Directions: Read and answer the following question in 8 sentences.
Steve is acquitted at the end of the trial (He is found not guilty). Do you agree with this verdict? Explain your answer in 8 sentences and USE EVIDENCE!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No I do not agree with the verdict because I think that Steve did not tell everything that had happened that day. I just think that he did not want to get in trouble so he kept everything written in his notebook.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes I think he is not guilty. He was there but their was no proof he was involved. Bobo said he did not make a signal. But Bobo and King still went inside. Any body could of been there but that does not mean they did it. For example Ms. Henry was there. She did not do the crime. Those are the reasons why he is not guilty
ReplyDeleteYES I agree with the verdict because steve had no part in the robbery all he did was go in the drug store ,buy some mints & walk right out. Just like he said " only because he went in does not mean he was comited in the robbery ".
ReplyDeleteI do believe the verdict. The reason why I believe the final verdict is because Steve never gave a signal that the store was clear. If anything he was just going into the store to look for something and just left out. Any body can walk in the store and just walk out then someone goes and robs the store. Will that make the person apart of the robbery? I don't think it should be. Another thing is Steve went into the store to get mints and leave exactly like he said. Just because he went into the does not mean he should be accused of murder.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the verdict was correct to make Steve found Not guilty. There was no direct signal given to the robbers to justify the fact that there was no one in the store. So technically they (King and Bobo) went into the store on their own account not on Steve's. Also Steve wasn't aware of the things that were going to take place at the robbery. In no way was Steve going to know that Nesbitt would be killed. He wasn't even informed whether he would get paid or not,if he would even get paid. There is no direct evidence on the fact that that Steve made any direct signals or played a significant role in the robbery. That is why i agree with the verdict of Not Guilty
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the verdict because Steve changed his story a lot through out the book. First he said that he was at the Drugstore. Then he said he went in the Drugstore to get mints. After that he said he was not in the Drugstore that day. We know he was in the Drugstore because Bobo said Steve walked in then out with no sign that anyone else but Mr.Nesbitt was in there. But Steve was wrong because some one was in the store. In the book it said that maybe he was tying to make him believe he was not a part of it. It also showed a flash back when King asked Steve if he was in and he said yes. It makes no since because Steve could not get his story right.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the verdict because Steve was guilty. He said that "he was there looking for mints". Then changed it to "I wasn't there I was taking mental notes in the community". There were plenty of people that testified that he was there he knew about the crime. In other words he knew the {who, what, when, where, why, and how. He stated that he walk in and out that could have been the sign. I find it unsual that he changed his story not once not twice but three times. You have to be kidding me.
ReplyDeleteThe verdict was correct to make Steve found Not guilty. There was no direct signal given to the robbers to justify the fact that there was no one in the store. So technically they (King and Bobo) went into the store on their own account not on Steve's. Also Steve wasn't aware of the things that were going to take place at the robbery. In no way was Steve going to know that Nesbitt would be killed. He wasn't even informed whether he would get paid or not,if he would even get paid. There is no direct evidence on the fact that that Steve made any direct signals or played a significant role in the robbery. That is why the verdict of Not Guilty is the right one.
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the verdict. I say this because anyone can walk into a store and look around and then walk out and not do anything except walk home. Also I agree with the verdict because King might have told him to go look around. But when he got in there he found out what they were going to do. I am saying this because King was smart he knew that Steve would figure what they will do. Also Bobo who was there at the time of the crime so Bobo said he just saw “Steve walks out and does not do anything like a thumbs up”. Also Mrs. Henry said she did not see Steve walk in. those are the reasons he is not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the final verdict or Steve found not guilty because through out the book he changes his story three times first he states that he walked in the drugstore to get some mints. Then he says he was not there that day then he says he was looking for spots in his neighborhood .To film for a project he had to do for Mr.Sawicki's class. Also if King asked him to be look out for the crime he might have decided that he was going to be part of it. But in his journal he says he dose not do "getover's" he knows better than that. Steve says that but according to what "Bobo" Evans testimony Steve was there other wise who was look out.Who was going to let them know if the store was empty or not who was going to tell them the store was clear. Steve must have been there Steve was at the store Steve was some what part of the robbery. Nobody really knows what really happened but with the facts that they gave Steve should have been found guilty for choosing on his own liberty to be part of this robbery.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with the verdict Steve is guilty. Steve knew he was Involved with this crime. Steve changed his story 3 times. The first one was “I just went inside the Store to look around”. The second one he said “I went inside the drugstore to buy some mints”. Then he said, “I never went inside the drugstore” while he was giving a Testimony. He said three different stories. Everyone who was involved in the crime said Steve was part of it. Steve wrote in his Journal “I’m innocent I did not do it” If he was so sure why wouldn’t he just say that to the Jury while his Testimony was going on? why would he lie about going inside the Drugstore because he’s hiding something. And Steve knew the crime was going down that day But he still went inside the drugstore even though there was going to be a robbery. He said him self I went inside the Drugstore. I know the verdict was should have been the other way around Steve Harmon should have been guilty
ReplyDeleteSteve is not guilty but at the same time he is .He change his story a lot so should you trust him ,he should have got treated like the rest of them.He was still involved with the crime so why should he be treated any different from the rest of the people that was involved?
ReplyDeletePlus if he was not involved why was he so scared.
In a way i think he is not guilty because they could have all just came up with a story together. All things that went down throw out the book i would think he was not guilty. There are little details that in a way makes him guilty like how he was not surprised when the police went to his house. If the police came to my house i know that i would be scared.For example on page 229 Steve said "I dont know exactly when the robbery happened, but i know that i wasn't there in the drug store the day it happened." but in his notes for his movie he said that he only went to the store for mints so i think if you are going to lie you should get your story straight because i have no ideal what to pick guilty or innocent.
samantha bergeron
Steve is not guilty because there was no real evidence that Steve had committed the crime. Bobo had given a testimony that may have given the jury a different view of the crime. Bobo had said that it was mainly him and King that had committed the crime. Steve was just going to meet up with King later and get a share of the money. I had thought that Steve was guilty, but after this testimony, I believed that he was innocent. Steve had changed his story 3 times, but in all of them he said that he had nothing to do with it. O'Brien had asked King "Who is the "we" who decided to lay low", King had said "Me and King." This had convince me that the verdict was correct and Steve was not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this verdict because they said Steve didn't have a sign because they didn't fully plan it out or talk about it so he could've went in the store for some mints but left with out the mints because maybe maybe the police were going to go there later and if Mr. Nesbitt was alive after the robbery he could've told them everybody who was in the store and named Steve so then Steve could've been questioned for no reason. He probably still would've been innocent except. his parents might of thought he did something wrong and then they might of started arguing.
ReplyDeleteSteve is innocent because there was no evidence that Steve Harmon was involved with the robbery at the drugstore or the murder of Mr. Nessbit. Also there was plenty of proof that he was a good kid. Steve Harmon was just caught in a big mess dealing with the wrong people. It is like he got setup and King was planning on blaming everything on Steve because that was what it seemed like. Also Steve’s teacher testified and told everybody of the jury that he was a good student and that he was doing a film project for school. Everybody knows that it was King who planned the whole robbery and not one but three people testified against King stating that he was there he grabbed the gun. King went to Steve and told him about the robbery at the drugstore and offered him part of it. Steve refused so everything back faired to King so he was the one found guilty not Steve.
ReplyDeleteSteve is innocent because he was not part of the robbery also he is innocent because he was not the one that was fighting for the gun so he was not there also he is innocent because when Steve was accused of being at the store to give a signal he was not there so Mrs. Henry had confused Steve with king. When he was proven guilty it was good but not for Ms. O’Brien she was not very happy of his winning the case. She even ignored him when they said he was not guilty he tried to give her a hug but she got up picked up her papers and left and kept going she did not even look at him.
ReplyDeleteSteve Harmon should have been acquitted. He had his reason to be there. He was getting mints. The whole thing was probably a coincidence. King and Bobo probably tried to frame him. They tried to frame him so they didn't get in trouble. He was not the lookout. That is what I think.
ReplyDeleteI always thought Steve was innocent. Steve wrote in his journal, " Anybody can walk into drug store and look around' on page 115. Richard "Bobo" Evans and James King didn't split the money they stole from the store with Steve. The jury knew that he was innocent. During the whole thing O'Brien thought Steve was guilty. On page 276, " Steve spreads his arms to hug O'Brien, but she stiffens and turns to pick up her papers from the table before them". She did her job but she believe in what she was supposed to do. Steve was guilty in the eyes of the jury and that's all that matters.
ReplyDeleteSteve is guilty. The verdict is unjust and Mr.Nesbitt's family has not received justice. On page 231, Steve says, "I don't know exactly where I was when the robbery took place," this is not the same thing that he wrote in his journal. Steve changes his story three times. Another piece is that he obviously knows these three men. He listened to King talk about the "getover" and did not state that he would not be involved in it.
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the verdict that Steve is not guilty. Steve is not guilty because he went to the store to get some mints. What Steve had done was gone in the store to get mints and James King said him to be the look out for any cops if they come. Steve was not involved with the robbery at the drug store. All he did was get mints.
ReplyDeletei agree with the verdict at the end of the trial. I agree with the because Steve really did not do anything wrong.what he wrote in his note book about him just going in to the store or some mints was just changing the story for the movie to make it better.In real life Steve never went to the drugstore that day.I believe that Walter Dean myers made the book like this s that he could really have us think about the book even when we ain't reading it anymore.Now that im finish with the book me and my friends have different P.O.V
ReplyDeleteNo i do not agree to Steves verdict because Steve was present when they robed the store an when they Kiled MR.Nessbit. but still steve said that king made steve go to be the look out. but my opinion steve i guilty because he was part of the store being roded but not part of the killing. (STEVE) (i was just going to get some mints)
ReplyDeleteSteve is acquitted at the end of the trial (He is found not guilty). Do you agree with this verdict? Explain your answer in 8 sentences and USE EVIDENCE!! Yes and the same time know I think he new about it but was not involve in it. It still weird that he went to the store for mint but as fare as the question goes he
ReplyDelete‘;
Steve is innocent because there was no evidence. Steve Harmon was not involved with the robbery at the drugstore or the murder of Mr.Nessbit.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien has Steve teacher testified how Steve is a good kid and that he was doing a film of this class.
yehiah israel said...
ReplyDeleteNo do not agree to the jury verdict because Steve was present when they robed the store an when they Kiled MR.Nessbit. But still steve said that king made steve go to be the look out. But my opinion steve I guilty because he was part of the store being roded but not part of the killing. (STEVE) (I was just going to get some mints)
well I think he was innocent going along with the store because in one of those sens he just trying to worn the bobo and king that the cops were coming and plus he he was 16 teenager do stupid thing just not to get involved in the murder they will try to get out of crime seen. I knew he was not guilty from the start because i knew his film teacher stepped in and said remarkable about th him that he's a nice man he dose in film class mr' king was guilty because he killed some one for drugs which was a felony and was getting a mint from the store and try ed to frame him for what wasn't personal for him to be the look out
ReplyDeleteI agree with the verdict at the end of the trial. I agree with the verdict because Steve really did not do anything wrong.what he wrote in his note book about him just going in to the store or some mints was just changing the story for the movie to make it better.In real life Steve never went to the drugstore that day.I believe that Walter Dean myers made the book like this s that he could really have us think about the book even when we ain't reading it anymore.Now that im finish with the book me and my friends have different P.O.V
ReplyDeleteYes I do agree with the verdict. I agree with this verdict because anyone can walk into a store and look around and then walk out and not do anything except walk home, go to a party, and etc. on page 235 Mr. Sawicki proves that Steve is acquitted.
ReplyDeleteSteve is not guilty because he did not commit the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Steve was accused of a crime that he did not commit. Everyone thought that Steve was guilty because he talked to James King. They cannot prove that Steve is guilty. Only Mrs. Henry can prove if he is guilty because she only saw King in the drug store. Steve is innocent because Mr. Sawicki knows that Steve is a good kid. Steve is innocent because his father knew that verything was going to be alright.
ReplyDeleteSteve should have been found completely guilty! He actually was involved in the crime (felony murder) that had occurred at the drugstore. He was involved by being the lookout. On page 271, Steve Harmon stated in his journal, “I keep editing the movies, making scenes right. Sharpening the dialoged. ‘A getover? I don’t do getovers’, I say in the movie in my mind, my chin tilted slightly upward.” He changed his story several times. First he was just walkn around in the drug store, then he said that he just went into the drugstore to buy some mints, then all of the sudden he wasn’t even there when the robbery took place!
ReplyDeleteHe said and by he i mean king said that steve was the look out, but there was no signal so how would they have know if not go throw with the robbery or not, what if a complete stranger walked in to the store and did the the same actions that steve did would he be on trial, NO, the only reason that this man steve is on trial is because he knows King and Bobo yes he knows them but seeing on what kind of person Mr. Sawicki sees him as, he probable wouldn't have bin apart of a robbery.
ReplyDelete