Monster

by Walter Dean Myers

  PETROCELLI

  Then how do you remember—what did you say?—taking mental notes for a school film project?

  STEVE

  I know that because I was planning to do the film of my neighborhood over the holidays.

  PETROCELLI

  Getting back to Mr. King. Would you consider yourself a friend of his or an acquaintance?

  STEVE

  An acquaintance.

  PETROCELLI

  Mr. Cruz, friend or acquaintance?

  STEVE

  Acquaintance.

  PETROCELLI

  Mr. Bobo Evans, friend or acquaintance?

  STEVE

  Acquaintance.

  PETROCELLI

  So you’re acquainted with everyone involved in this robbery, is that—

  BRIGGS

  Objection! She knows better than that! She knows better than that!

  JUDGE

  Sustained. The jury will disregard the last question. There is no one who was involved in this affair until the jury makes that decision. And yes, Miss Petrocelli, you do know better.

  PETROCELLI (satisfied)

  Nothing further.

  We see STEVE stand shakily and head back to the defense table. He looks out onto the onlookers and sees his parents. His MOTHER forces a smile and his FATHER makes a fist and nods emphatically. We see STEVE sit down, start to pick up a glass of water, and have to put it down because his hand is shaking so badly. O’BRIEN crosses to the desk and writes on the pad in front of STEVE. We see what she has written. It says “TAKE DEEP BREATHS.”

  O’BRIEN

  The defense calls George Sawicki.

  CUT TO: CU of GEORGE SAWICKI.

  O’BRIEN

  Mr. Sawicki, do you know the defendant sitting at this table?

  SAWICKI

  I’ve known Steve for three years. He’s been in my film club.

  O’BRIEN

  Can you give us your opinion of Mr. Harmon’s work?

  SAWICKI

  I think he’s an outstanding young man. He is talented, bright, and compassionate. He’s very much involved with depicting his neighborhood and environment in a positive manner.

  O’BRIEN

  Do you consider him an honest young man?

  SAWICKI

  Absolutely.

  O’BRIEN

  When he says he was taking mental notes for a film, would that be a film for your club?

  SAWICKI

  Yes.

  O’BRIEN

  Nothing further.

  CU of MR. SAWICKI. He starts to leave the stand but is then held up by the JUDGE.

  CUT TO: PETROCELLI.

  PETROCELLI

  You said you’re a teacher in Mr. Harmon’s school. Do you live in his neighborhood?

  SAWICKI

  No, I don’t.

  PETROCELLI

  So although you want to vouch for his character, isn’t it fair to say that you don’t know what he does when he goes to his neighborhood and you go home to yours?

  SAWICKI

  No, it’s not. His film footage shows me what he’s seeing and, to a large extent, what he’s thinking. And what he sees, the humanity of it, speaks of a very deep character.

  PETROCELLI

  What was he doing on the afternoon of December 22nd? Did he show you a film of that day?

  SAWICKI

  No, he did not.

  PETROCELLI

  Do you feel that the ability to make a film means that someone is honest?

  SAWICKI

  It is my belief that to make an honest film, one has to be an honest person. I would say that. And I do believe in Steve’s honesty.

  PETROCELLI

  As a matter of fact you like him quite a bit, don’t you?

  SAWICKI

  Yes, I do.

  PETROCELLI

  Nothing further.

  O’BRIEN

  Harmon rests.

  BRIGGS

  King rests.

  CUT TO: STEVE lying on his cot, soaked with sweat. He tries hard to catch his breath. He turns his head to the wall. He lifts one hand and lets it slide slowly down the pale-green wall.

  CUT TO: INTERIOR: COURTROOM: CU of JAMES KING. He looks around awkwardly as BRIGGS sums up his defense.

  VO (BRIGGS)

  So what do we have? We have a man who admits to being part of a robbery accusing another man. And why is he making these accusations? The prosecution would have you believe that bringing Mr. Evans, this “Bobo” character, here, is the result of good police work, which gives Mr. Evans the chance to demonstrate what a great citizen he is. But isn’t the truth of the matter that the only reason he’s here is because the police have him on a criminal matter, and have offered him a deal if he comes here and implicates someone else? Isn’t that the real story?

  Does it really surprise anyone that a man who is capable of robbing a drugstore, and he has admitted to doing just that, who then sells the loot from the robbery, and he has admitted to that, and who is caught with drugs, and he has admitted to that—then tries to get a lighter sentence by testifying against another person? Isn’t his character, if you can call it character, clear? Hasn’t he proven by his own admissions who he is? What he is?

  Camera pulls back from POV of JUDGE. We see only MR. and MRS. HARMON on one side of COURTROOM, a few strangers on the other side. The COURTROOM is nearly empty. The camera pans to COURT CLERK, who is going through mail. Then to court STENOGRAPHER, who takes down proceedings. Then to COURT OFFICER, who is nodding, close to sleep.

  BRIGGS

  What I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that Mr. Evans made the mistake of selling the cigarettes he stole during the robbery. Did he do the shooting? I don’t know. But naturally he says he didn’t do it. If he had sat up there on the witness stand and said he did the shooting, he would never have been offered the deal he got. The only way out for him is to look around and find somebody else to accuse. And that’s precisely what he did. He could have picked anyone else in the neighborhood. Half the young men of that age group are either unemployed or underemployed. He happened to pick Mr. King.

  The State did not produce one witness to the murder. They produced one witness, Miss Henry, who said she saw Mr. King in the store. Where was her mind at the time? According to her testimony, it was on the health and wellbeing of her grandchild. Could she have made a mistake? Evidently she has. Not that she did not see someone in the store, but whom did she see? She was taken to the police station and given a set of photographs. From these photographs she picked, at police urging, Mr. King. But she didn’t pick out this photo from a thousand photographs, or a book of photographs or even 50 photographs. She was shown a handful of photos and asked to pick one. Later, when she had to pick someone from a lineup, what was she doing? Was she picking out the man she saw in the drugstore, or was she picking out the man the police had given her in the photographs? That’s for you, the jury, to decide. We heard Mrs. Moore testify that James King was at her house at the time of the incident. Shall we assume that every person who is related to an accused person is going to lie? I don’t think so. The prosecution, Miss Petrocelli, paraded in front of you a bunch of admitted criminals, people who have participated in stickups, buying and selling stolen goods, you name it. She has asked you to believe them. Then she asks you not to believe Mrs. Moore, who has never committed a crime in her life. Think about it. If you met these people on the street, which would you believe, which would you trust?

  As for Osvaldo Cruz, he is putting as much distance between himself and this crime as possible. All he was supposed to do was to stand outside and push a garbage can in front of a potential pursuer. But there wasn’t a pursuer, because Mr. Evans and whoever he was with—if indeed he was with anyone else—made sure of that. And think about this: Lorelle Henry, who seemed for all the world like a decent, law-abiding human being, testified that she was sure that there were 2 men in the store, 2 men involved in the robbery. And we hav
e 2 men who have admitted participation. I submit to you that there’s no need to go beyond these two when you look for the perpetrators of this crime. Ultimately, what this case is about is whether you believe 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.

  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.

  O’BRIEN

  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.

  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. So we can’t trace gun ownership back to the murderer. What can we trace as to the guilt or innocence of my client, Steve Harmon?

  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.

  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 significance of this? Well, if there were a signal, a thumbs-up sign, for example, we might expect someone in the vicinity to have noticed it. Not only did no one without a stake in this case see Steve Harmon giving a sign, Lorelle Henry, a retired librarian, did not see him in the store either. And tell me, how many young black men went into that drugstore that day and walked out without making a signal? Were they all guilty of something?

  Do you remember Mr. Evans’s testimony that they stopped for a “quick bite” after committing the crime? And who stopped for the quick bite? Do you remember? Let me read to you from the testimony of Mr. Bobo Evans. (O’BRIEN picks up notes, adjusts her glasses, and begins to read.)

  Mr. Evans: We took some cigarettes and left.

  Ms. Petrocelli: Then what did you do?

  Mr. Evans: Then we went down to that chicken joint over Lenox Avenue, across from the bridge. We got some fried chicken and some wedgies and some sodas.

  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.