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?