Lies and Self-Interest Theme Analysis

Steve Harmon’s trial involves numerous witnesses, most of whom are themselves either convicted or alleged criminals. Although the purpose of the court case is presumably to uncover the truth about the murder, every witness tells a different story, and each lawyer is angling for a different outcome that will benefit their career. In light of all of these half-truths and selfish motivations, Steve’s account of his trial suggests that the manner in which the court system operates incentivizes people to lie, and thus the courtroom does a very poor job of uncovering the truth.

During Steve’s trial, witnesses testify in exchange for reduced sentencing for their own crimes or to present a narrative beneficial to themselves. They are often caught in lies on the stand, suggesting that the personal motivation that each witness has for testifying presses them to lie rather than tell the truth. Two prisoners, Bolden and Zinzi, have no connection to Steve’s case, but they testify as witnesses with second- and third-hand information, explicitly admitting that they’re cooperating in hopes of reducing their own (unrelated) prison sentences. Whether or not their information is true, the fact that these witnesses are hoping to cut a deal for personal gain suggests that neither of their testimonies can possibly be objective or unbiased, since they each want their contribution to the court case to seem important enough to merit a reward. Furthermore, Osvaldo Cruz, a 14-year-old gang member implicated in the murder (though already jailed for other crimes), also testifies, trying to make his role in the botched robbery seem as minor as possible. His testimony is predictably unreliable, suggesting that the testimonies of defendants are less likely to be true, since they do not want to incriminate themselves further. Even Mr. Sawicki, Steve’s character witness, likes Steve and has a vested interest in seeing him go free. Though the narrative does not explicitly say so, it seems likely that even Mr. Sawicki’s testimony may not be entirely accurate, since even civilian witnesses are often hoping for a particular outcome in a court case. All of the testimonies Steve recounts, then, are motivated by factors other than seeking the truth.

Beyond the unreliability of witness testimony, all of the lawyers involved in Steve’s court case seem more interested in winning the case than in ascertaining the truth. Petrocelli, the state prosecutor, wants King and Steve to be found guilty of felony murder; King’s attorney Asa Briggs wants King to go free, even though King is obviously guilty; Steve’s attorney, O’Brien, cares only about ensuring that he is exonerated (though she seems doubtful of his innocence as well). The fact that all three attorneys seek different outcomes—regardless of their opinion of the truth—suggests that they are more concerned with winning a professional victory than securing justice for the victim or the defendants. Sometimes, the attorneys mislead by minimizing or omitting facts, but other times they outright lie. For instance, O’Brien coaches Steve to testify that he was nowhere near the store on the day of the robbery (even though Steve admits that he was) in order to minimize his association with Bobo or King. Once again, this suggests that the truth is less important to each attorney than strategic advantage.

The attorneys’ indifference to truth is clearest when Petrocelli, Briggs, and O’Brien make their closing arguments. Addressing all the testimonies and evidence presented, they each present an entirely different explanation of the day of the murder. Briggs presents the most blatant lie, arguing that his client King had nothing to do with the murder, even though it seems it was King who shot the handgun that killed Mr. Nesbitt. Petrocelli argues that all the men are monstrous criminals, while O’Brien argues that Steve was wrongly accused simply for having a casual association with King. The fact that each lawyer presents an entirely different view of one event further suggests that the courtroom does little to uncover the truth of an event or a crime.

The court system seems engineered to encourage participants to lie and then passes off the decision of guilt or innocence to a jury, whose members likely have their own prejudices or preconceptions. All of this indicates that the justice system is a very poor system for ascertaining the truth of an event or establishing a person’s actual guilt or innocence. Although the novel does not recommend any solutions for this problem, it certainly demonstrates the futility of the justice system.