IS STEVE GUILTY?

Statement/Proof 1 Statement: Some of the witnesses could not be trusted Proof: “I knew the people that got killed, I was thinking of trading it for some slack” (48) Proof: “You were afraid and you would have said anything” (37)

Explanation 1 How do they relate? The two witnesses were motivated by fear and wanting to be free from jail.

Statement/Proof 2 Statement: Nobody saw Steve at the drug store. Proof: Laurel doesn’t see Steve in the drug store. (253) Proof: “At no point did the State establish a conversation between Steve and anyone else about a robbery.” (245)

Explanation 2 How do they relate? Laurel saw two people, one being King, the other being Bobo, who admitted it. If no one told Steve about the robbery, he would not be able to know it was happening.

Statement/Proof 3 Statement: Steve didn’t give a signal. Proof: Bobo said he didn’t (182). Proof: Steve was on a walk

Explanation 1 How do they relate?

Introduction Fifteen year old Steve Harmon was charged with robbery and murder, but did he do it? In the book Monster, Steve Harmon is charged with these crimes as a student in the film club. During a robbery of a drug store, the owner was shot and killed, and Harmon is under suspicion. However, he is innocent because the state’s witnesses can’t be trusted, there was no proof he was there, and he never completed his supposed task. All of this proves that Steve Harmon is innocent.

Paragraph One First, the state’s witnesses cannot be trusted. This is the state’s main argument, and it is weak. The witnesses are motivated by fear, as seen in Brigg’s, King’s lawyer, question to them, saying, “You were afraid and you would have said anything” (Meyers, 37). The witnesses themselves would admit to this. Bolden stated that “I knew that the people got killed, and was thinking of trading what I knew for some slack” (Meyers, 48). When someone is afraid, they are willing to say anything to get out of trouble. Both witnesses were afraid of going to or staying in jail. Therefore, they could be lying in order to not be in more trouble. The witnesses, then, cannot be trusted. The witnesses are not trustworthy because they are motivated by fear. They could be lying to get out of trouble.

Paragraph Two Secondly, nobody saw Steve Harmon at the drug store. Lorrel Henry was a witness in the drug store when the robbery happened. Unlike the other state’s witnesses, she was not motivated by fear. Instead, she is just a librarian that wants justice. Not only that, but Henry was able to pick out King as involved in the robbery. However, she claims that she did not see Steve Harmon (Myers, 253). Because she is a trustworthy witness, and did not see Steve Harmon at the drug store, we can assume that he was not there. If he was not at the drug store, he could not have been part of the robbery. Also, nobody told Harmon about the robbery. As O’Brien, Harmon’s lawyer, says, “At no time did the state establish any conversation between Steve and anyone else about the robbery” (Myers, 245). If nobody told Steve about the robbery, how could he know it was happening? He would have no reason to be at the drug store. Nobody saw Steve at the drug store because he wasn’t there. This is known because Henry didn’t see him. Additionally, no one told Harmon about the robbery, so how could he even know to be there?

Paragraph Three

Conclusion As was shown, Steve Harmon was innocent of the drug store robbery. This was proven by most of the state’s witnesses not being trustworthy, like Bobo and Bolden. It was also proven by nobody seeing Steve Harmon at the drug store. Finally, even if Harmon was there, he did not give a signal to Bobo and King. Should an innocent young man go to jail for something he didn’t do? Should Steve Harmon be seen as a monster?