Steve Harmon is on trial for a murder that took place during a robbery. Steve claims to not be involved and the evidence shows he may have somewhat been involved. Though he could not have killed the man. With help from all of the evidence shown below a verdict is reached. In the trial of Steve Harmon, Steve worked as a lookout but was not guilty for the murder of Alguinaldo Nesbitt. Harman is not guilty because Mrs. Henry states that she doesn't see Steve, He didn't hold the gun, and Steve Harmon left before the robbery happened.
In Mrs. Henry’s testimony she claims to have not seen Steve. When asked if she recognize anyone in the courtroom from the robbery Mrs. Henry states, “The gentlemen sitting at the table was one of the men arguing (she points to king)” (164). Although Henry’s memories of who she saw were blurred, she claimed to have only seen King not Harmon. With that information it adds a point of how Steve if involved left before the initial robbery happened.
Steve Harmon was involved but only as a lookout, before he backed out and left the scene. He is not guilty of Mr. Nesbitt’s murder because he did not hold the gun. Harman left before the robbery meaning he couldn’t of killed Nesbitt …show more content…
The previous evidence shows that Steve left before the robbery so he couldn’t possibly have pulled the trigger and killed Mr. Nesbitt. While he was testifying Petrocelli asked Richard “Bobo” Evans “You said that you received a sign from Mr. Harmon. Can you tell me what that sign was?” and Evans replied “He was supposed to tell us if there was anyone in the drugstore. He didn’t say nothing so we figured it was alright.” Petrocelli confirmed that Bobo saw Harmon leave the store, “And you definitely saw Mr. Harmon coming from the drugstore, as planned?” Evans confirmed (182). Harman did not give a clear signal. This proves that Steve could have possibly backed out of the robbery after thinking it