Initially argues the alibi is weak and cites the defendant's slum background. He firmly trusts the female witness testimony until the end, when doubts about her glasses and visibility convince him to join the acquittal. He also confronts Juror #10's racism.
Juror #4 publicly rejects Juror #10's prejudice, breaking their implicit alliance.
Juror #4 represents rigid reliance on circumstantial evidence, directly challenged by Juror #8.
Explore the full interactive character relationship map of Twelve Angry Men