12 Angry Men (1957)
Robert Webber: Juror 12
[Juror #9 has pointed out that the witness across the street had marks on her nose, indicating that she normally wore glasses]
Juror #8 : [to Juror #4] Do you wear glasses when you go to bed?
Juror #4 : No. I don't. No one wears eyeglasses to bed.
Juror #8 : It's logical to assume that *she* wasn't wearing them when she was in bed - tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep!
Juror #3 : How do *you* know?
Juror #8 : I don't *know* - I'm guessing! I'm also guessing that she probably didn't put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window - and she herself testified the killing took place just as she looked out, the lights went off a split second later - she couldn't have had *time* to put them on then!
[stops #3 from stopping him]
Juror #8 : Here's another guess: maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father - I say she only saw a blur!
Juror #3 : How do you know *what* she saw? How does he know all that? How do you know *what* kind of glasses she wore? Maybe they were sunglasses, maybe she was far-sighted! What do you *know* about her?
Juror #8 : I only know the woman's eyesight is in question now!
Juror #11 : She had to be able to identify a person sixty feet away, at night, without glasses.
Juror #2 : You can't send someone off to die on evidence like that!
Juror #3 : Oh, don't give me that.
Juror #8 : Don't you think the woman *might* have made a mistake?
Juror #3 : [stubbornly] No!
Juror #8 : It's not *possible?*
Juror #3 : No, it's not possible!
Juror #8 : [gets up and speaks to Juror #12] Is it possible?
Juror #12 : [nods] Not guilty.
Juror #8 : [goes to #10] You think he's guilty?
[#10 shakes his head "no"]
Juror #3 : *I* think he's guilty!
Juror #8 : [ignores #3; goes to #4] How about you?
Juror #4 : [looks at #8, pauses, then shakes head] No... I'm convinced. Not guilty.
Juror #3 : [shocked, having just lost all support] What's the matter with ya?
Juror #4 : I have a reasonable doubt now.
Juror #9 : Eleven to one!
Juror #8 : Look, there was one alleged eye witness to this killing. Someone else claims he heard the killing, saw the boy run out afterwards and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. But, actually, those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Supposing they're wrong?
Juror #12 : What do you mean, supposing they're wrong? What's the point of having witnesses at all?
Juror #8 : Could they be wrong?
Juror #12 : What are you trying to say? Those people sat on the stand under oath.
Juror #8 : They're only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?
Juror #12 : Well, no, I don't think so.
Juror #8 : Do you 'know' so?
Juror #12 : Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn't an exact science.
Juror #8 : That's right, it isn't.