Who Is Steve Dickson Guilty In The Monster Essay

1039 Words 5 Pages
In the book Monster written by Walter Dean Meyer, Steve Harmon, a 16 year old black boy, is by going a trial determining if he will spend his life in jail or not. Steve’s outcome of the trial was not guilty with which many would most likely not agree with. In what was supposed to be just a robbery turned into the murdering of Nesbitt, the murder with which Steve was allegedly the look out for the whole thing. Most believe he is guilty, but not on the account of murder just on the robbery. He knew all along that the robbery was going to happen and he could have done something to prevent it from even happening. Steve should have been guilty on the account of accessory to manslaughter. Steve Harmon, James King, and Bobo Evens all knew about the …show more content…
That right there should give someone a huge reason not to believe that he isn’t guilty. Even though when she was in court, she couldn’t say that she didn’t believe him it is still the matter of the fact that she didn’t. She never fully believed that he was innocent but she still had to defend him because she was his defense attorney and that was his job. As has been mentioned, during their case O’Brien had her doubts, but still tried to help boost Steve’s confidence. He had asked her a question asking what was wrong and she explained to him that the jury believed he was guilty from the moment they laid eyes on him. O’Brien said it was because he is a young black boy on trial for murder. She tried to make him feel better about the situation, but also prepared him for the worst. One may say she did this because she believed that the worst would happen. Subsequently, this proves that Kathy O’Brien was a very good attorney not only because she helped prove him innocent but she also because she tried to make him feel at ease even when she didn’t think things were going to go in his …show more content…
Despite all of the evidence proving that he was guilty. Maybe not on all accounts, but he was on being an accomplice, and an accessory. As was previously stated, he had talked to King about the whole plan on the robbery and what was going to go down. Everything except the murder because that wasn’t pre-meditated. Even more, his own defense attorney doubted him being innocent in the whole trial and she had to know things that she couldn’t say in the courtroom because of attorney client privilege. Think about it like this, being on that jury had to have been hard, but did they make the right decision in Steve not being guilty and getting off Scott free? You

Related Documents