Monster Tuesday, July 14th (Closing Arguments) Summary & Analysis

Summary: Tuesday, July 14th (Closing Arguments)

After a close-up shot of Steve in his cell, the screenplay cuts back to the courtroom. Briggs sums up his defense of King, drawing attention to police incompetence. According to Briggs, the police rely on informants instead of gathering hard evidence. Briggs insinuates that the police suggested the evidence to Mrs. Henry. He points out that most of the witnesses against King are testifying in return for reduced sentences for other crimes. Briggs reminds the jury of the witnesses’ criminal records and contends that their unreliability casts reasonable doubt on King’s guilt.

O’Brien begins her closing argument by thanking the jurors for paying close attention during the trial. She then reviews the evidence in the case. The medical examiner has proved a man is dead. Another man has proved the gun belonged to the victim. O’Brien then lists what the State has not proved, including Steve’s presence in the store during the robbery or Steve’s previous knowledge of the crime. The most reliable witness, Mrs. Lorelle Henry, did not see Steve in the drugstore. O’Brien reminds the jurors that Bobo Evans had left a man dying while he and King went off to eat fried chicken. She speculates that Bobo was willing to implicate Steve because Steve was a “getover,” someone Bobo didn’t care about at all. O’Brien then reminds the jury of how Steve conducted himself on the witness stand and asks them to compare Steve to Sal Zinzi, Bobo Evans, and Osvaldo Cruz. Finally, O’Brien reminds jurors of reasonable doubt and states firmly that Steve’s guilt has not been proven.

Petrocelli also thanks the jury before reviewing the evidence in the case. She informs the jury that the case is not about the characters of the witnesses but about the murder of an innocent man who had a right to live. Petrocelli argues that the motivation of the witnesses does not mean their stories are false. She reviews the evidence presented by Delgado, the admitted involvement of Bobo and Cruz, and the importance of the stolen cigarettes in proving who committed the crime. Petrocelli continues to assert that Steve served as the lookout for the robbery and is as guilty as the others. He made, she says, the “moral decision” to participate.

The judge instructs the jury that if they believe King and Steve took part in the crime, they must return a verdict of guilty of felony murder. The judge’s words are repeated as the camera fades back to Steve’s cell. King is in the cell with him. Two guards tell the prisoners that they are betting on the verdicts. The camera cuts to scenes showing Steve in the mess hall and back in his cell.

Analysis: Tuesday, July 14th (Closing Arguments)

The closing arguments for the defense and prosecution tighten the suspense leading up to the verdict for or against Steve. Arguing in defense of King, Briggs attacks police methods and casts doubt on the testimony of their witnesses. However, these points help Steve’s case more than they do King’s because the police have even less actual evidence against Steve. Brigg’s discussion of police methods reminds readers that the prosecution’s case against Steve is in fact legally weak. A reader could argue that, if Steve is found guilty, it is simply one more case of the injustice of the legal system where young Black males are concerned.

O’Brien begins with personal words to the jury, a softer approach than that of Briggs. The contrast in the lawyers’ demeanor is intentional on her part for two reasons. It may make the jurors more amenable to Steve’s case, and it may help her lead them to contrast Steve with King. Distancing Steve from King is the strategy O’Brien has espoused and followed throughout the trial.

O’Brien then astutely lists what the State has proved and not proved, revealing the weakness of its case against Steve. Although O’Brien’s claims contradict some of the scenes in Steve’s screenplay, they are consistent with Steve’s testimony on the witness stand, testimony that the reader realizes contains at least some lies. O’Brien also sticks to her plan of separating Steve from the State’s witnesses in the minds of the jurors. She names Mr. Zinzi, Bobo Evans, and Mr. Cruz to conjure up their images. The fact that O’Brien makes this direct comparison implies her satisfaction with Steve’s performance and reveals how much her case depends on it. Both O’Brien and Steve have played the courtroom game well, but it’s unclear at this stage whether it will be enough to procure a verdict of not guilty.

Petrocelli’s closing argument includes the same appeals to emotion, exaggerations, and evasions that appear in her earlier speeches. Petrocelli tries to divert the jury’s attention from the character of the State’s witnesses back to the severity of the crime. She uses rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the jurors’ doubts. She persists in lumping Steve with the people who have admitted to the crime. Petrocelli is more effective in countering the arguments of Briggs than in rebutting the statements of Kathy O’Brien. She brushes aside Steve’s testimony altogether, a sign that she knows he made a good impression on the witness stand. However, her comment about the moral decision that Steve made strikes a chord with readers.

The storyline of how Steve will come to terms with his experience is set aside for now because the storyline of whether Steve will be found guilty is building toward its climax—the moment the jury returns its verdict. After the closing statements, readers, like the jurors, evaluate the evidence for and against Steve. Unlike the jurors, readers are aware that Steve did know about the crime in advance and that he lied on the witness stand. However, readers are also aware that the case against Steve is quite weak, that the punishment Steve faces is quite severe, and that Steve is a Black person who is only sixteen. All these factors add uncertainty to the plot and leave the reader, like Steve, waiting impatiently for the verdict.

Previous section Tuesday, July 14th (Steve's Testimony) Next section Friday afternoon, July 17th & December, 5 months later