Chapter 10 tenth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! Here today, according to Americans, what a "big day"!It's late at night, and I still can't calm down, so I decided to continue writing to you. Today is not a holiday, but it is indeed a special day.Throughout the United States, the vast majority of people have been subjected to varying degrees of mental shock.Today is the sentencing day for former American football star Simpson. I don't know how many pages there are domestic reports on this murder case in the United States that happened a year ago.But I thought, whatever your knowledge of the case, I must write about it here.After you have finished reading, you will no longer wonder why in a world where murders happen every day, I would like to introduce such a murder case to you in particular.We all wondered why such a case happened just when we became interested in the American judicial system!I'd better start from the beginning.

Last June, a major murder took place in an upscale neighborhood in Los Angeles.The deceased were a woman in her thirties and a young man in his twenties, both white.It was a sensation as soon as it happened, because one of the two dead was the mistress of the house, the ex-wife of celebrity Simpson.Simpson was a black star who had retired from the game when we came to America.After retiring, he also made some movies, so he can be regarded as a movie star.We had neither watched him play basketball nor watched his movies at that time, which can be said to be a rare "Simpson blindness" in the United States.We did not "make up for this lesson" until after this case happened.

Here I have to say a little more about American sports.The vast majority of Americans are football fans.There are not many varieties of fans, mainly football, baseball and basketball called American football.To be honest, I just came here from the East, and I think rugby is really a barbarian's sport, especially when I see dozens of people jumping on a ball and rolling into a ball on the ground, I really can't understand why Americans like it so much stupid game.It wasn't until I saw rugby on the sports field with my own eyes that I realized the unique excitement and excitement, and began to learn to appreciate its sports skills.What I have to say is that the American "sports concept" seems to be completely different from that of China. Ordinary people rarely care about what gold medals the United States won in the World Games, and there has never been such a slogan as "go out of America and go to the world". .They are most interested in the results of their city or state sports teams in the National League.The outstanding star is an "American hero" in people's eyes.Therefore, when the Simpson case came out, our friend Mike explained to us again and again: You must know that he is an "American hero" in the eyes of everyone, and he has always given people the impression of being a kind and good person.

However, the reason for the sensational case was not that one of the murdered was his ex-wife, but that the Los Angeles Police Department announced him as a murder suspect not long after.When the case first started, that is, when it first became a sensation, we were not as excited as the average American.Because we don't have the "Simpson complex" as deep as they do after all.Still, this case caught our attention.On the one hand, it is impossible for us not to be affected by the emotions of the friends around us. On the other hand, this case was full of drama almost from the beginning. You just find a screenwriter to deliberately make it up, probably nothing more than that.

At the beginning of the incident, at around 10:30 in the evening, the neighbors of the murdered hostess Nicole Simpson heard a dog barking very sadly.Then a walker who lived in the same neighborhood found a dog with blood on its paws and was very persistent in showing him somewhere.He followed, and finally found the victim's body and blood all over the ground on the garden path inside the iron gate of Nicole's house.He called the police, and that's how it started. Another thing that attracted our attention was the young man who was murdered.He was working as a waiter at a nearby restaurant where Nicole had eaten that night and had left her glasses on the table.This young man named Goldman was kind enough to give her glasses when he received a call from Nicole. According to what was later generally accepted, "he appeared in the wrong place at the wrong time."Regardless of the cause of the murder and who did it, Goldman is an unforgettable ghost.Goldman in the photo looks young and innocent.

Simpson's house is nearby.After the incident, when the police tried to find him to inform the case, they found that he had gone to Chicago as he had planned.Finally, the police managed to find the hotel where he was staying, called him to inform him of the case, and asked him to come back as soon as possible.In just a few days, police announced that there was enough evidence to list Simpson as a suspect in the murder.I think that the Los Angeles Police Department still took Simpson's reputation into consideration, and did not arrest him immediately, but promised him to attend the funeral of his ex-wife, and then allowed him to surrender himself within a limited time.The exceptional tolerance of the police station added another dramatic plot to the case.

Simpson himself has always denied guilt, and he has repeatedly declared that he loves his ex-wife and would never do such a thing.At the funeral, people speculated on his expression through the TV, and they couldn't see why.The problem is that he didn't surrender after the funeral, and even the police couldn't figure out where he went for a while.Once the time limit passed, he had to be declared a major criminal.But soon, his white Ford heavy-duty was spotted on the highway, with his friend driving and him in the back seat.The police car chased after them. They didn't stop, but they didn't seem to have any intention of escaping. They just drove at a leisurely pace.At that time, I turned on the TV by accident, just in time for the live broadcast of the tracking.There was a helicopter in the sky, and a neat row of police cars followed his white Ford on the road, creating a spectacular chase scene.Because the speed of the car is very slow, it doesn't seem nervous, but it seems a bit funny.The TV station also broadcast the analysis of some psychologists at the same time, saying that he might commit suicide, might hold a gun, might finally shoot and resist arrest, and so on.For several hours, the whole of the United States was "following and chasing".I don't think Ford Motor Company would have dreamed of such a good opportunity for free advertising.Eventually, the car got off the highway and headed straight for his home.Of course the police were already waiting there.There were also countless happy spectators gathered outside the gate, most of them were his fans, and many people even called his name to express their belief in his innocence.For those who feared that the world would not be chaotic and waited to see a good show, the result of this tracking was very flat, and those dangerous possibilities did not happen.After his friend got out of the car and negotiated with the police several times, he was allowed to enter the house, drank a glass of orange juice, and was brought to justice.It's a relief for the LAPD, which has come under attack from all sides for their accidental stalking for their celebrity lenient.

Until this time, we were still very casual about the case, because according to the newspaper reports at the time, the police found a series of physical evidence at Simpson’s home on the night of the incident. Besides, after Simpson and Nicole separated, the former could not let go. A record of conflicts.In the language we are used to, this is called: the motive for killing is clear, and the evidence is conclusive.I really don't see any "play" with Simpson.That being the case, the next thing is to go to court, and the sentence will be dropped.Even though it happened to a "celebrity", it looked like an ordinary homicide.But, who knows, the fun has not yet begun.

Within an hour of Simpson's return from Chicago, before the police department had declared Simpson a suspect, he had called Shapiro, one of America's most prominent lawyers, hired him as his attorney, and immediately formed a Since then, the "Dream Lawyers Group" has become famous all over the United States.Finding a lawyer is an almost knee-jerk reaction of Americans to anticipated trouble.This is the characteristic of America.After a long period of rule of law in the United States, the "variety" of laws has become very complete, ranging from the constitution to small professional regulations and laws that regulate various details of life.The country has federal laws, the states have state laws, and the counties have county laws.On the one hand, almost any problems and troubles a person encounters in the United States can be solved by one or several legal provisions.The law became one of the most important components of American life.On the other hand, it is impossible for an ordinary person to figure out all these legal joints without the help of a lawyer.A huge team of lawyers in the society naturally emerged as the times require.

Americans hate and love lawyers, I once saw it in a friend of mine.He was injured in a car accident and had sequelae after he recovered, so he sued for compensation.He was among the poor, and of course lived well, but he didn't have a lot of money to spare.Every time he received a bill from a lawyer, he was indignant, and told us time and time again, "It costs me 80 yuan for a telephone consultation", "It costs 50 yuan for a conversation", although these bills are about Pay after the good things are done.However, not only is he inseparable from the lawyer, but he also knows that the lawyer will help him a lot, because the lawyer is absolutely sure to win at least one hundred thousand dollars in compensation for him, and if he does not have the lawyer's knowledge of various legal provisions, he may not even have a lawyer. The eldest son can't get it either.

There is a joke in the United States. It is said that in the first-year class of law school, the teacher asked the students what the responsibility of a lawyer is, and all the students replied that it is to uphold justice; in the second grade, the number of students who answered this answer has been greatly reduced; In the graduating class, when the teacher asked the same question and only one student answered for justice, the whole class burst into laughter.The meaning of this joke is very intuitive.The income of lawyers is very high, which always makes people feel unbalanced, and there are many accusations that lawyers want money but not justice.Of course, lawyers, like other professions, also have a problem of professional ethics.However, what is the professional ethics of lawyers, what role do lawyers play in the entire judicial system, and what are the responsibilities of lawyers? These are the questions I have to think about after experiencing the Simpson trial. A famous lawyer like Shapiro can only be hired by a "star" like Simpson. In the United States, "stars" are the ones who can get rich quickly, but no one will be jealous. Because celebrities must have tricks , especially football stars, cannot be made by luck alone. Then, Simpson hired another famous black lawyer, Carcoron. Soon, his lawyers have developed into a small team of lawyers with Dozens of the best senior lawyers in the United States. At the same time, a prosecutorial lawyer team headed by female district attorney Clark and black prosecutor Dutton was also formed. These two lawyer teams, one represents the defendant and the other represents the plaintiff , Is there any qualitative difference between them? Through the Simpson case, we have truly realized that in the United States, the prosecution and the defense are two echelons of completely equal confrontation. There is no difference between American courts and stadiums. The defense and the defense are like two evenly matched sports teams, because according to American law, no matter how serious the crime the suspect is accused of, no matter how strong the evidence in the hands of the prosecution seems Before, he had to be assumed to be innocent. "Presumption of innocence" is an extremely important article in the American judicial system. It is this article that determines the moral equality of the prosecution and the defense. Before the verdict is pronounced, it is assumed that the defendant is innocent, and the lawyer can defend confidently without any psychological burden. If there is no such provision, the defendant's lawyer will be three points short when he comes out, and there is no such thing as "fairness". It is very likely to easily become a "lamb to be slaughtered". Therefore, in the event that the defendant pleads not guilty, the responsibility of the prosecution is to present evidence to prove that the charges can be tenable in order to find out the real criminal.As the defense, it is trying its best to raise doubts about the prosecution's evidence, and even overturn the prosecution's evidence, in order to maintain the innocence of the defendant who may be wronged.Therefore, morally, there is no distinction between the two sides.Even if the prosecution has solid evidence in its hands, all you can do is let the evidence speak for itself, and you cannot make even a slight expression to imply that there is a moral difference between the two parties.If the prosecutor shows any signs of exalting his moral status, for example, claiming that he is upholding justice, and implying that the defense lawyer is exonerating the criminal, etc., it is a violation of the principle of "fair game" and is a serious foul Behavior. Of course, the more important point is the very thorough judicial independence in the United States.Regardless of the nature of the case, the US government has no right to interfere in any trial process.So, first of all, there is no pressure from above on both sides.Secondly, the opposing parties in the court are completely equal in morality, which establishes the premise of their fair confrontation in the court.If both sides are strong, fighting with each other, logical reasoning, and cleverly mobilizing witnesses, it will become a very interesting intellectual contest.No wonder there are many feature films in the United States where large segments of the scene are in the courtroom. The referee who blows the whistle on the "sports field" of the American court is the judge.All he does is to maintain order, that is, to uphold the "rules of the game" when the two sides are confronting each other.Whether the evidence of both parties can be presented in court, whether the witnesses presented can appear in court, whether the questioning of witnesses is appropriate, what can and cannot be said in court, stop when one party violates the rules, etc., these are the judges Responsibility.However, it is not the judge who ultimately decides who wins or loses in the case.In the trial, the judge is just like a referee who works hard to monitor whether the two sides are fouled on the court.And he did keep blowing the whistle throughout the trial.The judge is the same as the referee on the sports field. His level is firstly reflected in his familiarity with the rules of the game, and his "whistle and blow fairness" against both sides of the confrontation.His level is by no means reflected in the ability to "see clearly" when convicting the defendant.In these cases, the American judge is not the "Master Qingtian" who decides life and death. It is not his job to decide the case, and he has no such power at all.So, in the end, who is in control of the life and death power of the defendant?It is the most common common people in the United States, that is, the jury. The American Constitutional Amendment, the Bill of Rights, has Articles 5, 6, and 7 that involve the jury system.Its fifth article states: "Unless a grand jury indicts, the people shall not be sentenced to death or to be deprived of part of their public rights for felonies; but in times of war or social unrest, serving Except for cases occurring in the army, navy or militia; the people shall not be placed twice in danger of life or limb for the same crime; shall not be compelled to incriminate themselves in any criminal case without due process of law deprived of life, liberty, or property; private property of the people shall not be expropriated for public use without reasonable compensation." The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: "In all criminal cases, the accused shall have the right to demand a prompt and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed, as determined by law. What district should it belong to; request to be informed of the charges and the reasons for the charges; request to confront the plaintiff's witnesses; request that witnesses in favor of the defendant be compelled to testify in court; and request the assistance of counsel to defend." Article 7 is as follows: "In a lawsuit based on customary law, if the value involved in the dispute exceeds twenty yuan, the parties have the right to request a jury trial; any fact that has been tried by a jury, except in accordance with the provisions of customary law , shall not be retried in any court of the United States." In fact, you and I have heard of the jury system in the United States long ago, but only after we came to the United States and understood the various rules and regulations of the jury system, and watched jury judgments, especially the thrilling Simpson case After the big trial of the 1990s, I really understood the "what" of the jury and the "why" it was set up in the first place. You've seen above in the Constitutional Amendment that civil and criminal cases in general can be tried by jury if you ask for it.Major cases, especially those likely to result in the death penalty, must be tried by jury.But what are the criteria for jury selection?On the surface, it seems that as long as they are within the jurisdiction of the court where the crime occurred, any American citizen over the age of 18 can serve as a juror.However, in reality it is far from that simple. The first is that people related to the case, including those connected with the plaintiff or the defendant, are not eligible for selection.Some occupations that may have a tendency to think, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc., are also not eligible for selection.When selecting the jury in the primary, the judge will choose randomly from the voting list of the election station or the telephone directory in order to make the jury established can truly represent the people in the most general sense.The primary list is always far in excess of the number required.For example, in the Simpson case, the primary selection of the jury was completed at the end of September last year, and a total of 304 candidates were selected. In the end, only 12 jurors and 12 alternate jurors were needed.This is because after the primary election, there will be a strict selection process. In addition to the unqualified candidates I listed above must be deleted, the rest of the candidates must also undergo a very strict review, mainly to delete some candidates caused by the environment and experience Candidates with psychological tendencies to avoid possible unfair judgments. The Simpson case was dubbed the "trial of the century" as soon as it came out.The protagonist is a celebrity, the first-class legal team in the United States, and the prosecution also put on the strongest lineup for a fight to the death.The judge's determination must be accepted by both parties at the same time. After repeated discussions and agreement between the two parties, the Japanese-born judge Ito will serve as the judge.Ito is notorious for his impartiality. His wife happened to be a police officer of the Los Angeles Police Department who undertook the case. He was accepted by the extremely picky defense lawyers, which shows how good his reputation is. The second round of jury selection has been carried out for nearly two months, which shows the degree of difficulty and prudence.Candidates must first be reviewed by a judge. For example, there was a female candidate who had been abused by her husband. Since Simpson had beaten his ex-wife, the candidate's qualifications were immediately disqualified by the judge to prevent her from being abused. When making judgments, the situation is full of emotion, and involuntarily "revenges private revenge".In addition to being vetted by judges, candidates are vetted by defense lawyers and the prosecution.Since the final judgment will come from the mouths of these jurors, neither side dares to take it lightly. They both have the right to veto, so any doubts will be deleted.This is why more than 300 people were selected in the primary election. One point that must be emphasized is that the legal teams of both parties have only the right of veto, but not the "absolute right of admission".That is to say, either party can only say which one it does not want, but cannot say which one it must be a juror.Any selected juror must be approved by both sides at the same time, which is not easy.Especially in this case, the defendant is a black sports hero, and his murdered ex-wife is a white man. It is hard to say that the racial composition of the juror does not affect his judgment at all.Also, since the defendant and one of the victims were divorced couples, it is widely believed that the sex ratio of the jury may also have been a factor.Anyway, by last November, the jury was finally established.Most of them are black. In the United States, each state has different regulations on whether to allow TV stations to enter the courtroom.Some states absolutely don't allow it.In this case, neither video nor audio recording nor even photography is allowed in court.Therefore, TV viewers can only hear brief introductions in news programs.This also provided a specialized occupation for a group of painters, because the news media always hired artists to draw live sketches in order to compensate for the visual understanding of court proceedings by TV viewers.Some state laws make live televised broadcasts possible, however, the views of the defense and prosecution must be considered, and ultimately, the judge's decision.California falls into this category.Fortunately, Judge Ito approved the telecast of the Simpson case, so that everyone has a rare opportunity to understand how the judicial system in this country works.However, the TV broadcast has a very strict rule that jurors cannot be "exposed". The four major elements of the court, the prosecution, the defense, the judge, and the jury are finally completed, but the court cannot be held yet, because the judge must first decide which evidence can be presented in court, that is to say, not all evidence can be presented. It's really proof.How can this be said?In fact, this issue has been mentioned in my previous letters. Do you still remember the story of the young couple who were unreasonably hunted down by the local security police in the Abalachi Mountains?In that story, I already mentioned the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's "exclusionary doctrine" based on this amendment.Once again, I realized that every word in America's Bill of Rights was written for nothing.As long as you can find the right clause, you can actually use it to protect your freedom and rights. This process is called a pre-trial hearing.At the beginning of the pretrial hearing, the defendant must also answer the judge's plea question.If you plead guilty, you can generally make some limited bargaining in advance within the scope of the law.In front of the television, we see Simpson listlessly reply, pleading not guilty.Thus, the hearing began.Simpson's defense lawyer pointed out at the beginning that on the night of Simpson's case, a large amount of evidence found by the police in his home could not be provided to the jury as legal evidence in court.Their basis is Article 4 of the Amendment to the Constitution: "Everyone has the right to the security of person, residence, documents, and property against unreasonable searches and arrests; this right shall not be infringed; unless justified reasons , with an oath or oath, specifying the places to be searched, the persons to be arrested, or the objects to be seized, or no warrant shall be issued." As I said before, Nicole and Simpson still lived very close to each other after they separated.When the police received the report and checked the scene, they went to Simpson's home soon.He had already left home for Chicago. The police found some evidence at his home and then obtained a warrant based on it. This is indeed an unconventional approach.In the United States, generally speaking, the police cannot get a warrant without a very definite reason (guessing, reasoning, and suspicion are not reasons at all).In many cases, the police are helpless because of this.So, what should the police do if they break into the house without a search warrant and successfully obtain the evidence?Can the criminals be punished under the overwhelming evidence, and can the police's violations be ignored in the face of the fact that the case has been successfully solved?This is absolutely not possible in the US.I mentioned in my previous letter that the core of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the US government from depriving the people of their freedom and rights. If we judge heroes by success or failure, wouldn’t it encourage the police to violate the Constitution.If there are policemen who make excuses to commit crimes, what power do ordinary people have to keep them out?Therefore, if the police conduct search and arrest without warrants, it is unconstitutional. Even if they get huge evidence, there is only one result: the evidence is invalid and the criminal is released home. Therefore, before the trial, the judge must first determine whether it was legal for the police to enter Simpson's home for the first time on the night of the incident. If it was not legal, then all the evidence found in his home could not be presented in court during the trial. , which is the "exclusion principle".That is to say, in theory, after the "illegal evidence" is "rejected", the only jurors who have the power to decide whether Simpson is guilty in the entire case will not know what was found in Simpson's home.In this way, these found things are equivalent to non-existence, and the mountain of ironclad evidence is instantly reduced to zero.Do you think this is simply unbelievable?Even though I knew about the Constitutional Amendment and the "exclusion principle", I still felt it was very new, because it was a criminal case of murder after all.In my imagination, for a major murder case, I was really afraid that there would be insufficient evidence. How could there be such a thing in the world, and it would be invalidated if the evidence was seized? For the families of the victims, this is obviously unacceptable.During the entire trial of the case, the ones who disturbed the American public most emotionally were the parents of the murdered young man Goldman I mentioned earlier.The old Goldman who appeared in front of the TV is completely a heartbroken and dignified father figure who endured grief and sought justice.He was tall and gaunt, and his wife, the victim's stepmother, leaned against him, looking very weak and helpless.She seemed to be trying to hold herself together, and their support for each other in the face of a huge loss touched almost everyone.After the defense lawyer argued that the police collection of evidence was illegal and the evidence should not be presented in court, Goldman's father gave a short speech. He accused the defense lawyer of having a ghost in his heart. If the lawyer is sure that his defendant is innocent, he should let the jury See all the evidence.Everyone deeply understands and sympathizes with the anger of the victim's family, but everyone also believes that there is no way to do it. If the judge decides that the police collected evidence illegally, then the only option is to invalidate the evidence.I have said long ago that Americans only recognize the Constitution, because the Constitution is the guarantee of freedom for the people as a whole.They are used to paying for it. I would also like to inform you that Simpson's jury was segregated from the moment it was sworn in.In general cases, if the impact is not too great, jurors can usually go home.But if the case becomes a sensation, the pervasive coverage of the press can greatly distract the jury.Generally, when selecting jurors, it is best to select those who have no knowledge of the case, so that all the information they have obtained is the evidence that is allowed to be presented in court, and will not be judged by the press. Influence of speculation and illegal evidence.This is also where jury selection in the Simpson case is particularly difficult, because before the jury is selected and isolated, the evidence and public opinion are already overwhelming.You can hardly find a person who said that he has not read a lot of relevant reports.However, selected jurors will be told that only the evidence presented in court counts.As for the evidence released after their quarantine, jurors would never have known if it had been declared illegal by a judge. Therefore, since the jurors were sworn in, they can know far less information than ordinary people, and even far less than the defendant.What they are allowed to know is limited to what the judge decides allows them to hear and see.Even if something happens in court, as long as the judge thinks that it needs further understanding before making a decision, the juror will be called out of the court first.But as a defendant, he has the constitutionally guaranteed right to face all evidence related to him.Therefore, the accused is always present.Jurors are not allowed to read newspapers or watch TV news, so they don't know anything about what happened outside the court, such as the press conference held by the defense lawyer, the statement of the victim's family, and so on.The defendant has the right to know all this.During this period of time, when the jurors went to the grocery store to buy food, they were accompanied by bailiffs to ensure that they did not come into contact with the outside world.Jurors are not allowed to communicate and discuss the case with each other until the entire case is over and handed over to them for decision.In short, everything is so that they are not influenced by the emotions and non-evidence of all circles, so as to maintain a fair sentence.So you could say that during this period, the jurors had much less freedom than the suspects in the case.Because of the protection of the Constitution Amendment, the defendant has the right to face all the evidence and the entire trial process, because he is the party concerned, and no one can hide anything from him, so that he can be sentenced in a daze.A jury can only face very limited legal evidence.This case is really special. Due to the fierce competition between the two sides, the trial process was extremely long, resulting in the jurors being quarantined for as long as 9 months. Another point is also very interesting. If you ask me, in the United States, what occasions do you have to wear a suit and leather shoes?I think, first of all, if you are a defendant and face a case that needs to be taken seriously, you will appear in a court in the United States.In America, people dress very casually.However, even if a person has never worn a suit, he will definitely consider buying one when he is accused of going to court.Because I have already introduced before that the defendant is "presumed not guilty" before the verdict, so even the most dangerous defendant, the US government has no power to force the defendant to wear prison uniforms in court, let alone torture equipment, so as not to prevent the jury Have a preconceived notion of a "criminal figure" about the defendant prior to sentencing.The defendant will also make full use of his rights, dress up carefully, and appear in front of the jury with the most "honest man" and "decent" image, in order to strive for "image points".In this way, in American courts, the last point that the prosecution and the defense may feel that there may be inequality is also eliminated.In the courtroom, a judge wearing a specific large robe sits on it. Opposite the judge sits the prosecutor’s lawyer team and the defendant and his lawyer team side by side. The seats of the two groups are completely equal.From a visual point of view, they are all neatly dressed and well-matched.Behind them is the public gallery, and to the left of the judge is the witness box.A group of people of different shapes and colors sat in the seats on one side of the wall and never spoke. This is the jury in the court who really holds the power of life and death. I return to the evidentiary ruling at the pre-trial stage.Judge Ito ultimately ruled that the evidence found in Simpson's home was legal evidence that could be presented in court.why?Because the witnesses of the police insisted that on the night of the incident, they came out of the scene of the crime and went straight to Simpson's home. The relatives of the victim who had had may have suffered the same misfortune, or in other words, their lives may also be in danger.Besides, there were also Simpson's children living with Simpson at the time, and their safety was also under the serious concern of the police.Blood was found in front of Simpson's home and on the door of Simpson's car parked outside the gate, adding to concerns about what might be wrong inside.Since it was all an emergency, they entered his residence as an emergency.Afterwards, major evidence such as bloody gloves was found, and a search warrant was obtained based on this, and the search was officially started.So, the whole procedure is perfectly legal.The defense lawyer argued that the police were lying, that they simply regarded Simpson as a suspect from the beginning, and they went to conduct an illegal search from the beginning.At this time, the judge's adjudicative role is reflected.You can see that his "whistling" at this time is very, very important to the defendant. However, it must be pointed out that judges are very cautious in making decisions at such times. First, there must be a legal basis, and second, it must be fair.Otherwise, "little pigtails" will be left behind, and there will be endless troubles.After the entire trial is over, as long as there is such a "little pigtail", the dissatisfied party can refer to the appeal court to overturn the trial result.Even judges may become defendants because of this, ruining their own future.We once saw a female judge who was sued by the defendant after the trial of a case, and in turn sat in the dock by herself. This time, under Ito's judgment, Simpson's legal team suffered a big setback at the beginning.So why did Simpson's legal team try their best to prevent this evidence from going to court? Why did I feel that Simpson was particularly "no play" at the beginning?Because the evidence recovered from their home seemed too strong.For example, a sock with obvious blood stains was picked up from the carpet in his bedroom, and the genetic test of the blood stains was the same as that of the victim.A leather glove soaked in blood was picked up in the bushes, which happened to be a pair with the one left at the scene.在他的白色福特车里发现有血迹，地面上也有血迹，等等。你说，是不是被告已经没什么可说的了？ 我们的美国朋友迈克在辛普森的律师名单一出来是就说，这下有好戏看了，他们是绝不会放过一丝一毫对被告有利的机会的。我当时真的大不以为然，我说，这么一大堆证据，律师就是有天大的本事，还能让他脱身了不成？迈克说，也许。这个“也许”，在英语里是有百分之五十可能性的意思。我当时没说什么，心里想，走着瞧吧，名律师就能把证据给吃了不成。所以当预审阶段辩护律师提出那些证据是“非法取证”的结果，要求作废，而且眼看着差一点真的给作废了的时候，我才开始提提神，不再对这个案子掉以轻心，因为律师真的把证据一口吃给下去的可能性，我已经看到了。我要留神看看，证据上了堂以后，律师还有什么招数。 真没想到，后面精彩情节迭起，让搞新闻的几乎一直处于兴奋状态。我下封信再接着写，好吗？ wish 一切顺利！ Linda