The first Juryman I chose was #11. Number 11 was direct in his communication and looked who he was talking to in the eye. Number 11 said what he was thinking or feeling, he wasn't influenced by what the group was doing and thought for himself. He listened to others' reasoning and thoughts, for example he wrote down number 8's comments and arguments and came up with a question that gave him reasonable doubt and changed his vote. Number 11 cared a lot and wanted to do things right so that they didn't send someone innocent to the chair. To me though number 11 could've put a little more force behind his words sometimes just to give them a little emphasis and more meaning. Numbers 11's problem solving skills are very good. He wrote down what was being argued and analyzed each piece of information, and then he asked questions until he came to a conclusion. I don't think you could improve much on 11's problem solving skills.
             The next Juryman I chose was number 3. Number 3 was very loud and angry in his arguments. He was very easily offended, like when number 8 baited him and called him a sadist. He also stood up and paced while talking. 3 was very quick to state his feelings and opinions, most of the time loudly. He wasn't very good at listening to others thoughts though. Number 3 was very stubborn and didn't want to be made to look a fool by being proven wrong. Number 3's problem solving skills were virtually non-existent or he just didn't use them. He took what was given for proof by the prosecutor and did not consider any other possibilities. He said so himself that what the prosecutor provided was good enough. Number 3 needs to start thinking about problems from different angles and not just take what is on the surface.
             The third Juryman I picked was number 7. Number 7 was a people person. He knew how to make you laugh and feel at ease, and he knew it a...