Court cases are always filled with different emotions. In Walter Dean Myers’ Monster, an intriguing novel, 16-year-old Steve Harmon is on trial for felony murder. Harmon is represented by his defense attorney, Kathy O’Brien. The jury found Steve Harmon not guilty because of Kathy O’Briens persuasive arguments, a testimony given by Steve’s film teacher, George Sawicki, and the lack of evidence the jury had. First, Kathy O’Brien, a diligent lawyer, provided compelling arguments as to why Steve was not guilty. She was immensely logical in her statements that she gave to the jury. On page 189 of Monster, O’Brien argues, “And if there were no cops in there, what was he supposed to do?” This helps Steve’s case because it doesn’t make any sense for Steve to be in the drugstore if cops weren’t there. O’Brien worked hard throughout the whole trial, trying to prove to the jury that Steve wasn’t guilty. Not only was Kathy O’Brien crucial to Steve being found not guilty, but a testimony stated by a key witness also helped in a great way. …show more content…
Speaking, Sawicki states, “It is my belief that to make an honest film, one has to be an honest person. I would say that, too. And I do believe in Steve’s honesty.” He speaks highly of Steve in his testimony by calling him a “talented, bright, and compassionate” young man. As a film teacher, Sawicki is a credible source and a saccharine person in Steve’s life. His testimony further helps Steve because Steve spoke to the jury about how he wanted to be in the film industry. Another important part of Steve’s case was the jury’s incapability to get enough evidence against
In the world today, there are many people who make bad decisions. For example, talking to a friend when the teacher is teaching, drinking soda before playing a instrument, or even forgetting to eat breakfast. One must understand that for every action there are consequences, some worse than others. In the book ‘Monster’ Steve Harmon was indeed the lookout for the robbery, but was not responsible for the murder of Mr. Nisbet (the store owner). How is this so apparent? While reading the book there are several clues as to why Steve was the lookout but not the murderer. For example there’s a scene where Steve is talking to James King about being the lookout, a scene where he lies under oath, and he was at the scene of the crime just before it went
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus paints a vividly dark side of the law. While not every case is nearly as false as some that she has described, even she has spoken for the guilty, the system will not be justified until sufficient evidence is truthfully found for every case. Memory is not strong enough to stand on its own. What makes her job worth it is the one person that gets to go home free due to the jury’s consideration of her
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
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.
...rrod. Emotions and Culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, Jurors, and itself. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2006. Print.
The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Steve Harmon participated in the robbery and murder of Alguinaldo Nesbitt. According to Lorelle Henry, a trustworthy witness, Harmon was not at the scene of the crime when it happened. “‘I saw two young men engaged in an argument’” (Walter, 163). Henry saw two men, Nesbitt and James King, whom she identified later, and Harmon was not one of those people. Harmon not being at the scene of the crime already renders him innocent because he was never there. In fact, no evidence was shown that Harmon was at the scene of the crime. “‘He was supposed to tell us if there was anybody in the drugstore. He didn’t say nothing so we figured it was all right’” (Walter, 182). Additionally, Harmon has
“There is no client as scary as an innocent man.”― Michael Connelly, The Lincoln Lawyer. Peter Camiel came to this conclusion when taking on his new client, Barry Beach, a suspect in the murder of 17 year old Kimberly Nees. The events of the murder case that led not arked near a party spot in Poplar, Montana. Following a trail of blood down to the river, her battered body was found. “An autopsy revealed she had suffered 20 or 21 blows to the skull”. (insert point about there beinonly Peter Camiel, but many others to believe that Barry Beach was framed. With lack of evidence and a possible coerced confession, Barry Beach should be free,
Your honor, my client Johnny Cade, is innocent. On the day of the murder of Robert Sheldon, he and his gang approached Ponyboy Curtis and Johnny Cade, causing trouble. According to my client's accomplice, Ponyboy, “I ducked and tried to run for it, but the Soc caught my arm and twisted it behind my back, and shoved my face into the fountain.” My reasoning for this statement is because my client expressed to Ponyboy, (1) "I had to. They were drowning you, Pony.
In this movie Making a Murder there is a man named Stephen Avery who was wonderfully convicted of a crime. Stephen Avery lived in a small town and he already had the sheriffs in the town already had it out for Stephen Avery due to previous less serious crimes in committed when he was younger. Stephen has previously got into in encounter with his cousin who happened to be the sheriff’s wife. There was a crime committed in Stephen’s town and the victim happened to be Stephen’s cousin’s friends. Right from the start the sheriff was after Stephen and went and arrested him.
Juror eight opened the minds of the others by telling them how the boy”had been kicked around his whole, life. You know living in a slum. His mother dead since he was nine. That’s not very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why kids get that way? Because we knock them over their head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words.” juror eight goes on to explain how this boy had a hard life and if he did commit this crime he might have done it with reason. Now a hard life did not constitute the boy to kill his father but it may have given him motive to kill his father. We know that he was charged with first degree murder. Simply because he had bought his pocket knife days before the murder. “But as we the jury have talked about it many people own the kind of pocket knife yesterday. Why yes one of our very own jurors happens to own the same knife.” Juror eight is able to prove to everyone that we should not to so quick to judge. As all the facts were placed on the table it showed how by further looking into and embracing new ideas of what could have happen the opend the case to have a birds eye view. To be able to see more than just a poor boy who killed his fathr for
“To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has committed murder.” Juror eleven argues. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a nineteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his own father with a switchblade knife. The boy accused of the murder had two eyewitnesses, and they both had testimonies. Later, the juror's discussion further proves both the old man’s and woman's testimony to be incorrect.
Introduction The Orenthal James Simpson trial (O.J) was one of, if not, the most popular criminal trials in human history. The trial was highly televised, gaining a viewer rating of 150 million people (Britannica). In 1995, O.J Simpson was tried for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman, both of whom had been found with multiple lacerations to their bodies. To the surprise of many, the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of the crime. Background Information
Usually, if the final verdict is affected by prejudice the verdict will be guilty. This can happen through the prejudices of jurors, judges, prosecutors or attorneys. In Monster, it is subtly implied that Steve’s defence attorney, Kathy O’Brien, is prejudiced towards him. On page 10 of Monster, Steve refers to his attorney as “Kathy O’Brien, … Defence Attorney with doubts.” This implies that her doubts are caused by her prejudiced opinions. This character’s prejudiced opinions could have had a major impact on the final verdict, by letting it weaken her defence. The verdict can also be finalised by those opinions, by making their way into the minds of the judges, prosecutors or jurors. This is similar in 12 Angry Men, as juror threes opinions could have easily been passed through to the other jurors. Towards the end of the play, the juror still refuses to change his vote from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. This implies that he is still letting his prejudiced opinions follow him as evidence for his verdict. On page 72 of the play, juror ten gives a long speech as to why he believes the defendant cannot be proven innocent. He refuses to believe the defendant is innocent because he again relates his opinions to his personal experiences with his son. Although the verdict concludes to be ‘not guilty’ in both the play and the novel, prejudice can affect other cases much differently. Other
A. Horowitz, Mirah A. "Kids Who Kill: A Critique of How the American Legal System Deals with Juviniles Who Commit Homicide." Further Development on Previous Symposia (n.d.): 133-77. Print.