Monster

“Let me make sure you understand what’s going on. Both you and this King character are on trial for felony murder. Felony murder is as serious as it gets. Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecutor, and she’s good. They’re pushing for the death penalty, which is really bad. The jury might think they’re doing you a big favor by giving you life in prison. So you’d better take this trial very, very seriously. When you’re in court, you sit there and you pay attention. You let the jury know that you think the case is as serious as they do. You don’t turn and wave to any of your friends. It’s all right to acknowledge your mother.”

In this passage, his attorney tries to impress on Steve the gravity of the charges he faces. Kathy pulls no punches in telling Steve what is at stake. She seems to understand that Steve’s appearance and bearing during the trial will serve as silent testimony to his guilt or innocence. Readers may note that she makes no mention of the crime, the charges, or their validity.

“But the laws also protect the accused, and that is the wonder and beauty of the American system of justice. We don’t drag people out of their beds in the middle of the night and lynch them. We don’t torture people. We don’t beat them. We apply the law equally to both sides. The law that protects society protects all of society. In this case we will show that the evidence that the State will produce is seriously flawed. We will show not only that there is room for reasonable doubt–and you will hear more about that idea at the end of the trial–but that the doubt that Steve Harmon has committed any crime, any crime at all, is overwhelming. As Mr. Harmon’s attorney all I ask of you, the jury, is that you look at Steve Harmon now and remember that at this moment the American system of justice demands that you consider him innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty. If you consider him innocent now, and by law you must, if you have not prejudged him, then I don’t believe we will have a problem convincing you that nothing the State will produce will challenge that innocence.”

This quote is a portion of Kathy’s opening statement to the jury, in which she discusses the jury’s constitutional mandate to consider Steve innocent until the prosecutor presents evidence to prove otherwise. Her clever inclusion about the arrest and treatment of suspects is intended to remind the jurors of the past mistreatment Black suspects have received. Her words are somewhat ironic given the horrors of incarceration Steve and others are experiencing as they await trial.

“STEVE

You can’t throw. (Picks up rock and throws it. We see it sail past the post and hit a YOUNG WOMAN. The TOUGH GUY she is walking with turns and sees the 2 young boys.)

TOUGH GUY

Hey, man. Who threw that rock? (He approaches.)

STEVE

Tony! Run!

TONY (taking a tentative step)

What? (TOUGH GUY punches TONY. TONY falls–TOUGH GUY stands over TONY as STEVE backs off. YOUNG WOMAN pulls TOUGH GUY away, and they leave.)

TONY and STEVE are left in the part with TONY sitting on the ground.

TONY

I didn’t throw that rock. You threw it.

STEVE

I didn’t say you threw it. I just said ‘Run.’ You should’ve run.”

Steve uses a flashback in his screenplay which hints at the self-serving aspects of his character. He cleverly shifts the focus of an attacker from himself to his innocent friend, causing his friend, Tony, to suffer an attack because of Steve’s actions. When Tony protests, rather than accepting responsibility, he shifts the blame to Tony for not running away. In this scene, shows readers that—at one time—Steve is guilty of causing harm to two innocent people.

“They take away your shoelaces and your belt so you can’t kill yourself no matter how bad it is. I guess making you live is part of the punishment. It’s funny, but when I’m sitting in the courtroom, I don’t feel like I’m involved in the case. It’s like the lawyers and the judge and everybody are doing a job that involves me, but I don’t have a role. It’s only when I go back to the cells that I know I’m involved. Miss O’Brien says that Petrocelli is using Bolden’s testimony as part of a trail that will lead to me and James King. I think she is wrong. I think they are bringing out all of these people and letting them look terrible on the stand and sound terrible and then reminding the jury that they don’t look any different from me and King.<...>I see what Miss O’Brien meant when she said part of her job was to make me look human in the eyes of the jury.”

Steve compares the agonies of the jail cell to the agonies of the courtroom, in which he sees his future being decided before him with virtually no input from him. Through his description, the reader can see that his prosecution is taking place on multiple levels: by carefully connecting a story of the crime and those in involved as well as the subtle, visceral connection the prosecutor is drawing by comparing the defendants and affiliated criminals as part of a single group.

“WILLIAMS

What are we playing with this guy for? We don’t need him. We got the case locked.

KARYL

The DA is thinking death penalty.

WILLIAMS

Death Penalty? Chances are the judge will push for life-without-parole. And if they come clean, he might even go for 25 to life. You save a lot of time and money that way.

KARYL

I don’t know. The victim was well respected in the neighborhood. Hard-working Black guy worked his way up. He even sponsored a Little League team. The judge could go for the death penalty if they plead not guilty.

WILLIAMS

This guy’s only 16. They won’t kill him.

KARYL

What are you, a pessimist? Hope for the best.” 

This part of Steve’s screenplay portrays a version of the old “good cop, bad cop” routine. Williams is the good cop and Karyl is the bad cop, expressing the hope that the judge will impose the death penalty on Steve when he is found guilty of participating in the robbery of the drug store. They are casually having the conversation in front of Steve, who has just been arrested, in hopes that he will fearfully tell them everything he knows about the crime to minimize his own guilt. Readers will not a similar process likely took place with Osvaldo and Bobo, each of whom escaped harsher sentences by blaming the crime and death on others.

“OLDER PRISONER

They got to give you some time. A guy dies and you get time. That’s the deal. Why the hell should you walk? And don’t give me young. Young don’t count when a guy dies. Why should you walk?

STEVE

‘Cause I’m a human being. I want a life too! What’s wrong with that?

OLDER PRISONER

Nothing. But there’s rules you go to follow. You do the crime, you do the time. You act like garbage, they treat you like garbage.

PRISONER 2

Yo, man. You acting like you a preacher or something–but guess where you at? This ain’t no hotel.

OLDER PRISONER

But I ain’t complaining.

PRISONER 2

But suppose he innocent?

OLDER PRISONER

You innocent?

STEVE

Yes.

OLDER PRISONER

Yeah, well, somebody got to do some time. They’re going to lock somebody up.

PRISONER 3

How’s he gonna say he’s innocent? That’s why they holding the trial–so the jury can say if he’s innocent or not. What he says no don’t even count.

OLDER PRISONER

Whatever. Anyone got a newspaper?”

This conversation takes place in the cell Steve shares with other prisoners who are awaiting trial. The older prisoner’s perspective is that the authorities will feel compelled to make someone pay for such a serious crime by serving a lengthy jail sentence. He asks Steve why he does not grasp that reality, to which Steve replies that he wants the opportunity to live a meaningful life. When the older prisoner tells Steve that does not matter, another inmate scolds the older prisoner for making such a proclamation when he is an inmate himself. The older prisoner acknowledges this, saying he is not complaining, implying that Steve is complaining in vain. Prisoner 2 points out that Steve may be innocent, which Steve affirms. The older prisoner says innocence is irrelevant, since the justice system has him in custody and needs to lock up someone for the crime. Prisoner 3 points out that whatever is discussed in the cell is moot because it is the jury, not the prisoner, who will make the decision about Steve’s future. The final comment of the older prisoner is a reminder from Myers that this entire conversation is taking place while the older prisoner is on the toilet, yet another expression of the dehumanizing impact of imprisonment.

“O’BRIEN

Well, frankly, nothing is happening that speaks to your being innocent. Half of those jurors, no matter what they said when we questioned them when we picked the jury, believed you were guilty the moment they laid eyes on you. You’re young, you’re Black, and you're on trial. What else do they need to know?

STEVE

I thought you’re supposed to be innocent until you’re proven guilty?

O’BRIEN

That’s true, but in reality it depends on how the jury sees the case. If they see it as a contest between the defense and the prosecution as to who’s lying, they’ll vote for the prosecution. The prosecutor walks around looking very important. No one is accusing her of being a bad person. They’re accusing you of being a monster. The jury can ask itself, Why should the prosecutor lie? Our job is to show that she’s not lying, but she’s simply made a mistake.”

Myers uses this bit of conversation between Kathy and Steve to demonstrate the very fine line Kathy must walk to give Steve the best chance for acquittal. This clearly reveals that a guilty verdict is at least as much about positioning and appearances as it is truth or falsehood. She is unsparing in pointing out the great racial handicap facing Steve as a Black youth accused of a crime.

“FREDDY (to STEVE)

What school you go to?

OSVALDO

He goes to that faggot school downtown. All they learn there is how to be a faggot.

FREDDY

You let him dis you like that, man?

OSVALDO

He don’t have no choice. He mess with me and the Diablos will burn him up. Ain’t that right, faggot?

STEVE

I can kick your narrow butt any day in the week.

OSVALDO

Well, here it is, so why don’t you come and kick it?

FREDDY

You better chill; he hangs with some bad dudes.

OSVALDO

He don’t hang with nobody. He’s just a lame looking for a name. Ain’t that right, Steve? Ain’t that right?

STEVE

Why don’t you shut up?

OSVALDO

You ain’t got the heart to be nothing but a lame. Everybody knows that. You might be hanging out with some people, but when the deal goes down, you won’t be around.

STEVE

Yeah, and you will be, huh?”

Steve inserts this flashback into his screenplay just prior to Osvaldo taking the stand in the trial to give his version of the arrangements for the “get over.” This conversation is a realistic depiction of two young men feigning toughness. As a part of his plea agreement, Osvaldo presents evidence against King and Steve. On the witness stand, Osvaldo’s hard façade is washed away in Kathy’s cross examination. Myers is asking readers to consider which of the two in this conversation stood up to the test “when the deal goes down.”

“King curled his lip and narrowed his eyes. What was he going to do, scare me? All of a sudden he looked funny. All the time I had looked at him and wanted to be tough like him, and now I saw him sitting in handcuffs and trying to scare me. How could he scare me? I go to bed every night terrified out of my mind. I have nightmares whenever I close my eyes. I am afraid to speak to these people in the jail with me. In the courtroom I am afraid of the judge. The guards terrify me. I started laughing because it was funny. They do things to you in jail. You can’t scare somebody with a look in here.”

Steve describes his next-to-last personal encounter with King. When Steve asks him a telling question, King makes a hard face, something that Steve previously found intimidating and frightening. Because of his months in prison, however, Steve now finds King’s attempt to scare him laughable because there are so many very tangible reasons to live each day in terror. This lesson might have been quite useful for Steve during the time that King was trying to enlist him to participate in in the “get over.”

“O’BRIEN

“Can you tell the jury exactly what it means to ‘leave your mark’ on somebody?

OSVALDO

You have to cut them where it shows.

O’BRIEN

So to be a member of this gang, the Diablos, you have to fight a gang member and then cut someone. Usually that’s done to a stranger, and the cut is made in the face, is that right?

OSVALDO

They don’t do that anymore.

O’BRIEN

But Mr. Cruz, that’s what you had to do, isn’t it?

OSVALDO

Yeah.

O’BRIEN

But now you want us to believe that you participated in this robbery because you were afraid of Bobo, and not because this is what you do?

OSVALDO

I was afraid.

O’BRIEN

Did you tell the Assistant District Attorney who questioned you that you were a member of the Diablos?

OSVALDO

Yeah, they knew.

O’BRIEN

You weren’t afraid to fight a member of the Diablos to get into the gang. You weren’t afraid of cutting a stranger in the face. You weren’t afraid of beating up your girlfriend. But you were afraid of Bobo, is that right?

OSVALDO

Yeah.”

This screenplay dialogue records part of Kathy’s cross examination of Osvaldo, the 14-year-old youth who was enlisted to tip over a trashcan in front of anyone who pursued the robbers leaving the drugstore. After catching him in a lie, Kathy undermines his motive for being part of the robbery as being fearful of Bobo Evans. She undercuts his entire credibility as a prosecution witness. Myers uses this scene to reflect on the dispute between Osvaldo and Steve about which of them would be depended upon in the long run.

“I’ve never seen my father cry before. He wasn’t crying like I thought a man would cry. Everything was just pouring out of him and I hated to see his face. What did I do? What did I do? Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I’m on trial for? I didn’t do nothing! I didn’t do nothing! But everybody is just messed up with the pain. I didn’t fight with Mr. Nesbitt. I didn’t take any money from him. Seeing my dad cry like that was just so terrible.<...>It’s like a man looking down to see his son and seeing a monster instead. Miss O’Brien said things were going bad for us because she was afraid that the jury wouldn’t see a difference between me and all the bad guys taking the stand. I think my dad thinks the same thing.”

This journal entry depicts a low point for Steve. Not only is the trial proceeding unfavorably but Steve recognizes that his father’s perception of him has shifted so that he seems to have accepted the prosecution’s depiction of him as a monster. This flabbergasts Steve, causing him to lament that he has done nothing. His protestations, however, form something of a confession, as he seems to admit that he was indeed in the drugstore just prior to the robbery.

“WILLIAMS

We need you to come down to the precinct with us. Just a few questions.

STEVE

Me? About what?

WILLIAMS

Some clown said you were involved with that drugstore stick just before Christmas. You know the one I mean?

STEVE

Yeah, but what do I have to do with it?

WILLIAMS (as they handcuff STEVE)

You know Bobo Evans?

MRS. HARMON (mildly panicking)

Why are you handcuffing my son if you just want to ask him a few questions? I don’t understand.

WILLIAMS

Ma’am, it’s just routine. Don’t worry about it.

MRS. HARMON

What do you mean don’t worry about it, when you’re handcuffing my son? (There is panic in her eyes as she looks at STEVE, who looks away.) What do you mean don’t worry about it? I’m coming with you! You’re not just snatching my son off like he’s some kind of criminal. Wait till I get my coat. Just wait a minute! Just wait a minute!”

This scene describes the police coming to the Harmons’ apartment and taking Steve away in handcuffs. The brief interchange between the officers, Steve, and his mother captures the emotions of everyone involved. The police are casual; Mrs. Harmon is stunned, then panics as she tries to stop the arrest and decide how to cope. At the end of the scene, she finds herself standing in the street, wondering where they have taken her son. For Steve’s part, his silent looking away from his mom is a clear indication he knows why the police are there. Interestingly, the police do not inform Steve of his Miranda rights. Neither do they discuss with him what he might know about the crime. As indicated in Important Quote 6, the police believe they have all the evidence they need to convict certain individuals and thus are unconcerned about what prisoners have to say unless they want to make a confession. Ironically, as the narrative demonstrates, a confession as opposed to a cry of innocence, leads to a shorter sentence. Thus, if an accused people believe they will be convicted, they are better off confessing even if they are innocent.

“KING

<...>I need to put together a payroll crew. Get my pockets fat. F-A-T. I talked to Bobo and he’s down, but Bobo liable not to show. When he shows, he shows correct but sometime he act like a spaceman or something.

STEVE

Bobo’s not Einstein.

KING

Whatever. You don’t have to be no Einstein to get paid. All you got to have is the heart. You got the heart?

STEVE

For what?

KING

To get paid. I got a sure getover. You know that drugstore got burned out that time? They got it all fixed up now. Drugstores always keep some money.

STEVE

That’s what Bobo said?

KING

Yeah. All we need is a lookout. You know, check the place out–make sure ain’t no badges copping some z’s in the back You down for it?”

This scene is a flashback to the moment King, Steve’s co-defendant, approaches him alone and asks him to participate in the robbery. Steve is asked to enter the drugstore and check for the presence of police or patrons. If there are none present, he is to signal King and the robbery will commence. Tellingly, Myers leaves this question hanging. It is never said whether Steve will participate or not, though the robbery did take place and Steve does journal about going into the drugstore. Myers is intentional about leaving a kernel of doubt in the minds of readers.

“PETROCELLI

Was anybody else to share in the money?

BOBO

The little Puerto Rican boy was supposed to get a taste and King’s friend was supposed to get a taste.

PETROCELLI

You said that you received a sign from Mr. Harmon. Can you tell me what that sign was?

BOBO

He was supposed to tell us if there was anybody in the drugstore. He didn’t say nothing so we figured it was all right.” 

This quote is from the testimony of Bobo Evans, the robber who turned State’s evidence against King and Steve. Bobo’s disjointed description of the planning and the crime reveals how haphazard the robbery was throughout. When asked about Steve’s part, Bobo acknowledges that Steve did not give a sign of any kind. Bobo and King assumed, therefore, that meant the drugstore was free of customers. While saying that Steve gave no sign implies that Steve was part of the robbery plot, it also implies that there is no real proof that Steve aided or intended to be part of the robbery.

“Tomorrow we start our case, and I don’t see what we are going to do. I hear myself thinking like all the other prisoners here, trying to convince myself that everything will be all right, that the jury can’t find me guilty because of this reason or that reason. We lie to ourselves here. Maybe we are here because we lie to ourselves. Lying on my cot, I think of everything that has happened over the last year. There was nothing extraordinary in my life. No bolt of lightning came out of the sky. I didn’t say a magic word and turn into somebody different. But here I am, maybe on the verge of losing my life, of the life I used to have. I can understand why they take your shoelaces and belt from you when you’re in jail.”

Journaling at the halfway point of the trial, Steve considers what lies ahead. He finds himself behaving just like other prisoners whose magical thinking is usually defeated, ending in their conviction. This reveals the depths of hopelessness that he and many other incarcerated people experience.

“O’BRIEN

<...>You need to present yourself as someone the jurors can believe in. Briggs isn’t going to put King on the stand. That helps you, but when he sees us separating you from him, he’s going to realize that his client is in trouble.<...>I think you have to testify. And the way you spend the rest of your youth might well depend on how much the jury believes you.<...>Okay, Steve, now stay with me. We’re going to play a little game. I’m going to take this cup and place it on the table. Then I’m going to ask you some questions. When I like the answers you give me, I’ll leave the cup facing up. When I don’t like the answers, I’ll turn it upside down. Youi figure out what’s wrong with the answer you gave me. All right?”

Kathy and Steve confer the day before he is to take the witness stand. His attorney has concluded that Steve must testify to differentiate himself from the other defendant and the guilty witnesses. As an officer of the court, she cannot tell Steve what to say. Neither can she condone any lie he might tell. To lead him in the right direction with this testimony, she introduces him to the cup game, telling him first that his ability to answer properly may make the difference between a verdict of innocence or guilt.

“VO (INMATE 1)

The prosecutor said I was lying. I wanted to ask her what she expected me to do when telling the truth was going to get me 10 years.

VO (INMATE 2)

When they got you in the system, it ain’t time to get all holy. You in the system, you needs to get out the system.

VO (INMATE 1)

What’s the truth? Anybody in here knows what the truth is? I don’t know what the truth is! Only truth I know is I don’t want to be in here with you ugly dudes.

STEVE

Truth is truth. It’s what you know to be right.

VO (INMATE 2)

Nah! Truth is something you gave up when you were out there on the street. Now you talking survival. You talking about another chance to breathe some air 5 other guys ain’t breathing.

VO (INMATE 1)

You get up on the witness stand and the prosecutor talks about looking for truth when they really mean they looking for a way to stick you under the jail.”

This can be seen as a companion piece of dialog to Important Quote 7. Again, inmates in a cell are discussing their plight, though their faces are not seen. The initials “VO” stand for “Voice Over.” The conversation points out the great irony of telling the truth versus lying on the witness stand. Most often, as the inmates point out, telling the absolute truth will result in a conviction. The prisoners also perceive the truth to be amorphous and too complex to express, leaving a good lie as their best hope to escape the criminal justice system. The final irony they point out is that prosecutors proclaim they are invested in finding out the truth, when they only want that part of the truth that assists in convicting the defendant.

“O’BRIEN

Mr. Sawicki, do you know the defendant sitting at this table?

SAWICKI

I’ve known Steve for three years. He’s been in my film club.

O’BRIEN

Can you give us your opinion of Mr. Harmon’s work?

SAWICKI

I think he’s an outstanding young man. He is talented, bright, and compassionate. He’s very much involved with depicting his neighborhood and environment in a positive manner.

O’BRIEN

Do you consider him an honest young man?

SAWICKI

Absolutely<...>

PETROCELLI

You said you’re a teacher in Mr. Harmon’s school. Do you live in his neighborhood?

SAWICKI

No, I don’t.

PETROCELLI

So although you want to vouch for his character, isn’t it fair to say that you don’t know what he does when he goes to his neighborhood and you go home to yours?

SAWICKI

No, it’s not. His film footage shows me what he’s seeing and, to a large extent, what he’s thinking. And what he sees, the humanity of it, speaks of a very deep character.”

This dialog occurs between the defense attorney, prosecutor, and Mr. Sawicki, Steve’s video club instructor. More than any other witness or testimony, this allows Kathy to present Steve as a nuance human being, far from the monster the prosecutor wants the jury to believe him to be. Sawicki manages to blunt the prosecutor’s cross examination by pointing out that he understands Steve’s humanity as he expresses it in his videos.

“The State did not produce any witness to the murder. They produced one witness, Miss Henry, who said she saw Mr. King in the store. Where was her mind at the time? According to her testimony, it was on the health and well-being of her grandchild. Could she have made a mistake? Evidently she has. Not that she did not see someone in the store, but whom did she see? She was taken to the police station and given a set of photographs. From these photographs she picked, at police urging, Mr. King. But she didn’t pick out this photo from a thousand photographs, or a book of photographs or even 50 photographs. She was shown a handful of photos and asked to pick one. Later, when she had to pick someone from a lineup, what was she doing? Was she picking out the man she saw in the drugstore, or was she picking out the man the police had given her in the photographs? That’s for you, the jury, to decide.”

This is a portion of the closing argument of Mr. Briggs, King’s defense attorney. Throughout the trial, Myers has portrayed Briggs as a competent if somewhat excitable lawyer. He is correct in saying that the State has no hard evidence against his client beyond the witness, Miss Henry, who saw him in the store. It also seems a valid attack on her credibility that the police led her to select King as a suspect both from photos and in a lineup. By referring to such practices and constantly used testimony of one perpetrator against another, Myers wants readers to recognize that these methods are regularly used to gain convictions.

“The State paraded before you witness after witness who, by their own admission, testified either to get out of jail or to prevent themselves from going to jail, or, in the case of Mr. Zinzi, to prevent himself from being sexually molested. Think of Steve Harmon’s character as opposed to that of Bobo Evans. Compare Steven Harmon to Mr. Zinzi, another of the State’s witnesses. Compare him to Mr. Cruz, who admitted taking part in this crime, who admitted that to become a member of his gang, he had to slash a stranger in the face.<...>It’s up to you, the jury, to find guilt where there is guilt. It is also up to you to acquit when guilt has not been proven. There is no question in my mind that in this case, as regards Steve Harmon, guilt has not been proven. I am asking you, on behalf of Steve Harmon and in the name of justice, to closely consider all of the evidence that you have heard during this last week. If you do, I’m sure you’ll return a verdict of Not Guilty.”

This is the final part of the closing statement of the defense attorney. Prior to these words, she had reviewed the testimony to demonstrate there was no direct evidence indicating Steve’s guilt. From Steve’s own testimony as well as that of his character witness, she clearly feels she has been able to draw real distinctions between him and the others. In the final analysis, however, she does not say Steve is innocent but rather that he has not been proven guilty.

“FADE IN: STEVE in CELL. For the first time JAMES KING is in the cell with him. KING leans against the wall, still dressed in the clothes he wore at the trial.

KING

How you doing? You scared?

STEVE

Yeah. You?

KING (subdued)

Naw, ain’t nothing to it. If the man wants you, he got you. Ain’t nothing to it, man.

GUARD

Hey, we got a pool going. I bet you guys get life without the possibility of parole. The guys on the next block think you’re going to get 25 to life. You guys want in on it?

CUT TO: STEVE. He looks away, then buries his face in his hands.”

Steve, King, and the cellblock guards overseeing the prisoners wait for a verdict in the trial. King’s response to Steve makes it seem that he does not perceive himself as responsible for his circumstances. His belief is that life is happening to him, and he is just responding. The entire narrative, however, indicates that Steve is painfully aware of his own culpability in his fate. The cavalier question from the guards, asking the defendants if they want in on the wager about how long their sentences will be reveals one extent of the dehumanization prisoners experience in the system.

“We see JURY FOREMAN as he continues to read.

CUT TO: CU of STEVE’s MOTHER. We see her desperately clasping her hands before her, her face distorted with the tension of the moment, then suddenly, dramatically, she lifts her hands high and closes her eyes.

CUT TO: The GUARDS who were standing behind STEVE move away from him. He has been found not guilty. STEVE turns toward O’BRIEN as the camera closes in and the film grows grainier. STEVE spreads his arms to hug O’BRIEN, but she stiffens and turns to pick up her papers from the table before them.

CUT TO: CU of O’BRIEN. Her lips tense; she is pensive. She gathers her papers and moves away as STEVE, arms still outstretched, turns toward the camera. His image is in black and white, and the grain is nearly broken. It looks like one of the pictures they use for psychological testing, or some strange beast, a monster.”

In this portion of his screenplay, Steve has dropped the dialog and reverted strictly to physical descriptions. Myers uses this as a way of demonstrating how Steve has removed himself from the immediacy of the moment, as if he is watching himself from a distance. The image of him watching his mother raise her arms in relief begins to bring him back to the moment. His surprised joy is tempered and then quashed when his attorney refuses to embrace or speak to him. Myers reveals in this way how detached Kathy had been from her emotions, in that she had obviously concluded Steve was guilty.

“After the trial, my father, with tears in his eyes, held me close and said that he was thankful that I did not have to go to jail. He moved away, and the distance between us seemed to grow bigger and bigger. I understand the distance. My father is no longer sure of who I am. He doesn’t understand me even knowing people like King or Bobo or Osvaldo. He wonders what else he doesn’t know. That is why I take the films of myself. I want to know who I am. I want to know the road to panic that I took. I want to look at myself a thousand time to look for one true image. When Miss O’Brien looked at me, after we had won the case, what did she see that caused her to turn away? What did she see?”

This passage is from Steve’s journal months after the trial concluded. He is still plagued by the self-doubt he experienced during his incarceration. As well, his father has become emotionally distant, apparently having an altered opinion of his son. Steve is haunted as well by the contradictory behavior or the attorney he relied on, who fought for his acquittal and then rebuffed him wordlessly. For Steve, the events he endured remain far from finished.