Period 1

Lorien Konold

Kadri

Pre AP English

4/21/17

Monster Rhetorical Analysis Essay

OBriens main purpose during this case was to prove her client, Steve Harmon, innocent

for a crime that he did not commit. Steve just happened to be walking in the wrong place at the

wrong time. The main goal of any defendant during a trial is to make sure your client is proven

innocent. Throughout OBriens closing statement, she uses the rhetorical devices of ethos and

logos to convince the courtroom.

During OBriens speech, she uses familiar faces from the case to bring back a memory

of what they said. People that were brought in as witnesses and gave their testimonies were

people who were familiar or well-known in the town/neighborhood. OBrien says in her

statement, The State brought out a witness, one who everyone agrees has no reason to lie,

Lorelle Henry. (Myers 246-247). She was brought in to share what she saw on December

22nd, when the crime took place. She gives the truth because she was under an oath to and

thats why she was brought in because she was the only other person in the store besides the

owner. OBrien brings back Lorelle Henrys statement to remind the jury on what she said, Not

only did no one without a stake in this case see Steve Harmon giving a sign, Lorelle Henry, a

retired librarian, did not see him in the store either. (Myers 248). OBrien mentions that Miss
Henry is a retired librarian to show that she was a part of the community, many people couldve

known her from seeing her in the library. OBrien uses the rhetorical device of ethos, while

reviewing Lorelles statement because she is someone who was known in the community.

OBrien also brings back the facts on Mr. Evans testimony to help her in her closing

statement. When Evans and King had robbed the local drugstore, they took money, cartons of

cigarettes, and killed Mr. Nesbitt. OBrien reads back Mr. Evans testimony,

Ms. Petrocelli: Who was with you at this time?

Mr. Evans: Just me and King

OBrien: Where was Steve Harmon, the alleged lookout man? Why was there no testimony that

Mr. Harmon received part of the loot? (Myers 249). She uses Mr. Evans testimony to tell the

jury that Steve did not take any part of this crime. Mr. Evans gave his testimony and simply told

the truth, saying that it was just him and King when the crime occurred. After the crime had

taken place, Mr. Evans had the cartons of cigarettes and thought he could make some money

off of them. OBrien says that he did sell them, Mr. Evans goes around selling the the cigarettes

that connect him with the crime! Did he think that was a clever move? (Myers 250). She gives

well known facts because the people in the courtroom all heard Petrocelli ask Bobo if he sold

the cigarettes. Harmon wasnt at the crime scene when this happened and he didnt get payed

in any ways, showing us that he wasnt part of it. OBrien used logic and facts to prove that

Steve Harmon was not affiliated with the crime at all.

OBriens final speech was very successful, she achieved her goal, to prove Harmon

innocent. Using the rhetorical device of ethos, she was able to connect with the people listening

on a well-known person that many people are able to respect. She also uses the rhetorical
device of logos, facts that people gave on trial. She used evidence to tell the jury that Steve had

no part in the crime. These rhetorical devices used throughout her closing statement possibly

helped convince the jury that Steve Harmon was innocent.