.
The jurors insist that the uniqueness of the knife is reason enough to convict the kid. But at this point, Juror #8 pulls out a switchblade exactly like the one the boy used and places the two side by side. He bought it in the kid's home neighborhood for just 6 bucks. The other jurors are shocked, but they're still convinced it doesn't mean anything and that the boy still did it.