Monster by Walter Dean Myers Page B

to go beyond these two when you look for the perpetrators of this crime. Ultimately, what this case is about is whether youbelieve people who are admitted participants in this crime and who are saving their own hides. If you believe, as I do, that their positions, their stated characters, so taint their testimony that everything they say is well within the area of reasonable doubt, then you have no choice but to find Mr. King not guilty. And when you walk away from the sorry testimony of the State’s witnesses, you have nothing else from the prosecution. Nothing else. Ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of this case the prosecutor spoke of monsters. She not only found them, but she has brought them here to testify for the State. I have faith in you, and faith in the American judicial system. And that faith leads me to believe that justice in this case demands more proof than you have seen in this case. I believe that justice demands that you reject the testimony of these men, consigning their stories to the area of deep doubt. I believe that justice demands that you return a verdict of Not Guilty. Thank you.
    Â 
    CUT TO: POV of JURY. Camera will follow O’BRIEN as she paces from one side of the JURY to the other. Behind her we see the prosecutor’s table and the 2 defense tables. Beyond that we see STEVE’s MOTHER, sitting on the edge of her seat.
    Â 
    O’BRIEN
    Â 
    First, I would like to thank you for your patience in this trial, and for your attentiveness. It’s been clear to everyone involved in this case that you have taken an interest in these proceedings and have brought your minds and hearts to the testimony. I would like to beg your indulgence while I review that testimony.
    Â 
    The most important testimony, the reason we’re here, is the Medical Examiner’s statement that a murder was committed. A man is dead. But nowhere in the Medical Examiner’s testimony does he indicate who was responsible for that murder. That is for you to determine. It is an awesome responsibility. It was testified that the gun belonged to the victim. Sowe can’t trace gun ownership back to the murderer. What can we trace as to the guilt or innocence of my client, Steve Harmon?
    Â 
    The State doesn’t even suggest that he was in the store during the robbery. It doesn’t suggest that it was his gun that was used. The State does contend that somewhere, sometime, Steve got together with someone and agreed to participate in this robbery. On the stand Steve admitted to having seen Mr. Evans on the street in his neighborhood. Hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people have seen Mr. Evans in the streets of Harlem. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. That doesn’t make any of them guilty of a crime. The State did elicit from Steve that he spoke to Mr. King about basketball. The conversations were short, and without substance. At no time did the State establish any conversation between Steve and anyone else about a robbery. Think about that for a minute.

    Â 
    Without a plan that says that Steve entered an agreement with the robbers, what would he be charged with? Talking about basketball in the streets of Harlem? Does that now constitute a crime? Not in any law journal that I know about. The State also presents Mr. Evans’s testimony that he “understood” that Steve was to check out the drugstore to see if it was clear. Oh, really? The State brought out a witness,one who everyone agrees has no reason to lie, Lorelle Henry. Miss Henry said that she was in the drugstore when the robbery began. If someone was to make sure that the drugstore was clear, he or she made a bad job of it. Remember, it was the State that proved that the drugstore wasn’t clear. And do you remember the signal that Mr. Evans said he received? He said that Steven came out of the drugstore and didn’t signal that anything was wrong. In other words, there was no signal. What is the