Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Steve harmon case
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Steve harmon case
We the jury believe that Mr. Steve Harmon is not guilty. First of all he is a good kid, Mr. Sawicki and his parents think so. Then, the argument from O’Brien. Lastly, the testimony of Mr. Harmon himself that states several times that he was never even at the drugstore on the day of the robbery and murder of Mr. Nesbet. Mr. Steve Harmon is a good kid. His teacher Mr. Sawicki thinks that he is “talented, bright, and compassionate.” Steve Harmon states “I am not a bad person. I know in my heart I am not a bad person.” That means that his teacher, parents, and he thinks that he is not a bad person himself. In O’Briens closing argument it states that nobody saw Mr. Harmon in the store that day. “The state doesn't even suggest that he was in
Is Steve Harmon innocent or guilty you decide. Steve Harmon is put on trial of the murder of Mr. Nesbitt and the robbery of his drug store. During the trail Steve Harmon is seen as guilty by the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli. The witness Allen Forbes testimony proves that the gun used in the murder was registered under Mr. Nesbitt. This helps prove that the gun was used in the murder and the robbery and the gun was later found in the store. This witness helped me prove that Steve Harmon could have used the gun to kill Mr. Nesbitt or had taken part in the robbery at some point in the crime. “I went around behind the counter and I saw Mr. Nesbitt on the floor—there was blood everywhere and the cash register was open. A lot of cigarettes were
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
While he is in jail, he is writing a script for a movie about the trial. The script helps Steve stay calm and not go crazy while he is in jail. Steve and his Defense Attorney, Kathy O’Brien, are trying to prove to the jury that Steve is innocent. Steve is thought to have been working with two other men, James King and Richard “Bobo” Evans. These two people robbed the store and then Steve apparently killed the owner of the store after Bobo and King left.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
What we do know is that many people think Steve is guilty. One of the guards describes the case, “Six days – maybe seven. It’s a motion case. They go through the motions; then they lock them up” (14). The judicial system has many flaws, one of which being that they assume guilt before proof when it comes to people like Steve. The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to cases like his. As prosecutor Petrocelli states in reference to people like Steve, “There are also monsters in our communities – people who are willing to steal and to kill, people who disregard the rights of others” (21). O’Brien succinctly sums this up for Steve, “You’re young, you’re Black, and you’re on ...
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved.
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly do such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
As the prosecutor creates a strong argument that makes it sound like he is guilty of this murder. With the strong argument toward Steve the attorneys also have a stronger argument towards the state. As Steve takes the witness stand he gives a look toward the jury that looks suspicious. Other criminals were to take the witness stand but they only did it because it meant that they could get a shorter sentence time. After the trial Steve was found not guilty to the jury and he could go
Steve Harmon is guilty of felony murder because he participated and had knowledge about a crime that ended up in the death of an innocent citizen. The judge stated the if you believe that Steve harmon took part in the crime than you must return a verdict of guilty. I believe that Steve went into the drugstore on that day for the purpose of being a lookout. Some of Steve’s journal entry’s lead to him feeling guilty or like a “monster”.
With the help from the team of doctor the jury was able to come up with a verdict.