In Monster, by Walter Dean Meyers, Kathy O'Brien must get Steve Harmon ready for trial - who is being accused of felony murder. O’Brien has to find a way to make her client presentable to the jury while also preparing him for his testimony. K. Nichole Nesbitt is an attorney that explains what lawyers should be doing for their clients in the process. Nesbitt goes into detail about how ethical lawyers should be reviewing a client's legal rights and examining their responses. While then goes on about how an unethical lawyer cannot advise a client to lie or mislead the jury in any way. When considering Nesbitt’s article, O’Brien’s preparations are ethical because they encourage Steve to be truthful. Nesbitt recognizes the roles a lawyer must play. First, she discusses how an attorney is strongly …show more content…
First, O’Brien persuades Steve into believing in himself. O'Brien states, “I think they want to hear your side of the story.”(215) She wants Steve to have the upper hand. He needs to put his side of the situation out there and make his face known. O’Brien is ethical because she is instructing Steve to tell the truth and put himself forth. Next, She advises Steve to be presentable in front of the jury. O’Brien advises, “Present yourself as someone the jurors can believe in.”(216) Steve is being told more about the case and what is to come. 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. She encourages him to change his answer to be in his favor. Obrien is preparing Steve and encouraging him for his testimony. O’Brien is an ethical lawyer because she prepares, helps, and gives the advice to steve so he doesn't go on stand
Steve was a Monster because He lied and doubted himself. During the quote, Steve
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.
Steve might have gone into the drugstore then left because he was scared. However, this still means that Steve would be charged with felony murder if he would have admitted it to the jury and they ruled him guilty, he would have gotten a lesser sentence because he was not fully involved. O'Brien also made another point that could make some room for reasonable doubt in her closing statements. After she repeated to the jury the conversation where Mrs. Petrocelli and Mr. Evans talked about what happened after the robbery, she brings up the point “Where was Steve Harmon, the alleged lookout man?”(249). If Steve was really a part of this robbery you would think that he would go with Evans and King after to eat and get his share of the money from the
Asia’s letters had also said that her boyfriend and his best friend had seen Adnan in the library after school between 2:15-2:40 pm. Ms. Guiterrez had certainly made a huge mistake of not contacting Asia because Asia would have been able to provide her part of the story to prove Adnan’s innocence and also have two other witnesses to support her story to be valid. The defense attorney had made a terrible error with the case because the result of the trial could have ended differently if she would have contacted Asia McClain. Another example of Ms. Guiterrez’s deficient work was because she was sick and greedy for money. Ms. Guiterrez had many records of her demanding money from clients to supposedly use for judge experts in the case, but she kept the money to herself for her personal use or to pay for her medical bill.
Nevertheless, did Terry Malloy think ethically and create the moral decision to testify to the crime commission and inform them about the fraudulent exercises? According to Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, philosophers created
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.
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.
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
As he works on a case he invests his time and effort into finding what a justifiable and truthful. But, with working in his field come risks especially when it meant defending someone who others think the death penalty is a justifiable way of
However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
As Steve attempts his defense, struggling with his innocence, he creates an excuse to save himself and to prove that he is innocent. However, he writes as if he knows he is guilty, but wants to cut himself some slack. Steve uses rhetorical questions to imply that he knows what he did wrong, but does not want to admit to the crime. He writes his part in the crime casually, which further conveys the conflict in his mind. He depends on others to bring clarity to his mind, such as saying, “What did I do?”.
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
Although it mostly deals with the court and how they bring many witnesses and hear their stories toward the crime. The witneses' stories helps Steve's lawyer O' Brien find clues in which Steve is Innocent as well as trying to find clues in Steve personality when he doubts him at first toward commiting the crime. Also Steve talks about how he misses his family and has flashbacks to how he ended up in this
He depends on others to bring clarity to his mind, such as saying, “What did I do?”. After the session at court was finished, Steve was insecure about what Ms. O’Brien, his lawyer, thinks of him. He writes an entry about it: “Who was Steve Harmon? I wanted to open my shirt and tell her to look into my heart to see who I was, who the real Steve Harmon”(92). During the trial, Ms. O’Brien stays distant from him.
Steve is questioning his own innocence on whether he was involved in the robbery. He first, lies under oath, saying he wasn’t at the store and later writes in his journal that he was, “in to get some mints and back out”. On page 203, Steve, (writing in his journal), states, “we all lie to ourselves here” meaning he subconsciously wants to believe he is innocent. Steve does admit that King and Bobo asked him to check the place out, but he never gives them a signal. Steve is trying to justify his actions but is having second thoughts on whether he participated in the robbery.