Answer:
Petrocelli was the opposition lawyer in the court and his client Mr. Harmon was getting questioned. Since Mr. Harmon was the suspect, he was known where he was at the time of robbery.
Explanation:
Petrocelli has been opposition lawyer in the court against O'BRIEN. His client was asked about his presence at the drug store during the time of robbery. When Petrocelli interrupted in between the question of the lawyer, there has been an Objection asked by the lawyer, and he continued to ask Mr. Harmon about his presence and his day. Mr. Harmon was questioned as he was the suspect and asked where he was if he was not present at drug store.
Petrocelli has been in the court and being working as prosecution, which is gained after experience. So, this can't be his first time acting as a lawyer.
During a court argument there has been continuous questioning, and interruption are allowed for the genuine questions which are out of league. So it can't be the court rule.
The time period of working of Petrocelli and O'Brien has not been mentioned. From this information we can't conclude about there working experience. So, we can't say that O'Brien is working from long as compared to Petrocelli.
So, this concluded that Mr. Harmon was known where he was during the day of the robbery.
For more information, refer the link:
https://brainly.com/question/16930637?referrer=searchResults