Why does four change his vote to not guilty?

Similarly, you may ask, why did Juror 4 change his vote?

He is willing to listen and try to understand the others' points of views and gives their arguments credit where it is due, especially after analyzing the evidence, which had seemed to overwhelmingly prove the boy's guilt at first-Juror #4 changed his vote based on the realization that there indeed was reasonable doubt

Secondly, what reasons does Juror #8 give for originally voting not guilty? In the first vote, Juror 8 is the only one to vote not guilty. He does this not because he really feels that the defendant is necessarily innocent, but for another reason altogether. He votes not guilty because he feels that the group should discuss a case with such serious consequences before deciding.

Subsequently, question is, what did juror four do that keeps the group from being a hung jury?

He doesn't want to get off track so he sticks to his opinion. He tells them not to act like children and wants to keep talking about the case.

What comments does Juror Eight make that seem to settle the argument about doubt?

He repeats the evidence about the case, and it suggests that there is doubt; at least two agree, so they take another vote. To juror four, what is the most convincing evidence that the boy is guilty?