Julie Pawloski Mr. Leavitt Ela 1 May 12, 2023 Why Steve Is Innocent I am writing this to prove why the Judge and juries from Monster by Walter Dean Myers were correct in their final judgment saying Steve was innocent. As for him , he had a lot of evidence proving he was innocent. For example. Lorelle Henry, the key witness , never saw and never heard Steve in the store while she was there. Another piece of evidence is that after the homicide Steve was never compensated by money, which was promised by Mr. King and “Bobo” which they had stolen from the store. Although you might wonder why I mentioned the money saying he might have participated, the main reason they committed the crime was for money. So why did Steve not get paid? I am writing this essay to prove that Steve correctly proved his innocence to the judge and juries. The first major evidence is that Lorelle Henry did not witness Steve in the store while she was there. While Lorelle Henry was in the store, she only heard two young men …show more content…
This was never fully proven, yet King says “I need to get paid, man. I ain’t got nothing between my butt and the ground but a rag” (Myers 50). Steve responds with “I hear that” (Myers 50). This shows the reader that they both needed money and were willing to do something for money. This proves that if Steve participated in the robbery, he would have been compensated, but he never was. Another reason that proves that Steve was never compensated was “Bobo” Evans tells the judge that he and King went to go to get food after the crime because they were hungry. This is said by “Bobo” proving where they went, “Then we went down to the chicken joint over Lenox Avenue, across from the bridge” (Myers 180). This proves that they never went to Steve to give him money after they left the store. We also know that Steve did not come with them or ever meet up for the money by “Bobo” saying “Just me and King” (Myers
There was a lack of evidence to convict Steve guilty. Others have shown Steve's lack of guilt through their actions. On the night of the robbery and murder, there was no proven statement Steve was at the convenience store. He was caught up with the wrong people at the wrong time.
This is proved when Mr. Sawicki testifies. In the novel Mr. Sawicki testifies stating, “‘He’s very much involved with depicting his neighborhood and environment in a positive manner.’” (Myers 235). Throughout the novel there weren't a lot of people that testified about Steve. In fact, there were probably only three people.
Steve Harmon is a kid who is on trial for being a part of a robbery and murder. He lives in Harlem; New York and he is also only 16 years old. In the novel, Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, Steve Harmon was a monster because he lied and he doubts himself. Steve was a monster because he lied to the jury and said that he wasn’t in the store that day. Steve is in jail waiting on his trial for robbery and murder.
According to Bobo and what we’ve seen from Steve’s flashbacks he was supposed to be the lookout. This would mean that Lorelle Henry would’ve seen Steve in the store, and Steve seeing her. There was no mention of Steve throughout her entire testimony which leads to the possible conclusion that Steve was never there on that day, leading to him being not
Steve and his family were so happy. The book said, “The guards who were standing behind Steve moved away from him. He has been found not guilty.” (Myers 276). This shows Steve is a good person.
First of all, Steve admitted to being at the store and he also says he’s not the one who killed Mr. Nesbitt. So therefore he was the lookout for the robbery. Here is some evidence from the book, “I walked into a drug store to look for some mints, and then I walked out.” “I didn’t kill Mr. Nesbitt.”
In this manslaughter case in the book Monster Steve Harmon is accused of being guilty in manslaughter of checking if it was safe for James King to rob a drugstore. Steve was indeed at the scene of the crime but was he actually apart of the crime, and if he was were is the proof to actually show he was involved in the crime? Steve Harmon is innocent of felony murder because there is no evidence and he was not there at the crime. In every case in trial there should always be some type of evidence to prove/support reason why is one’s guilty.
With what crime was Steve Titus charged? Steve Titus was charged with rape, do to a false memory of the girl. What evidence was used to arrest and convict Mr. Titus of the crime? That Steve Titus car looks like the same car that passed by earlier that day.
Steve Harmons actions depicted his characteristics and we can, therefore, conclude that Steve Harmon is a liar as he lied under oath. Steve was also a guilt-ridden man ashamed of his actions. People who disagree may claim that Steve was undoubtedly innocent as Lorelle Henry, a witness, declared that there were only 2 people, proven to be James King and Bobo Evans, inside the store who eventually murdered Mr.Nesbitt. This may be a strong argument because it shows that Steve was not in the drugstore and could be really innocent. On the contrary, however, Steve’s job was just supposed to be a lookout and ensure that the drugstore was clear of cops or anyone inside.
His wording shows that he doesn’t know who he is and therefore believes he is a Monster as Ms. Petrocelli calls him. He accepts people’s judgments as his self-truth. Even though, he, himself, accepts the worst he still wants people to perceive him as a good person, especially his mom. Steve’s mom’s words cut deeper in him because his mom believes he didn’t do it while he knows he did. 5 days into the trial, his mother comes by and talks to him hoping to make him feel better, “I could still feel Mama’s pain.
Since the prosecutor Petrocelli called Steve a monster, that is all that Steve thinks of as himself. Steve fears that his parents will no longer see him as the good son they used to know.
In the book, Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, Steve didn't act as a lookout for King and Bobo. On page 177, Bobo said, “Me and King planned out a get over and we done it.” According to Bobo’s words, he didn't mention Steve’s name, which proves that Steve didn't plan to rob a drugstore with King and Bobo. For example, as stated on page 182, Petrocelli is having a conversation with Bobo, “You said you received a sign from Mr. Harmon. Can you tell me what that sign was?”
If he puts his story out there, the jury will see differently. O’Brien is giving good legal advice to him, showing she is ethical. Lastly, O'Brien is encouraging steve to be honest while proving his innocence on trial. Steve answers, “Last summer?” O’brien shows whether she likes or dislikes some of his answers to get him ready.
Throughout the entire case, there was not enough evidence given for the jury to prove him guilty. Lorelle Henry was a person that witnessed part of the crime, and even said she never saw Steve in the store. With all of the evidence given, there was not enough for Steve to be found guilty and not be a good person. However, just because Steve was found not guilty doesn’t mean he was innocent. Therefore, Steve was a monster.
The whole jury said he is not guilty. People also said that Steve had done nothing wrong; they believed he had nothing to do with it. However, just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean Steve was innocent. Therefore, Steve was a monster. Steve was a monster because he was friends with bad people.