Everyone makes mistakes, they know what they did wrong and they learn from is. In any situation being on trial for your life is hard enough. When your on trial for your life and being charged with murder and not even know what you did wrong is even worse. Steve Harmon, a 16-year-old film student, is on trial for felony murder. The problem is that Steve claims he does not even know what he is on trial for. Steve alleges that all he did was simply walk into a drugstore to find some mints. However, we know that the circumstances are more in-depth than the novel leads us to believe. In Steve’s journal, Steve claims that all he did was go to a drugstore to get some mints. “I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints”(140). However, knowing …show more content…
In Steve’s journal, he claims that all he did was go to the drug store to get mints “I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints” (140). If Steve’s claim is true there should be no reason he should be charged with felony murder. But why would he be at the drugstore where he knows the hold-up was taking place? Also, in O’Brian’s closing statement, she brought up a crucial point that Steve didn’t even make a signal, which was his only part in the crime. “ In other words, there was no signal”(247). Steve might have gone into the drugstore then left because he was scared. However, this still means that Steve would be charged with felony murder if he would have admitted it to the jury and they ruled him guilty, he would have gotten a lesser sentence because he was not fully involved.
O'Brien also made another point that could make some room for reasonable doubt in her closing statements. After she repeated to the jury the conversation where Mrs. Petrocelli and Mr. Evans talked about what happened after the robbery, she brings up the point “Where was Steve Harmon, the alleged lookout man?”(249). If Steve was really a part of this robbery you would think that he would go with Evans and King after to eat and get his share of the money from the