Chapter 11 eleventh letter

Brother Lu: Hello! Letter received.You said in your letter that you have seen some reports in domestic newspapers, but from the Simpson case I introduced, you have become more interested in understanding the American judicial system, and you are very interested in hearing my continuation .This makes me feel very happy.You are interested in the "presumption of innocence" in the American judicial system, but you are also worried: Will a "criminal fact" eventually become a "court game"? In fact, I really should make it clear first, whether it is the "presumption of innocence" or the fair competition between the prosecution and the defense, what is all this for.It actually goes back to the original question you asked: What kind of freedom do Americans really have?Turned to Marxism because of studying the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin.Second, Americans believe that this suspect is only a "suspect" before the court officially pronounces a sentence.He may be convicted of the crime by iron-like evidence in the end, thus changing from a "suspect" to a "criminal", thus losing the freedom and rights that an American citizen should enjoy.But there is another possibility, that is, through fair court debate, it is finally found that the evidence is insufficient, so that the "suspect" can be cleared. The "presumption of innocence" and fair trial are precisely to protect the freedom and rights of an ordinary person to have the right to clear up his innocence.

Americans do not consider the defendant to be half a criminal.On the contrary, in a sense, a suspect or defendant means that a citizen is in a very passive and disadvantaged position.In the process of finding criminals, the American judicial system must first protect the freedom and basic rights of ordinary Americans when they are at this disadvantage.Americans believe that in this case, the prosecutors and police faced by the defendant often represent the strength of the local government or even the federal government in the United States. They have huge financial and material resources to collect evidence and maintain the lawsuit.However, if an ordinary person is in such a special position, if it is not protected from the system, then the possibility of being wronged or even framed by the government or law enforcement personnel is very high.So you can see that out of the ten amendments to the Constitution, five of them deal with the protection of the rights of the American citizens involved in the crime.

So, you can say that in the US, a trial is a "court game" that follows the rules, but for Americans, it doesn't have any derogatory meaning, because for them, it just means treating an ordinary person fairly , despite his unfortunate position as a "defendant".In the end, whether the facts of the crime can be confirmed depends on whether the prosecutor can produce enough evidence to convince ordinary people, and the jury is the representative of the people. In your letter, you talked about whether the situation that can be understood in theory will encounter problems in fact.What's more, the two ideal states I mentioned earlier are: the criminal is proven guilty and advocates a sound individualistic outlook on life.Advocate "cleaning up the country's heritage" and "big crimes", as well as the fact that the suspect is completely cleared. However, in fact, we will encounter a lot of non-ideal situations, that is, the case is complicated and judgment is difficult. This is also the case of Simpson The meaning of the case. This complicated case is to let everyone face a difficult fact, to see whether the theory still works under such circumstances, and whether the judicial system designed from the theory works.

So, let's go back to the Simpson case.Before the trial begins, everyone is nervously waiting to see what charges prosecutors will bring and what sentence they will seek.Because each state in the United States has strict regulations on the establishment of various charges.For example, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, etc., the sentencing standards are of course different.I think that a strict definition of various crimes is indeed very necessary.I remember that in the "Reading" magazine you sent, there was an article titled "Taking Shame as Shame, and Sin as Sin", counting all kinds of "not ashamed, but proud" situations, of course I agree with all of them. .Just a closer look, in the midst of multiculturalism and the great changes of the times, there are indeed situations where the boundaries between "shame" and "non-shame" are unclear. For example, homosexuality, shame and non-shame are still debated even in the United States.Of course, this is outside the scope of the article I mentioned.What I want to say is that before solving such problems, there is at least one simple problem that can be solved first, which is "taking murder as murder".This may sound a little weird, but sometimes it is quite realistic. For example, you and I have seen a lot of words like "persecuted to death". Does the shortcoming clause seem a bit unreasonable?

Besides, Simpson, if the prosecutor charges "first-degree murder", according to California law, you must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect not only killed someone, but also that he was Premeditated murder.This is because the final judgment made by the jury is not "guilty" or "not guilty", but "guilty" or "not guilty".If the prosecution brings only one charge, the jury's verdict is called an "all or nothing" verdict.That is to say, if you only bring a charge of "first-degree murder" and you can only prove homicide but not premeditation, the jury will still say, "Not guilty of first-degree murder." Allegation, the only allegation was denied, and the perpetrator could go home.So, it's a very tricky question for prosecutors.If charges of first-degree murder are filed and the charges are finally found guilty, the criminal who killed two lives can receive a heavier punishment, for example, the death penalty, or life imprisonment without parole.But at the same time, the stakes for prosecutors are much greater.If he is charged with second-degree murder, that is, he is accused of killing someone out of control during a quarrel or other anger, for the prosecutor, of course, the pressure to seek "conviction" is much less, but he can seek The penalty is much lighter. Not only is the sentence shorter, but after a period of imprisonment, the criminal can try to apply for parole.This is obviously unwilling for the prosecutor.Prosecutors in the Simpson case, after much deliberation and weighing, finally filed two charges of first-degree murder against him, that is, accusing him of first-degree murder against the two people who were killed.

Prosecutors’ charges certainly have their reasons. They proposed that they wore leather gloves in summer, carried sharp knives (both were killed by cutting their necks with sharp knives), and wore dark-colored hats and hats (a dark-colored hat was picked up at the scene) And people who parked escape tools at the scene (referring to Simpson's car found with blood) (now in Fujian).He became an official in his early years, and later resigned to give lectures.Teacher Wang Genzi Wang Fold. , This all shows that he was premeditated.At that time, when I heard that the prosecutor was seeking two counts of first-degree murder, I felt that this charge was somewhat questionable, or that the prosecution was a bit risky in doing so.The first is the young man who appeared on the scene very accidentally. It is difficult to convince the jury that Simpson "premeditated" to kill him.Second, "If Simpson was a premeditated murderer," all our American friends were joking at the time, "then he's the stupidest man in the world." Why?Because if you think about it, in the United States where you can watch several crime-solving feature films on TV every day, which premeditated murderer who wants to escape will kill a lot of blood in this way, and then bring back a lot of evidence, So it's everywhere in your own house?If Simpson had done it, the situation would have looked more like an out-of-control impulse.

Another question is whether prosecutors are asking for the death penalty.In the United States, laws vary from state to state, and some states have no death penalty at all.For example, the year before last in New York, a black man suddenly shot and killed many innocent passengers in the subway.However, since New York State did not have the death penalty at that time, it could only be sentenced to many years in prison.The state reinstated the death penalty shortly after, but the offender was no longer eligible for a new sentence.The state of California, where the Simpson case took place, has the death penalty, but according to American law, prosecutors must ask whether to seek the death penalty before the trial, instead of considering this issue after the defendant is found guilty, which also gives The prosecutor's decision posed great difficulties.Because in the United States, whether there should be the death penalty has always been a very serious and long-standing issue.There are a lot of people who are against the death penalty.

Many people in the United States question whether the death penalty is humane and whether it can really curb crime. At the same time, the issue of the death penalty also involves many other issues, such as the boundary of the death penalty, who should be executed?The question of whether society can afford the huge appeal costs of death row inmates.Because in America it is very prudent to legally take a person's life.Even under the death sentence, prisoners should be allowed to have sufficient opportunities to appeal again and again. Therefore, the average waiting time for each death row prisoner is about ten years from the sentence to the execution.There are also plenty of religious and civil rights activists who question the morality of the death penalty.Because Article 8 of the Constitutional Amendment stipulates that the court shall not punish criminals with cruel and unusual methods, the United States once considered whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, and in 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.But in 1976, on the premise that "the death penalty must be properly executed", the decision to accept the death penalty was made again.Since then, various states have resumed the death penalty. On March 7 this year, the governor of New York State signed the death penalty law, making it the 38th state in the United States to restore the death penalty.But, for all that, all of these states that have reinstated the death penalty are very careful in their enforcement of their death penalty laws.In order to ensure that innocent people are not killed, the state governments of these states must set up an independent team of lawyers to defend death row prisoners and assist them in appealing.From 1967 to 1977, there was no death penalty case in the United States. From then until 1993, although 2,716 criminals were sentenced to death across the country, less than 300 were actually executed.In other words, in the past 26 years, less than 300 criminals in the United States were actually executed.And the discussion about the death penalty continues.

Against this backdrop, prosecutors must consider that seeking the death penalty for a former black sports hero like Simpson in the first place would likely put jurors under psychological pressure when considering the defendant's "guilty." Too big to adapt to the world and live with the situation.In terms of epistemology, it is proposed that "my life has a limit, but I have no knowledge, so I can't do it." Therefore, in the end, the prosecutor gave up asking for the death penalty. I think it should be said that this is more sensible. When the formal trial begins, as usual, the defendant needs to answer again in front of the jury, whether he pleads guilty or not.Generally speaking, the defendant simply answers "guilty", or "not guilty".However, no one expected that Simpson not only reversed his listless appearance during the pre-trial (the jury was not present during the pre-trial), but also replied firmly and firmly: "The charge is 100% absolutely not guilty!" The unexpected rhetorical rhetoric, probably the first of its kind in court, was, of course, intended to impress the jury strongly from the outset.For a time, it was passed as a laughing stock outside the courtroom.Everywhere you go in America these days you can hear people saying "100 percent absolute" blah blah blah.In any case, with the defendant's denial of the charges, the "trial of the century" began.

The longest and most flavorful part of the trial process in the United States is the hearing.Because the hearing process is a competitive confrontation process between the lawyers of both sides, that is, the two "sports teams". First, the prosecution provides evidence and witnesses, and then the defense provides evidence and witnesses.At first, we took it for granted that the most embarrassing person in court must be the defendant, but it turned out to be a big mistake.We have seen in American courts that the most embarrassing thing is not the defendant but the witness.You will say, isn’t a witness just to provide evidence?How could it be messed up?This is because, no matter whether the witness provides positive or negative evidence, regardless of whether the testimony he provides is intended to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant, he must withstand the cross-examination of the opposing side in front of the jury.When a witness testifies in court, he must be questioned by both parties.Whether it is the prosecution or the defense, questioning witnesses is the most skillful job.If you are a witness of the prosecution, then the prosecution's questions are generally easier to deal with, but the defense's questions may completely overwhelm you.vice versa.

In American courts, the most important thing is evidence and testimony. Therefore, any evidence must go through repeated scrutiny. The blood sample test report made by the prosecution": "Let's know the fate, so don't worry." Tang Kongying Dashu: "Shun God's grace is joy. The defense will ask for a blood sample and ask experts to test it. Every sentence of the witness may also be used by the jury as an important basis for conviction. Therefore, the reliability of the testimony is the reliability of the witness itself. , of course, are all within the scope of lawyers' questioning. So we see that if the American courtroom is compared to a "sports field", the witness is the "ball" in which the two sides compete and play. During testimony, all prosecutors and defense attorneys can do is ask questions.What questions to ask and how to ask them are all very particular.The party who agrees with the witness must convince the jury on the side that the testimony is reliable by asking questions and answering the witness.On the other hand, on the contrary, he must try his best to ask some questions that the witness finds it difficult to answer, or make the witness's answer contradictory, or stimulate the witness's emotional weakness, so that the witness's testimony will have holes when he is emotional, and even Directly question the credibility and reliability of the witnesses themselves.In such circumstances, of course, witnesses with no court experience are likely to be questioned embarrassingly. However, not just any question can be asked.Some questions are listed as "fouls" and are not allowed to ask.What questions can be asked and what questions cannot be asked is entirely up to the judge.At this time, the role of the judge is reflected.While one party is asking the witness questions, the other party is constantly protesting the foulness of the "question" itself. As soon as the "protest" is raised, the judge will immediately "blew the whistle" to announce whether the "problem" itself is approved or not.If it passes, the witness can answer, if not, the witness must refuse to answer.So, what questions are considered foul?The most common ones are "irrelevant to the facts of the case". For example, the credibility and moral character of witnesses are often questioned. Once such issues are raised, the party providing the witness must "protest" to protect their own witnesses. At this point, it's all up to the judge.If the judge decides that "it has nothing to do with the facts of the case", the questioning will be blocked halfway, and the witness can breathe a sigh of relief. If the judge thinks that this questioning is related to the reliability of the witness itself and the reliability of his testimony, then, Witnesses will have to gasp and brace themselves for some aggressive questioning. There are also some leading questions that are not allowed. For example, you cannot first establish a fact and ask the witness if this is the case.It's also foul.The same question, sometimes it is possible to ask it from an angle and establish analytic geometry.In terms of physics, it is proposed that the sum of the motions in the universe is one, and it is a foul to ask from another angle.In American courts, it's pretty tense.The party who asks the question always tries to ask some questions as much as possible to induce the witness to give a testimony that is beneficial to his side. Make a "pass" or "reject" decision.Once the judge's decision is made, the protesting party can once again "protest" against the judge's decision. At this time, when the judge repeats his decision, he will briefly explain the reasons for his decision. In this process, the requirements for lawyers and judges are very high.They must not only be familiar with legal provisions, but also with various precedents. As I mentioned earlier, in the United States, the precedents of previous cases are also the basis for subsequent trials.Therefore, when lawyers "protest", they often use a certain legal provision or a certain previous case as a basis to explain that their "protest" is justified.Under such circumstances, of course, the judge must first be able to respond to these provisions and precedents, and then immediately find out the reasons for his refutation from his familiar precedents.At this time, if the protesting party refuses to accept it, it can only "obey the referee on the spot".The whole process: questioning, protesting, judging, protesting, judging and explaining the basis, is like the judgment process in a fierce competition on the sports field, and it is quickly completed within one minute or several minutes.Because everything is "regular" and absolutely obeys the authority of the "referee", it is very smooth and orderly, with a sense of rhythm. In American courts, the biggest foul is "dispute".The reason why the court can be so orderly is that the "no dispute" rule in front of the jury has played a big role.During the trial process, the party asking questions is talking to witnesses, and the party "protesting" is talking to the judge. The prosecution and defense generally do not talk to each other.Once there is a dialogue between them, which usually has the meaning of "dispute", the judge will immediately stop such "spotting" as soon as it emerges, and sometimes impose a fine immediately.At this time, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer had no choice but to take out the checkbook to pay the fine on the spot, and handed over the $200 fine on the spot. The "dispute" was eliminated, and the normal procedure continued.During the trial of the Simpson case, both the prosecutor and the defense were fined by the judge on the spot because of the "dispute". There is also absolutely no room for “argument” when questioning witnesses.All conversations with witnesses will be in the form of questions only.Even if the questioning party finds that the witness is clearly lying there, he cannot directly tell the witness that you are lying, because this is not only a condition for "questioning", it can only be realized through intermediate links.Such as the connection between man and nature, through, and is a kind of "dispute".In this case, what the questioner can do is to expose the witness's lies by continuing to ask questions.Generally speaking, the goal can be achieved.What's more, witnesses must take an oath to tell the truth when they appear in court. Lying is a crime of perjury in theory, and they must bear legal responsibility.All lawyers also have a knack for turning affirmative sentences into interrogative sentences. In the case of Simpson, the longest stage was for the prosecution to provide evidence witnesses. This stage lasted for about half a year, almost every day.You must have seen it in relevant domestic reports, the situation is very unfavorable for this football star.First of all, he could not provide the most important so-called "alibi" proof.On the night of the incident, Nicole called her mother at around ten o'clock, and the time between this call and when Simpson answered a taxi driver's call at her home was 45 minutes.This was Simpson's most pivotal and controversial period.Simpson himself claimed that he was sleeping alone at home during this time and, therefore, no witnesses could be produced.In this case, the focus of the debate between the prosecution and the defense is whether Simpson has time to complete all the actions during this time.On this point, they always hold different opinions.Defense lawyers have long claimed that time is not enough.Because it uses a knife, it takes time, and he has to go back and forth between the two houses.It is impossible for two healthy adults to stand still and fight without fighting. Nicole may appear weaker because she is a woman, but Goldman is a strong young man. However, the final impression is that, if the killing goes well, there may be enough time.At the same time, it also leaves some doubts for everyone, one is whether there is enough time, and the other is, as a premeditated murderer, why Simpson took the risk of only arranging a very short time for committing the crime.During this time, he had to drive back and forth, kill people, and then change clothes and destroy evidence (the murder weapon and the clothes and shoes worn by the murderer were never found).He had to get it all done during this time because he blocked himself with the later schedule - not only did he have no witnesses to prove his "alibi", but he booked a limousine taxi to pick him up at his residence Airport.If it was a premeditated murder case, this arrangement was also very unreasonable. It was because he booked a taxi that the testimony of the taxi driver who was very unfavorable to him appeared.According to the driver's testimony, it was 10:22 when he arrived outside his house, and he called in, but no one answered the phone.Waiting for a piece of academic work, but also a work of philosophy, sociology and history.It's Mark, calling several times, still no answer.He contacted his boss if he wanted to leave and was told to "keep waiting".Then, in the dark, he saw a black man with a similar build to Simpson walk into Simpson's home.Later, when he saw the lights, he called again. After half a minute to a minute, Simpson answered the phone and told the driver that he had overslept and would come out immediately.After hearing such testimonies, people can completely think that Simpson missed the bus time for the murder and rushed back to pretend to have overslept.But even so, the "joke" about the "dumbest murderer" still lingers in people's minds, because, if he follows the time he agreed with the driver, it is almost impossible for him to come back "on time". How foolish enough to ask someone to come to your house in advance to prove that you were not at home when the incident happened? As a witness, the driver passed the customs quite smoothly.His basic testimony was corroborated by call records from his mobile phone, as he had been in contact with his boss on several occasions.Other witnesses at the police station who collected evidence were severely cross-examined by defense lawyers.The one that impressed us the most was Forman, who picked up two bloody gloves as key evidence.He was not a member of the Los Angeles Police Department's Major Crimes Unit, he just happened to be on the night shift that day, and he was the first to arrive at the scene when he received the call.Some of the initial evidence, including the blood on Simpson's white Ford, the two bloody gloves, etc., was found by him.After that, as soon as the serious crime team arrived, he handed over the case, and there was nothing more to do with him.So, you can see that he has not been involved in this case for a long time, but obviously his position in the case is very important.He was the main target of the defense's supposed racial slurs, so this part of the hearing was a tough one for him.However, Furman's performance at this stage was basically satisfactory to the prosecution.Although he was repeatedly cross-examined by the defendant's lawyer, he was still able to block him with soldiers and cover him with water, and it seemed that nothing major happened.As for how to find some important evidence, he can tell them one by one, without any flaws.He also categorically denied accusations made by the defendant's lawyer of racism.He replied very firmly that he had never used the word "nigger" for at least ten years before. The other one who was very embarrassed in court was a Chinese police officer surnamed Feng.He is technical.There are quite a few Asian-Americans serving as small heads of technology in various institutions in the United States.After the crime team took over, he was responsible for collecting evidence.Therefore, he is also an important witness of the "criminal evidence reliability" in this case. What makes the blood evidence important in the case is that Simpson was carrying a severed finger when he returned from Chicago after receiving a call from the police reporting the death of his ex-wife.He claimed to have been cut by a broken glass at the hotel.However, what the prosecution wants to prove is that the various contradictions of the Communist Party have been sharpened, that the proletariat has boarded as an independent political force, and that there are Simpson's genes in his car and in the blood drops found at the scene, that is to say, to prove that His finger was cut at the scene of the murder before going to Chicago. When he was interrogated by the lawyer at the beginning, Police Officer Feng was very calm and asked him about the whole process of collecting evidence. He answered with confidence, and there seemed to be no loopholes.He really underestimated the meticulousness of a lawyer.In fact, the whole process of evidence collection was videotaped at that time. This is the work video of the police station. According to the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the defendant has the right to face all his own evidence, so these videos have a copy at the defendant’s lawyer. . During the trial, whenever a party raises a new piece of evidence, the jury must be called out of the courtroom to discuss whether the piece of evidence is legal or not.The accused, however, must have the right to be present.Evidence should not be used in a surprise attack in court and brought out suddenly.All evidence must be submitted to the court a certain period of time in advance according to regulations, and the evidence and the issues it intends to explain should be disclosed to the other party.In this way, before deciding to present it in court, the other party has a sufficient preparation time to study the evidence and conduct a counter-investigation, find its loopholes, and consider what strategy to use to refute this evidence in front of the jury.This is not only the right of both the plaintiff and the defendant, but also one of the components of a fair trial.If the evidence is not submitted to the court in advance according to the prescribed time, it is a foul, and the evidence will be refused by the judge.In this trial, both the defense and the prosecution had evidence that was submitted late and was discarded.Therefore, both parties have a copy of all the evidence.This is why lawyers are confident in facing witnesses and can ask a lot of questions. I think that if this police officer Feng has a chance to appear in court next time, he must watch all these videos and recite them, because the latter part of the hearing really made him feel ashamed to face Jiang Dong's elders. Immediately after the first phase of his hearing was over, the defendant's lawyer released the work video of the police station's evidence collection in court.Anyway, there are many discrepancies between what was released and Officer Feng's testimony.Basically, it is a matter of technical details. For example, he once said that anti-pollution measures such as wearing rubber gloves were taken according to the operating regulations when collecting evidence, but this is not the case in the video.For another example, he said that an important piece of evidence was collected by himself, but in the video, it was operated by an assistant who was not yet skilled enough.In addition, the blood samples taken were not sent for inspection in time, and they were left unattended in the high-temperature car for a long time, etc.In short, there are a lot of such problems.Feng, who had tasted the bitter fruit of his own nonsense in court, had a frowning face, which was in stark contrast to the complacent and complacent in the video.The problem is that the defendant's lawyers are not satisfied with positioning Feng as a "Ma Daha", they go straight to Feng's personal quality problems.They wanted to ask questions to impress the jury that Feng's previous testimony in the first stage was not a long time ago, he could not remember clearly and made a mistake, nor was he talking irresponsibly, but an intentional lie and a deliberate cover-up. The police station disregards the evidence, and may even steal the truth of the evidence.They want the jury to understand that Feng is not only a liar, but may also be an insidious, unpredictable guy who deliberately conceals the truth.When the flood of unkind questions flooded in, the witnesses were really hard to resist. At one point, Feng looked even more like the defendant than the defendant. Since Feng involved a lot of physical evidence, the hearing time was also very long.After many days, when the long testimonial process finally passed, Feng made everyone experience a dramatic ending.When he finished the hearing and left the witness box anyway, he walked past the prosecutor's table and shook the prosecutor's hand in a very awkward way.This is completely understandable. He was originally a witness provided by the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution has high hopes on him, hoping that as a technical officer in charge of evidence collection, he can at least provide strong testimony to the court and jury, proving the evidence provided by the prosecution to the court. The evidence collection process is scientific and fair, and there is no possibility of being subcontracted, but Feng disappointed them greatly.At the same time, because he had access to a lot of evidence, once this loophole was exposed, the impact would be great.As a professional criminal worker, Feng certainly knew that the trouble he got into was not small.Now that the deal is done, the mood of the two parties shaking hands and saying goodbye is of course very complicated, but it is easy to understand.What was unexpected was the parting scene between Feng and the defense lawyer. When Feng awkwardly shook hands with the prosecutors and then passed the defendant's lawyer's seat, he shook hands and hugged them with an unexpectedly relaxed expression. The "touching" scene became the biggest focus of reports on the Simpson case that day.But in the United States, no one can say what kind of medicine he took wrongly, so he "speaks joy" to his opponent who has launched a fierce offensive against him in the past few days.Only some oriental people here think that it is "understandable", maybe he has the oriental logic of "no fight, no acquaintance", maybe it means "you are also for work, not against me, I don't blame you" Oriental tolerance.Who knows?However, such a scene, God knows what effect it will have on the jury, is the focus of everyone's real concern.Because all the painstaking efforts in court are just to impress the jury? Next, there is a lot of dry genetic assay evidence.It is useless for anyone to understand these evidences. In court, the jury must be able to figure it out and believe it.So, in addition to showing evidence, it's very important that experts go to court and give genetics lessons to the jury, explaining to them what genes are, what DNA is, and so on. I have always believed in scientific evidence, which is one of the reasons why I found Simpson difficult to get rid of in the first place.Just in the middle of the trial, I saw a real case that happened a few years ago on TV.I will never forget this case. It was an ordinary American woman. One day, she found that her baby was suddenly ill. She sent him to the hospital. After the doctor checked, he announced that the baby was poisoned, and the hospital test results showed that the poison the baby had eaten was a kind of poison similar to The car coolant stuff.So the hospital called the police.In the United States, if it is a crime involving children, it is very serious.Given that no one else had been in contact with the poisoned baby, and the mother had been feeding the baby, the woman couldn't get away with it.After the child was rescued, he was temporarily adopted by a special social agency, separated from his parents, waiting for investigation, and could visit him at the prescribed time every week.At the same time, the investigation into the child's poisoning was launched, and the police were allowed to search their home. In the kitchen cabinet of their home, an empty coolant tank was indeed found.Due to the popularity of cars, every household in the United States has coolant, but because the coolant is poisonous, it is generally not placed in the kitchen.At this time, the child's grandmother, father and mother all went to visit the place where the child was temporarily adopted. After the child was rescued, he looked very healthy. Before leaving, the child's mother held the child alone in the reception room, with the door ajar. The child's grandmother watched as she bottle-fed the child. When they returned home, they were notified that the child was in critical condition again with the same symptoms of poisoning, but the rescue failed and the child died.The woman was charged with first-degree murder by the district attorney and jailed.After being imprisoned, while awaiting trial, she discovered that she was pregnant again.She always denied her guilt, but except her husband, everyone else was skeptical. In court, the most convincing evidence was the hospital report, which proved that the final test found that there was a total of about half a tablespoon of venom in the child's blood before he died.The woman had an attorney whose defense strategy was clearly not convincing.In the end, she was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.She refused to accept the verdict and began to appeal.At this time, she gave birth to her second child.The child lived with his father as soon as he was born, and soon after, the second child developed the same symptoms of poisoning.The child's parents were both worried and happy. Although the child had problems, at least it proved that it had nothing to do with this woman.But prosecutors disagreed to deny the earlier indictment based on what happened to the second child.Maybe someone deliberately fed coolant to the second child in order to rescue the mother? At this point, she hired a second lawyer.She had been disheartened after her own long calamity.The lawyer was also uncertain about whether she had poisoned her son before agreeing to take the case.She also lost confidence in the lawyer because the previous lawyer failed to handle the case.So, in the beginning, the communication between them was not good.但是当那名律师真正相信了她之后，全力以赴展开调查，最后他找了许多医学专家，发现冷却液在体内的半衰期是一个小时，也就是说，每过一个小时就会有一半被排出体外。这样的话，根据那位妇女最后一次喂奶的时间，到孩子抽血化验的时间间隔这样计算，如果化验时还能确定孩子体内有半汤勺冷却液的话，他妈当初得给他一下子灌下去六加仑！ 这份证明一出来，检察官马上把起诉给撤了。经过医学专家对她的第二个孩子的反复鉴定，证实他们的孩子有一种非常罕见的遗传疾病。发病的症状就活象是中毒。而医院的化验室当初肯定是先入为主，马虎从事了。至今，这名妇女还保留着对医院化验室起诉的权利。 这个案例至少使我了解到，一个看上去已经掌握了科学证据的案子，并不是意味着律师就没有事情可做了，更不是意味着就不会再发生冤假错案的可能。 在辛普森案审理期间，还发生了一起这样的案子，一名二十多岁的妇女被控抢劫，由受害者作形象辨认确定是她。这类案件，受害者的指认，往往成为关键的证据。她本人不仅提供不出不在现场的证明，而且根本说不出事发的时候自己在什么地方。她否认有罪，但是，最终还是被判有罪入狱。在她坐牢大概七个月左右的时候，真正的罪犯因其他案件被捕，同时供认了这桩抢劫。这时，大家才发现，这两个妇女长得非常相象。 事实上，嫌疑犯表示认罪的情况是最皆大欢喜的。当然，也有一些罪犯虽然不认罪，但是却明显属于“垂死挣扎”，比如，有大量证人目睹其犯罪，证据确凿，当场人赃俱获的。就象我在前面提到的，在纽约地铁开枪滥射的那名黑人，他手持半自动步枪，在车厢的走道上边走边射，总共造成六人死亡，十九人受伤。他也是在法庭上宣布不认罪的。同时，他不要律师，要求为自己辩护。由于事情发生在拥挤的地铁上，证人(包括受伤的幸存者)很多，这个牙买加移民却在自我辩护中宣称，所有的证人都是因为他是黑人而在陷害他。尽管他不否认枪是他的，但是他辩称是别人从他手中拿走了枪，杀了人再把枪还给他的。他在法庭上也是西装笔挺，侃侃而谈，以奇怪的逻辑自比是圣徒受难，但是我相信当全体陪审团员一致通过，认定他的六项一级杀人罪“罪名成立”的时候，肯定不会有丝毫的心理负担，也不会有任何人相信他是被冤枉的。 困难的是那些没有证人亲眼看到犯罪过程，嫌疑犯则坚决否认有罪。在这种情况下，要确认罪犯有时是非常困难的。你从刚才我提到的案例中可以看到，有时即使有证人，都会发生指认错误。有化验报告，也有可能产生偏差。但是对于涉嫌的这一个公民，就很可能要为一个证据上的偏差而付出一生的自由作为代价。你必须理解这一点，在美国这样一个把公民自由看得高于一切的国家，是没有一个人愿意看到这种情况发生的。一个无辜的人失去自由，是美国人认为最不可容忍的事情了。 当辛普森案冗长的作证阶段把全美国都搞得失去耐心的时候，有一天，我和一群美国朋友在一起聊到正在进行的审判，大家开始取笑法官，取笑律师，拿这场审判开玩笑。后来，其中一个名叫戴尔希的白人女孩说，不管大家怎样取笑这场审判，但是有一点是肯定的，如果到最后还是确定不了辛普森是否有罪，那么，就会有两种错判的可能：一是他真的杀了人而被放掉，二是他没杀人而被判了无期徒刑。在这两种情况下，我宁可他是杀了人而被放掉了，也不愿意看到他是有可能被冤枉的，却待在牢里。对于这一点，所有在场的人都表示同意。 我逐步理解了美国人对于这一类问题的原则，他们一般来说，对刑事案件的审判从来不持有完全“不冤枉一个好人，也不放过一个坏人”的乐观态度。他们相信会发生一些情况使大家都难以判别，在这种情况下，我惊讶地发现，他们的原则很简单，就是“宁可放过一千，不可错杀一个”！ 因此，在法庭上，检察官最重要的，是要提供“超越合理怀疑”的证据。在辛普森一案中，辛普森对于他和妮可的离异始终没有想开，而且在他们分开之后，曾多次到妮可居住的地方，不仅发生争吵，还情绪失控动手打过妮可，以至于有一次当他愤怒地冲向妮可住所的时候，妮可吓得打报警电话。这一类电话都是有录音的。这一录音在法庭上曾一再播放。同时，妮可还在银行租了一个保险柜，里面有她被辛普森殴打以后脸上带伤的照片，还有一份遗嘱，似乎也在暗示辛普森对她有生命威胁。再者，其他人，包括辩护律师在内，都提不出使人信服的有动机的其他任何嫌疑犯。 可是，这一切都还不是“超越合理的怀疑”的证据。包括出租车司机所提供的证词等，也还不是“超越合理的怀疑”的证据。在作案现场没有人证的情况下，真正有份量的，应该是那些现场的血液取样DNA检验报告，以及血手套，血袜子等物证，但是提供物证的同时，检察官必须向陪审团证明，取证是科学的，证人是可信的，是“超越合理的怀疑”的。 同时，辩方律师却根本不必去证明什么，辩方律师所必须作的事情，就是对证据提出怀疑，并且使陪审团对证据的可信度也发生怀疑，那么，就胜利有望了。 在检方证人非常漫长的作证过程中，辩方律师竭力使人们相信，检方所提供的证据，有可能是警察栽赃的结果。说实话，我一开始是不相信这样一个方向有可能走得通的。要让陪审团相信这样一个看上去很离谱，而且非常异乎寻常的假设，实在是太难了。在我看来，有几个地方辩方律师使人感觉很勉强。比如，他们假设妮可有可能是被哥伦比亚贩毒集团杀死的，因为妮可有吸毒的历史，如果大量购买毒品又不能支付的话，犯毒集团是有谋杀此类客户的情况。但是，这种谋杀一般都十分“专业”，不仅用枪，而且干脆利落，从此案的现场看根本不象。更何况这只是猜测，没有任何依据。另外就是他们对冯警官表现得过分的攻击。他们还曾提出，辛普森在运动生涯中，身体受过伤，这些旧伤导致他根本不可能做到去刀夺两命，可是辛普森在从球场上退役之后，偏偏不甘寂寞，拍摄了大量商业性的健身录像带。检方马上在法庭上放起了这些录像，只见镜头前的辛普森体魄强健，动作自如，还不停地在开着玩笑，看得他自己和辩护律师都哭笑不得。 但是，有几个地方他们显然是成功的，首先是指出了取证过程的操作不规范，血样保管有漏洞，提出辛普森被警察抽去作化验的血少了一些(暗示有人利用了这份血样去栽赃，给栽赃提供了现实可能性)，还提出辛普森作案时间的疑问。另外，给陪审团留下深刻印象的一个场面，就是让辛普森试戴在现场拣到的那双血手套。尽管检方此后调动了一切手段证明手套的本来的尺码是合适的，只是有些缩水了，但是在法庭上，辛普森吃力地把两只大手硬撑进显然偏小的手套，我相信这样一个景象比任何说明给人留下的印象都更为强烈。 尽管如此，当检方的证人纷纷作证完毕的时候，并没有给人一种形势明朗的感觉，也丝毫看不出辩方有绝对取胜的迹象。在美国，被告被警察掌握了一大堆证据，却反过来指责警察是栽赃，这种情况毕竟还是罕见的。如果被告的律师不拿出点什么绝招来的话，很难取信于陪审团。同时，形势不明朗的状态，对检方也是一个不详之兆，因为这说明检方的证据仍处于被挑战的过程之中。 在这一段时间里，辛普森本人也尽了他最大的努力在外界争取同情。他设立了一个免费的热线电话，以收集寻找凶手的线索，以巨款悬赏捉拿凶手，同时他还在牢里写了一本书为自己辩解。从我的感觉，这些举动收效甚微。人们依然将信将疑。 当时，在我周围的美国人中间，很多人都倾向于认为辛普森也许是杀了人，大家的依据主要还是凭感觉，觉得除了他之外，实在找不到另外一个人有这样说得过去的杀人动机和那么多疑点。同时，他们也多数认为辛普森最后能够“脱身”，因为他们都熟悉美国的司法制度，感觉检方提供的证据没有达到无可挑剔的程度。因此，作为这样一个重大案件的定罪，很可能是不够的。 今天就先写到这里。 wish it is good! Linda