The jurors had several conflicts disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they were yelling at each other. The very first conflict arises when Juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors do not seem to want to hear this man; they don't want to know why he voted not guilty. Some of these men, Jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can move on with their lives. They don't think it's imperative enough to look at the evidence and put themselves in the accused's shoes. They get angry with this man and try to get him to vote guilty. Another conflict is that some of the jurors were harsh, hot-headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories offered by Juror 8, even though they knew he was right. This is a conflict that could have easily been avoided if half of it hadn't been so thorough. The decision in this case could have been resolved sooner without their stubbornness. The most common negotiation, used repeatedly, was to vote by majority just to get it over with. Some examples would be ...