As I understand it, the job of counsel for the defense is to make a case for reasonable doubt, and it is the job of the jurors to assess whether or not he succeeded, by convicting or vindicating his client.

And now, because a juror is holding out and insisting his client is guilty, the lawyer wants the judge to get rid of the juror for disregarding the law/jury instructions where reasonable doubt is concerned.

The lawyer's argument seems to be that his case was so magnificent, so airtight and irresistible that reasonable doubt has been objectively established and only a complete disregard of the law can possibly cause a juror to insist that the defendant is guilty.

I also think an Allen Charge is kind of bullshit, too. I understand the practical reasoning, but in essence, the judge is basically telling the jurors, "I don't like the outcome of your decision, so some of you have to change your minds." I've never served on a jury, but I cannot imagine that after a professional attorney in good standing made a case that failed to convince me of the defendant's guilt or innocence, 11 chucklefucks chosen at random and stuck in close quarters with me, would change my mind.

Seriously, what the fuck is up with these judges? Is the case to be made in the courtroom, under the supervision of the judge, or is it to be made in multi-way personal interactions and feelings in a backroom? When they issue an Allen charge, or whatever the equivalent is in the Clancy trial, they're basically saying "yeah, fuck whatever you learned from the farce I just conducted in 'my' courtroom, just all 12 of you agree on the same conclusion."

It should go without saying that I loathe "12 Angry Men". I'd have held out all day just to put Juror Fucking Eight in his place, and report him to the judge afterward.