What are some reasons as to why a jury member would find James King guilty and Steve Harmon not guilty in the book Monster?

Expert Answers
gmuss25 eNotes educator| Certified Educator

James King was the leading conspirator and served the primary role in the robbery and death of Aguinaldo Nesbitt. Lorelle Henry testifies that she witnessed James King get into an argument with Nesbitt before she left the store. Despite finding no fingerprints on the cash register or gun, Richard "Bobo" Evans informs the jury that he and James King went to eat chicken and split the money following the robbery. Osvaldo Cruz also admits to being intimidated by James and Bobo, which is why he chose to go along with the robbery. James King played a significant role in the crime and deserved to be found guilty of robbing and murdering Nesbitt.

Steve Harmon was an alleged accomplice in the crime. Bobo mentions that James King told him that Steve was supposed to serve as a lookout which is considered hearsay. Osvaldo Cruz also says that Steve was an active participant, but his testimony is not given serious consideration because he accepted a plea bargain. Lorelle Henry does not mention seeing Steve Harmon in the store, which is odd considering that Steve would have been in the store at that time. Steve also tells the jury that he was out looking for places to film during the robbery, and his teacher, Mr. Sawicki, testifies to Steve's upright character. In the eyes of a jury member, several criminals, two of which are accepting plea bargains, testify that Steve was an accomplice, while the only credible witness in the entire case says that she didn't see him. Steve would be found not guilty because of the lack of evidence and unreliable testimonies of Bobo and Cruz. 

ronald21xtreme | Student

As a jury member why do you find James king guilty and Steve Harmon not-guilty please use complete sentences