Monster (13 page)

 

Ms. Petrocelli: Who was with you at this time?

 

Mr. Evans: Just me and King.

 

(SHE takes off glasses and looks at jury.)
Where was Steve Harmon, the alleged lookout man? Why was there no testimony that Mr. Harmon received part of the loot from this “getover”? The only person we know who profited was Bobo Evans, and we know he made a profit because he sold the cigarettes!

 

Mr. Briggs has already suggested that the major reason for the testimonies of Mr. Evans and Osvaldo Cruz was self-interest. They were brought here not to answer for their participation, but for the sole purpose of testifying against others. They both understand that the deal they get
depends
on their convincing you that other people are implicated. Mr. Evans suggests that he
believed what the “shooter” told him about someone else checking out the store. But let's look at the reliability of Mr. Evans's testimony. A robbery was committed; a man was brutally killed. The killing here is the key to what these proceedings are about, not the stolen cigarettes, and you understand that. But still Mr. Evans goes around selling the cigarettes that connect him with the crime! Did he think that was a clever move? Or is this a shallow, gullible man who doesn't think about very much of anything? Who among us can watch a man die in a drugstore and then go out for a quick bite a few blocks away? Is this a man whom we can trust to tell the truth about anything? I don't believe him. Do you?

 

In going over my notes last night, I ran into a question. It's the prosecutor's job to bring all of the participants in a crime to justice, and so Miss Petrocelli has brought everyone she believes might have been involved to this courtroom. But why, if Steven
Harmon is innocent, would Mr. Evans want to hurt him? That bothered me quite a bit. But then I thought again about who Mr. Evans was. He had no problem at all in sticking up an innocent man, Mr. Nesbitt. You watched him testify. Did he seem at all bothered by the fact that he had left a man dead? To Mr. Evans, all Mr. Nesbitt represented was a “getover.” That's what Steve Harmon is to him as well. Mr. Evans—Bobo—is perfectly willing to leave Steven Harmon lying on a floor or wasting away in a jail cell. The only thing that Steven Harmon is to Mr. Evans is another “getover.”

 

Finally, let us come to the character of Steve Harmon.
(We see O'BRIEN stop and get a drink of water. Then we see her walk next to STEVE.)

 

I want you to think about his character as opposed to that of the witnesses for the State. You saw him on the stand. He answered the questions openly and honestly, as would any other young person
of his age. Miss Petrocelli asked him if he was nervous. Do you remember that? The implication was that if he was nervous, it meant that he had something to hide. I submit to you, the jurors in this case, that you, too, would have had a degree of nervousness. He's on trial for his life! He's facing the possibility of spending his entire youth behind bars! Under the circumstances I would have been shocked if he were not nervous. The State paraded before you witness after witness who, by their own admission, testified either to get out of jail or to prevent themselves from going to jail, or, in the case of Mr. Zinzi, to prevent himself from being sexually molested. Think of Steve Harmon's character as opposed to that of Bobo Evans. Compare Steven Harmon to Mr. Zinzi, another of the State's witnesses. Compare him to Mr. Cruz, who admitted taking part in this crime, who admitted that to become a member of his gang, he had to slash a stranger in the face.

 

Is there reasonable doubt as to Steve Harmon's guilt? I think the doubt was established when Lorelle Henry did not identify Steve as being in the store. It was reinforced with every witness the State brought to the stand.

 

It's up to you, the jury, to find guilt where there is guilt. It is also up to you to acquit when guilt has not been proven. There is no question in my mind that in this case, as regards Steve Harmon, guilt has not been proven. I am asking you, on behalf of Steve Harmon, and in the name of justice, to closely consider all of the evidence that you have heard during this last week. If you do, I'm sure you'll return a verdict of Not Guilty. And that will be the right thing to do. Thank you.

 

MS: PETROCELLI from POV of JURY. Behind her we see the prosecutor's table and the two defense tables. We see the two defense lawyers watching intently. Neither STEVE nor KING is directly facing the camera.

 

PETROCELLI

 

I would also like to thank you for your attention in this trial. The defense has just given you its version of the facts in this case, and now it is the State's turn.

 

Let me start by refocusing this case. The defense wants you to go into the jury room thinking that this case is about the character of Mr. Zinzi, who testified that he heard a story about someone who stole cigarettes. It is not about his character. The defense wants you to think that this case is about the character of Mr. Bolden, who bought cigarettes. It is not about his character. The defense wants you to consider the character of Osvaldo Cruz. But this case is not about whether Mr. Cruz is someone we would invite to a party or have as a friend. The defense wants you to dwell on the character of Richard “Bobo” Evans. He is not a nice man, they are saying, and so you should discount his testimony. But this case is
not about the character of any of these witnesses. This case is about a crime that was committed on the 22nd of December in which an innocent man, Alguinaldo Nesbitt, was brutally murdered. I don't know what kind of man Mr. Nesbitt was, but I know he did not deserve to be killed in his store, left on the floor while his killers snacked at a fast-food restaurant. This case is not about the characters of Zinzi, Bolden, Cruz, or Evans; it is about Mr. Nesbitt's right to live, and to enjoy the fruits of his labor. It is about the right we all have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the contention of the State that no one has the right to deprive us of the precious gift of life. It is the contention of the State and it is also the law of the land.

 

A lot has been said about the motivation of some of the witnesses. They testified, according to the defense, only because they were given a break in their sentencing. Therefore, the defense
would have you believe, their testimony is somehow made false. Well, let's reexamine their testimony and find out.

 

CUT TO: CU of JUDGE. He is taking notes.

 

CUT TO: MS of PETROCELLI from JUDGE's POV.

 

Mr. Bolden testified that he received stolen cigarettes from Mr. Evans. We know that the cigarettes were stolen from the drugstore. José Delgado, the drugstore clerk, testified that the cigarettes were stolen. In other words, Mr. Delgado verifies Mr. Bolden's testimony. Did he get a break in sentencing? Or was he simply telling the truth? Did you notice that none of the defense lawyers questioned the character of the clerk or even mentioned it? They want you to forget him.

 

Mr. Evans testified that he was actually in the drugstore, taking an active part in the robbery. No one has questioned that. He also places Mr. King in the drugstore with him on the 22nd of
December. This testimony was backed up by Lorelle Henry—Lorelle Henry, who had gone to the drugstore to get medicine for her grandchild. Did she get a break in sentencing? Or was she merely telling the truth? When the defense talks about character, they carefully skirt around the character of Lorelle Henry.

 

Mr. Evans also testified that when he arrived at the scene, he saw Osvaldo Cruz there. This testimony was verified by Mr. Cruz. Yes, I was there, Mr. Cruz testified. Yes, I was part of this robbery. We have three witnesses to the fact that James King was in the store on the 22nd of December: Mr. Evans, Mr. Cruz, and Ms. Henry.

 

Mr. Evans testified that they did not have a gun but intended to take Mr. Nesbitt's money by force of muscle. He said that Mr. Nesbitt produced a gun that he owned. You heard the City Clerk testify that the gun used to kill Mr. Nesbitt was registered to him. Did the
City Clerk, who verified Mr. Evans's testimony, get a break in sentencing? Of course not. Did the defense attack his character? No, the only thing they could do was to sit and listen to the truth.

 

Another fact that the defense did not choose to deal with is the sale of cigarettes. The sale of cigarettes to Mr. Bolden, a fact never seriously challenged by the defense, along with the verified theft of cigarettes from the drugstore, also suggests that Mr. King was present in the store during the robbery and murder. Mr. Briggs, the attorney for James King, suggests that Mr. Evans was in the drugstore by himself, or perhaps with Osvaldo Cruz. But Lorelle Henry identified Mr. King as the man she saw in the drugstore. Here is a Black woman, uneasy about her role in identifying a young Black man, who still had the courage to testify before you and to positively identify Mr. King. Mr. Briggs's theory simply does not work. What does work is the State's
theory of what happened, verified by all of the witnesses. Mr. Harmon gave the all-clear signal, and Bobo Evans and James King went into the store to rob Mr. Nesbitt. When Mr. Nesbitt tried to defend himself, the gun was taken from him and he was shot by that man, sitting right there
(She points to King.)
, and killed. Ms. O'Brien suggests that if Mr. Harmon had actually cased the drugstore for the robbers, he would have seen Ms. Henry. In other words, he would have been a better lookout man. Well, maybe he hasn't had much experience in helping to rob drugstores. Should we feel sorry for him? For that matter, are Mr. King or Mr. Evans so accomplished in their criminal activities? This was a botched robbery in which the perpetrators actually took very little money and a few cartons of cigarettes. And, oh, yes, the life of a good man, Alguinaldo Nesbitt.

 

If anybody does not believe that Mr. King was in the store, if they believe that Osvaldo Cruz, Lorelle Henry, and
Bobo Evans are all lying, that the sale of the cigarettes to Mr. Bolden means nothing, then they should find him not guilty. I don't think that is possible. If anybody looking at this case believes that the store was not cased, that Mr. Harmon just “happened” to be at the drugstore, although now he says he doesn't remember where he was, then they should find him not guilty. I don't think that is possible, either. The truth of the matter is that Bobo Evans participated in a crime with Mr. Cruz, Mr. King, and Mr. Harmon.

 

They are all equally guilty. The one who grabbed the cigarettes, the one who wrestled for the gun, the one who checked the place to see if the coast was clear. What would have happened if Mr. Harmon had come out of that store and gone over to Mr. King and said, “There's someone in the store”? Perhaps they would have gone someplace else to carry out their “getover,” or maybe they would have just called it a day and gone home. Steve Harmon was part
of the plan that caused the death of Alguinaldo Nesbitt. I can imagine him trying to distance himself from the event. Perhaps, in some strange way, he can even say, as his attorney has suggested, that because he did not give a thumbs-up signal, or some sign to that effect, that he has successfully walked the moral tightrope that relieves him of responsibility in this matter. But Alguinaldo Nesbitt is dead, and his death was caused by these men.

 

Mr. King's attorney wants to distance Mr. King from the murder by attacking the character of the State's witnesses. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Evans is an associate of Mr. King. If he had chosen priests and Boy Scouts as his companions, I'm sure we wouldn't be here today. But Mr. King cannot distance himself from the fact—the cold, hard fact—that a man is dead because of him.

 

Mr. Harmon wants us to look at him as a high school student and as a filmmaker. He wants us to think, well, he didn't
pull the trigger. He didn't wrestle with Mr. Nesbitt. He wants us to believe that because he wasn't in the drugstore when the robbery went down, he wasn't involved. Again, perhaps he has even convinced himself that he wasn't involved.

 

But yes, Mr Harmon was involved. He made a moral decision to participate in this “getover.” He wanted to “get paid” with everybody else. He is as guilty as everybody else, no matter how many moral hairs he can split. His participation made the crime easier. His willingness to check out the store, no matter how poorly he did it, was one of those causative factors that resulted in the death of Mr. Nesbitt. None of us can bring back Mr. Nesbitt. None of us can restore him to his family. But you, you twelve citizens of our state, of our city, can bring a measure of justice to his killers.

 

And that's all I ask of you: to reach into your hearts and minds and bring forth that measure of justice. Thank you.

 

CUT TO: EXTERIOR: COURTROOM. The doors of the court are closed as the camera nears it. The door is pushed open and we see the INTERIOR of the COURTROOM. We see the JURY turned toward the JUDGE, who speaks in a quiet, almost fatherly manner. We hear his voice as the camera seems to settle down on a seat. STEVE, sensing that a friend has arrived, turns and tries to smile at MR. SAWICKI but cannot manage it through his nervousness.

 

We look around the COURTROOM as the JUDGE's voice drifts in and out.

 

JUDGE

 

If you believe that Mr. King was a participant in the robbery, whether he actually pulled the trigger or not, you must return a verdict of Guilty. If you believe…
(Voice fades out.)

 

CUT TO: Stuart portrait of George Washington on right wall.

 

CUT TO: New York State flag. Then: American flag.