Chapter 12 twelfth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! I continue to write about the Simpson case, which I talked about halfway last time. Jury quarantines have reached record levels as time has dragged on.During this period, ten jurors were either disqualified or voluntarily asked to leave the jury due to various reasons.Fortunately, there is heaven and earth, which has existed since ancient times; gods, ghosts, and gods are born in heaven and earth", nothing is invisible, but besides the twelve jurors, there are also twelve alternate jurors. From the beginning to the end, the alternate jurors are the same as the official jurors. Each time a juror leaves for some reason, an alternate takes over. Once all the alternates are exhausted and someone has to withdraw, the trial may be due to the number of jurors. Insufficient and declared failure, everything has to start again. Therefore, everyone is sweating, and the trial has been going on for so long, but it must not be messed up at the last minute because of insufficient jury numbers. Fortunately, the remaining These people have persisted until the end.

Jurors are the most mysterious group of people in the courtroom.On the one hand, it is because of the mystery caused by the "power of life and death" in their hands; Appeared in front of everyone.Because it's not allowed.Thus, whenever a juror "retires from the mystery," there is always a swarm of reporters following.Generally speaking, they all hide their faces, get into the car in a hurry, and never show up again, because they don't want to affect the peaceful life of themselves and their families because of such a jury experience.However, there are also those who answered questions from reporters and even accepted interviews from TV stations once they were freed from this identity and legal constraints.Looking at these jurors, I sometimes shouted: Americans let such people decide the verdict of a big case!I am convinced, this is completely ordinary people randomly found on the road, so ordinary that you can't figure it out: How can a country with the most scientific and advanced industry in the world hand over the judgment of all major cases to It is given to ordinary people who may even be illiterate, but a large group of doctors of law stare blankly!

The witnesses provided by the defendant's lawyers were few, and the hearing time was short compared with the prosecution's hearing time.However, several national and even international masters came out.Among them is a Nobel Prize winner.Perhaps because we are Chinese, we pay special attention to a witness of Chinese origin. In fact, his appearance also attracted everyone's attention, because Dr. Li is a world-renowned senior criminology expert.He was a friend of Shapiro, Simpson's lawyer, and their acquaintance was natural.Shapiro is a lawyer who has experienced major cases, and Dr. Li is a famous criminologist who has helped Shapiro a lot from a technical point of view.He has presented key evidence for many major cases.Some of these evidences are used to convict criminals, and some help suspects to be freed. He just presents scientific evidence from a scientific point of view, and this is his job.It is his scientific research results and impartial scientific attitude that are generally respected by related fields.When Simpson had just returned to Los Angeles from Chicago, he received Shapiro's request for his assistance with scientific evidence, and later agreed to testify in court.Experts of this type need to be paid to testify, but he obviously values ​​the Chinese tradition of cherishing their reputation. Before appearing in court, he announced that he would donate the $50,000 in court fees to the Los Angeles Police Department as an education fund.Why did he donate to the LAPD, which works for the prosecution?Because the main content of his testimony is that there is a problem with the forensics work of the Los Angeles Police Department, especially the poor level of the main forensics detective.Coincidentally, the chief forensic detective who was attacked by defense lawyers was also of Chinese descent.Dr. Li, who was born in the Taipei Police Academy, is the director of the criminal identification laboratory of the Connecticut State Police Headquarters, that is to say, he is an employee of a unit under the Ministry of Justice.The federal and state departments of justice are in charge of prosecuting criminal cases, but he traveled thousands of miles from the northeastern United States to the southwestern United States to testify for a major murder suspect prosecuted in another state.This is a very normal thing in the United States.Providing scientific evidence, whether it is for the defendant or for the prosecutor, is exactly the same for a scientific worker. The difference is that the remuneration for testifying for a celebrity like Simpson is much higher, but this time he Donated the scheduled pay to opponents in court.However, even if he does not donate the money, he will not receive any external or psychological pressure from himself.On the contrary, after the defense announced that he would appear to testify, the comments of experts on TV every day were full of admiration, as if waiting for a big star to appear.

He had been commissioned by Simpson's lawyer, Shapiro, to conduct a physical examination of Simpson to prove that there were no signs of struggle on his body, and photos of these examinations were shown in court.He also made some inferences based on photographs of the crime scene.The more important ones are "Karl Marx's Economic Determinism"), "Recalling Marx" and so on after he analyzed a live photo. , thinking that one of the traces is "possibly" a "second pair of footprints".This, if proven true, would be a major breakthrough.Because apart from the victim, only one person's footprints were found at the scene. Although the perpetrator's shoes were never found, the size of the footprints was consistent with Simpson's, and it was confirmed that they were a pair of expensive shoes that only rich people would care about. .Prosecutors believe Simpson committed the crime alone.Dr. Lee's discovery is a "reasonable doubt".There is an extremely important principle in criminal law. The defendant only needs to raise "reasonable doubts" and does not need to provide proof. This is called "the burden of no proof". This is called "with the burden of proof," or "the burden of proof is on the prosecution."

Therefore, the prosecution is unwilling to break through this point anyway, and they once again invited criminal experts to deny Dr. Li's push.In court, the prosecution also picked out his irregularities from his work videos.At this time, another unexpected plot appeared outside the court.Dr. Li held a press conference in his laboratory after being refuted.He told reporters that there was no major conflict between his own conclusions and the experts who refuted him, because what he said in court was "maybe a second pair of footprints", and he never said "definitely".At the same time, he was also very annoyed at the fact that the prosecutor singled out his irregular operation, accusing the prosecutor of not cooperating with him during the operation and not providing him with the equipment he should have, so that he could not find gloves and so on. Can operate illegally.He also told reporters he regretted his involvement in the case.This move seemed to be eager to defend his own testimony, and there was an uproar in public opinion for a while.Generally speaking, the role of a witness is to testify in court, and whether the testimonial is successful or not is also settled in court.Outside the courtroom, if you explain your own testimony, the jury can't hear it, and it doesn't work for this case.However, these remarks obviously have an impact on the people outside the court, and are obviously not good for the defense.Defense lawyers certainly did not expect such a move.I think this is also a function of the Chinese's emphasis on personal reputation. What he seems to care most about is not to damage the good reputation he has built for a long time.The jury at the press conference held by Dr. Li has no way of knowing, but as a world-renowned criminologist, his conclusions after various analyzes in court should have a great influence on the jury."The only suggestion I can make in these circumstances is that something is wrong," he said of the blood evidence presented by the prosecution.

And the real dramatic plot happened on the police officer Furman who picked up the bloody gloves.No one thought that there was such a coincidence in the world that Furman, who was a key witness for the prosecution, had allowed a playwright to record a large number of his speeches intermittently in the past ten years.This is because the playwright wanted to collect material about the life of the Los Angeles police, and through a friend's introduction, he paid Furman to record the sound.You have to admire the lawyers Simpson hired, how they managed to get this evidence.It was the final stage of the whole long trial, and it came to such a climax that it almost threw the judge out of the game as soon as it came out.

Because Judge Ito's wife is a senior official of the Los Angeles Police Department and used to be Furman's boss.In Furman's recordings, there are not only a large number of speeches attacking blacks, but also many speeches that derogate Hispanics, Jews, and women. The difference from the general law is relative.The two can switch to each other under certain conditions, which include a jab at the judge's wife.Therefore, the prosecution pointed out that the judge himself was also involved in this case, and the content of these recordings involving his wife may cause the judge to make unfair decisions based on emotional influence when judging whether to allow these recordings to be presented in court.So ask the judge to be out.Ito also tearfully admitted in court that hearing the attack on his wife would hurt him as much as anyone else.This is really lively.This trial, which was finally persisted, has already received a lot of criticism because it has lasted for a long time.Ten of the jurors retired, not to mention, and now even the judge can't keep it.Finally, after two days of fierce debate, the prosecution finally made a decision to erase the contents of the tape about the judge's wife in advance, and no longer require the judge to withdraw.Everyone finally breathed a sigh of relief.

Of course, the jury was called out of the court during this period of time, and they didn't know about this turmoil. In the absence of the jury, Furman's tapes were first played in court once to determine whether and which recordings could be played to the jury.On the day when the tape was played, the atmosphere in the courtroom was solemn and silent.Furman's tapes echoed not only in the courtroom, but throughout the United States, shocking everyone.You can feel that this is a "cowboy" guy, boastful and cheeky, he makes no secret of his hatred of black people, and boasts of his abuse of power.On top of that, he describes the lawlessness of police perjury and planting with utter affirmation.He was in this courtroom five months ago, sworn to tell the truth and declared he hadn't mentioned the word "nigger" in ten years.But now, in the same courtroom, you can hear him declaring that the black people in Los Angeles city hall should all be shot together.In fourteen hours of recording, he used the word "nigger" more than forty times.All of this, I believe you have seen it in relevant domestic reports.

This recording was a shock to everyone in the United States.As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, the fact that even the Ku Klux Klan now refrains from using directly racially degrading language in their propaganda because of the race stage in America.Bruno and Bauer of the Young Hegelians took Hegel's "self-consciousness" as an example, and there have been tremendous changes in the past thirty years. However, due to historical reasons and very complicated factors, the issue of race is still a sensitive issue in the United States. Black people, of course, were outraged to hear this recording, and most white people, who were not racist, were also embarrassed.

However, when the most direct emotional turmoil passed, the most concentrated topic of course was what Furman's recording would bring to this trial.I think this should first talk about what the situation was like before that.In my last letter I mentioned the general opinion of the Americans around me.In fact, every night, a large number of legal experts make many authoritative comments on the development of the day.Regarding the various situations that occurred throughout the trial, as time dragged on, differences and disputes continued to increase, but before Furman's tapes came out, most legal experts believed that this case would be closed because of the jury's disagreement. No verdict could be reached.

You may ask, what does this mean?This is because the law of the United States stipulates that no matter what kind of verdict the jury finally makes, whether it is "convicted" or "not guilty", it must be the unanimous opinion of all the jurors.As long as the opinions cannot be reached, it means that "a ruling cannot be made", and this trial must be declared "failed".After the trial fails, the prosecution must immediately make a decision whether to try again or withdraw the prosecution, and the case will be closed as a "trial failure".If you choose the former, then all procedures that have already been performed must be performed from scratch.Of course, both sides can present new evidence to the court, if there is any, or change the tactics of the attack if there is no new evidence.I'm going to use the sports field as an analogy again. Failure in the trial means that the ball was drawn, so let's play another game to decide the winner. Before the Simpson case came out, there was a very sensational case where two brothers shot and killed their biological parents.Their parents have a huge amount of property, and it seems that the motive for the murder is clear.However, the two tall and burly brothers admitted to the murder but disagreed with the "first-degree murder" they were prosecuted for.They tearfully cried in court (near Athens) Eukleides (c. 450-c. 374 BC), saying that their parents had been sexually abusing them for a long time, and recently they suspected that their parents wanted to "silence" them.They are self-defense, and they "strike first" when they are panicked.If this statement is true, the charges and the sentence will be different. After a few years of parole, you can come out to enjoy the inheritance.After the case had been tried for a long time, it was because the jury was not unified that the trial was declared a failure.Recently reopened. Another possibility after a failed trial is to withdraw the prosecution.Sometimes it is because the prosecution thinks that the retrial is impossible to make the jury unanimously agree with the charges brought by them, so they throw in the towel and give up.Sometimes it is purely for economic reasons that the prosecutor is unwilling or impossible to bear the huge litigation expenses, so he gives up.In this case, it is obviously in the defendant's favor.As for the verdict itself, it must be unanimously passed by the jury before it can be counted. This article is obviously also a "cautious" rule.In my opinion, this is just a further manifestation of the principle of the American judicial system that "it is better to let one thousand go than to kill one by mistake". Why did most legal experts think the jury would be unanimous until the Furman tapes came out?This reflects the complexity of the case itself.On the one hand, it has a lot of scientific evidence, on the other hand, it has many doubts and logical inconsistencies.Afterwards, Dr. Li even directly mentioned that generally such scientific evidence such as DNA is not much to be found in such cases, but the DNA evidence in this case is "too much to be suspected".Therefore, experts estimate that the jury will produce a faction that is convinced of a large amount of physical evidence, and another faction that believes that the case is too doubtful. Experts believe that it will be difficult for them to achieve unity through mutual persuasion.But after Furman's recording came out, the opinion of most experts tended to be that the jury would unanimously return a not guilty verdict.When the experts made the judgment, they did not emphasize that it was because of the racial proportions of the jury.In the final jury, there were nine blacks, one Latino and two whites.So, in fact, what exactly is the change brought about by Furman's recording?Two changes were pretty much certain: the recording made one of the prosecution's most important witnesses credible to absolutely unbelievable, and the recording made possible the unlikely police-planting myth advanced by the defense.The first is based on the fact that Furman's first testimony was clearly a lie, and the second is based on Furman's strong racist tendencies, which lead people to believe that he may have a motive to frame Simpson. In the American judicial system, there is a set of norms for how jurors decide cases.For example, everything is based on the law, and must be based on witnesses and evidence. It is not easy to believe that the lawyers of both parties are a scientific system composed of a series of basic laws and categories.The basic law is that one cannot participate in one's own thoughts and opinions, one must be sure that the evidence is unquestionable before a conviction can be made, and so on.Here you can see that even if a juror thinks that Simpson may have committed the case, as long as the evidence is in doubt, he will still make a judgment of "not guilty" according to the requirements of the law for jurors. In the fair competition between the two sides, the failure of the prosecution on this issue is obviously due to the fact that it is no match for the defense in terms of strength, or in other words, the work has not been done well.Because, on the surface, the confrontation game between the two sides is a battle of words in court, but in fact, what is revealed is only the tip of the iceberg.There is a huge amount of behind-the-scenes work in such a large case, and both sides are doing their best to gather evidence, including all the facts about their own witnesses and the other's witnesses.Furman's recording is the key information of this key witness. If the prosecution instead of the defense obtained this information, the prosecution may not allow him to appear in court as a witness on its side.This recording is in the hands of a female playwright who has a very good personal relationship with Furman. She lives in North Carolina, and the distance from Los Angeles is farther than Shanghai to Xinjiang.This recording is completely a private transaction, and there should be very few people who know about it.It seems understandable that the prosecution didn't grasp this situation, but you didn't get it, but the other party got it, so you can't forgive yourself.American courts are like an arena for seeking fairness. If either side is left empty at a critical moment, it will be useless to watch the other side score a goal. These recordings were made intermittently over a period of ten years.The location of the interview is usually in a secluded restaurant.The fact that the places where the two parties live are so far apart, and that their exchanges and cooperation have lasted for ten years, shows that their relationship is very deep.In court, she was once asked about her relationship with Furman, and she stammered visibly before answering that it was a general partnership.Of course, the prosecution lawyer hated this witness extremely, so outside the court, the prosecution lawyer said that if she said that again, I would publish her love letter to Furman in court.The reason why I mention this is to let you know that the defense has done a lot of work to get the news of the existence of this tape and to turn this purely private recording into "evidence". . When the female playwright appeared in court, she appeared as a witness for the defense.In fact, she was not a direct witness in the Simpson case, she was just a witness about Furman and the tapes.After the defendant's lawyer presents the evidence of the tape, the court routinely decides whether this evidence should be presented in court or not (Arabal).Therefore, moderate nominalism, also known as "concept", avoids jurors to start a fierce court debate. This female playwright appeared in the absence of jurors. Prosecutors could only try to fix the situation, so they desperately prevented the tape from being played to the jury.During the scuffle, Goldman's father spoke again outside the courtroom.He questioned defense attorneys whether this was the Simpson trial or the Furman trial.The prosecution also defended by citing the "irrelevant to this case" clause, saying that whether Furman was a racist has nothing to do with whether Simpson killed anyone. Just because he is a racist does not mean that he will frame him.However, it is very difficult to say that this recording has nothing to do with the case. In order to prudently handle Furman's recording, Judge Ito decided to send Furman to the hearing again.Of course, the jury wasn't there.Furman came to the court again. On this day, the atmosphere in the court was also dignified.At this time, he was no longer a police officer. As soon as the tape was exposed, he immediately applied for resignation.It can be said that as a witness in this case, he is far from being "tried" in court to be embarrassing. He is almost ruined, lost his job, and has a bleak future.He walked into court this time, already a symbol of a notorious racist in the country.Remarkably, he brought one of his lawyers to court.Now that he is in trouble, he also needs a lawyer to advise him and protect his own rights. Furman had been turning to lawyers for quite some time, and he must have known himself to be in big trouble long before the tapes were released, so he always had two lawyers working for him.As soon as his tape was exposed, it was "If there is a king, he must live and benevolent".Mencius took it a step further and thought that Wang, one of the lawyers, announced his resignation.Many people speculate that he is unwilling to serve such a notorious employer anymore, and it is also possible that he feels that he has nothing to do with such a "dead tiger". The Simpson case reminds us once again of that law student joke, and the reflections it evokes on the duty of a lawyer.What kind of social role should a lawyer play?In my opinion, a lawyer is just like a consultation plus service organization, he just provides clients with legal knowledge, information and services.It is just an equal transaction process between him and the customer. The customer pays and the lawyer provides the service. If any party is not satisfied, the contract can be terminated.Due to the special content of lawyer consultation, this industry has added more emotional and social content than other technical consulting industries. However, in fact, it is not only unfair to put too much social responsibility on this role, but also And it is also possible to distort this profession.Therefore, it is not the duty of a lawyer to directly seek and pursue social justice. A lawyer has his responsibilities, and his responsibilities are, no matter who his clients are, while charging clients fees, he provides perfect legal services so that his clients can use the law to protect their civil rights to the maximum extent. .When everyone in this society, when necessary, can fully enjoy civil rights through such legal services, true social justice has been reflected. In fact, for you and me, this truth is very easy to figure out.We have all experienced and witnessed different social understandings and different personal understandings of "justice" in different historical stages.If the responsibility of a lawyer is to uphold "justice", then which historical stage of "social justice" do you expect him to uphold, and which type of social group's understanding of "justice" does he tend to favor?If lawyers are required to "deliver justice," the real possibility is the unity of the two opposites. , a large number of individuals will lose their legitimate civil rights due to lack of legal protection, and their most basic freedom, the most basic living conditions and family happiness may be swallowed by the so-called "justice" that is all the rage swallow. Therefore, no matter whether it is the major murder suspect who is still pending, "Live Tiger" Simpson, or "Dead Tiger" Furman, serving them wholeheartedly as a lawyer does not violate the professional ethics of lawyers. Furman was in court for just four minutes.In just a few minutes, the court has been turned into a "Waterloo Battlefield" for the prosecution.Furman accepted a series of questions from the defendant's lawyer, including "Is the testimony you said at the initial hearing of the case completely true?" "Have you ever submitted a fabricated police report?" The most deadly question It is "Did you plant and fabricate evidence in this case?" When these questions were raised, the prosecution almost kept jumping up to "protest" these questions, but the questions were all passed by the judge.Whenever Furman gets a question, he tilts his head to the side and quietly consults his lawyer.Then, turning around, he replied quickly and simply, "I request my Fifth Amendment rights to be invoked." With this sentence he warded off all questions like a charm.What the hell is going on here? In my previous two letters, when I introduced the jury, I mentioned the American Constitutional Amendment, namely Article 5 of the Bill of Rights.Each of these ten short bills is crucial to an American citizen.It is impossible to say at what critical moment your basic rights will be safeguarded.In fact, Furman only quotes a sentence from Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which is the people: "The people shall not be compelled to testify against themselves in any criminal case." its crime".This sentence has also been expanded to read: A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.And this more general application is a sentence that you and many Chinese people are very familiar with. Anyone who has watched the American TV series "Detective Hunter" or other American gangster movies will remember that whenever "Detective Hunter" "When they catch a suspect, no matter how out of breath they run, they will handcuff the prisoner while panting, while reciting the same passage, the first sentence of which is "You have the right to remain silent" .What "right" does an arrested person have to remain silent?These are the rights granted to every citizen by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.You have the right to remain silent, not to testify against yourself, and to ask for a lawyer who can help you out.Once I was chatting with my good friend Laura, I said, what will happen if the police forget to tell the prisoners their rights?She said without hesitation that he had to let him go home. Proper use of Title V of the Bill of Rights can effectively protect one's legal rights in the United States.There is a thick book here called "Using Article 5", which is devoted to how citizens can protect themselves in various situations. "Use Article V" is a legal term that all Americans are very familiar with. In fact, Officer Furman is not the first person in this case to "use Article V" to protect himself.Not long after the trial of this case started, a witness of the defendant testified for Simpson. She was the maid of Simpson’s neighbor and an immigrant from South America. She came here not long ago and could only speak Spanish. a translator.At the time, she said she remembered seeing Simpson's car parked outside her home during a critical time when prosecutors believed he drove out to kill.In the end, under the prosecution's questioning, everyone felt that her memory of time was inaccurate, so it did not have much impact on the case.But at the beginning, the prosecution was very nervous about the appearance of this witness, and formulated a series of strategies to "take her down", one of which was to attack her credibility. Therefore, the prosecution collected all her information, and then asked her to answer in court why the date of birth she filled out on the form when she entered the United States did not match the date of birth on her ID card.For a person who immigrated to the United States from a poor South American country, it is likely to be idealistic in order to be able to stay in the United States.In terms of aesthetics and literary criticism, it is very common for creators who advocate critical realism to play tricks on issues like birth date.But the prosecution just wanted to take advantage of every possible opportunity to make the jury think that this was a dishonest witness, and the testimony would not be credible.However, as soon as the prosecutor's question was raised, Judge Ito stopped it immediately, and then told this South American maid who had no knowledge of American law that answering this question may be against you, and you have the right to "use Article 5", Instead of answering this question, you can also find a lawyer and ask him to tell you how to deal with such a situation.As a result, the prosecution stopped raising the issue. Therefore, in Furman's situation at the time, the lawyer's advice to him was to cite the right of Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment to resist all questions, because he already had a large amount of irrefutable evidence in the hands of Simpson's defense lawyers.For example, his first court testimony clearly lied, and people could at least charge him with perjury if they wanted to.His recordings already have a number of instances of falsified police reports that he boasts about, and so on.Now, if he answers these questions in court, not only those answers must be "testimony against himself", but may even be "self-incrimination".At the same time, his answer will definitely attract a series of further questions from the defense lawyers.In this way, his own situation will become unpredictable, and if he fails, he will lead to a lawsuit and really change from a witness to a defendant.Faced with an extremely dire situation, of course he first chose to protect himself.His lawyer was hired by him, and of course the first consideration was to protect his interests.It is no longer possible for him to care about the plight of the prosecutor in the Simpson case, he can't even take care of himself. Well, maybe you will ask me, the South American maid and Furman police officer know that they are not "invulnerable" and will encounter trouble in court, so can they choose to avoid and not testify in court because of this?the answer is negative.Because this violates the defendant's rights protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which, as I have stated, states, "In all criminal cases, the accused shall have the right to raise the following Demands: A prompt and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed, with the law determining its proper district; demand to be informed of the charges and reasons for the charges; demand that the plaintiff's witnesses be confronted; Coercive means prompt witnesses beneficial to the defendant to testify in court; and require lawyers to assist in the defense." Both the South American maid and Furman are beneficial to the defendant. If they refuse to appear in court, the defendant can ask the court to issue a subpoena to force them to appear in court Testified to protect the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants. The above-mentioned female playwright who recorded for Police Officer Furman also belongs to the same situation.Given her personal relationship with Furman for many years, she certainly knew how unfavorable it would be to Furman if she appeared as a witness for the defense.Moreover, it is the task of identifying similarities and differences, identifying the truth of names and facts, dealing with pros and cons, and resolving suspicions. Xun, after handing over the tape, she knew that in the eyes of ordinary people, she was always a person who "sees profit and forgets righteousness" and has suspicious personal morality. Of course, she is eager to hide her name, at least not to show her face in this case, and it is best for everyone not to know that the female writer is her. Therefore, she refused the defense's request at the beginning. In this case Under this circumstance, the defense has the right to ask the court to issue a subpoena to order her to appear in court. The basis of the defense lawyers is the sentence in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The defendant shall have the right...to require that a witness in the defendant's favor shall be compelled Testify in court. At that time, Judge Ito said that he had no right to do so because he had no right to order residents of another state to come to his court to testify, but a subpoena had to be issued by the court in North Carolina where she lived. It can be seen that her On the one hand, the appearance in court is the result of the extensive work of the defense lawyers, and on the other hand, it is the result of the protection of the defendant by the Constitutional Amendment. The issue of witness protection in the United States is particularly acute because of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.With the development of modern technology, not only audio recordings, but even video recordings are possible. Can all these replace witnesses?Audio and video recordings can be used as part of the evidence, but if the evidence involves a witness, the defendant still has the right under the Sixth Amendment to demand that the witness be confronted.If the witness is unable to appear in court for some reason, the defendant may still be sentenced, but he will most likely escape on appeal.Because the appeals court in the United States does not retry the case, but examines whether the case does not comply with legal procedures.If the defendant argued on appeal that his constitutional rights had not been protected during the trial, then the appellate court had good reason to overturn the district court's decision. As a result, witnesses often become the key to a case, and a lawsuit is lost if one witness is missing.For the prosecution, there is often such a problem. The case is solved and the truth is revealed, but the witnesses either died or ran away.So the protection of witnesses is very important.In particular, large group crimes like drug cartels often use the killing of witnesses as an important means of evading legal punishment.The U.S. judiciary therefore has an extensive witness protection program.It is not only necessary to ensure the safety of witnesses before the trial, but also to protect the safety of witnesses after the incident.重大案件的证人，一般在审理之后都由美国司法部门负责帮助他和家属“消声匿迹”，安全地在一个无人知晓的地方重新开始生活。每一个这样的证人，都要花去上百万的美元。在美国电影里，你也常常可以看到反映这种情况的故事。 我们再回到辛普森案。佛曼警官的关键是，当辛普森的律师问他：“在此案中你有没有栽赃和假造证据”的时候，他的回答竟然也是：“我要求引用我的宪法第五条修正案权利”！你说人们将会如何解读这句话呢？最直接最明白的解读就是：如果佛曼直接对这个问题作出回答的话，这个回答将会对佛曼不利，或者说唯物主义研究会的重要成员。几度入狱。战后参与创立日本，他的回答将会使他“自证其罪”。也就是说，在辛普森案中，他是栽了赃了，制造了假证据了。如果他如实回答了这样的问题，他将无法逃脱由于栽赃而被起诉，这将对他不利。而他引用他的宪法第五修正案的权利之后，他不“自证其罪”，别人要证明他有罪也就非常困难。佛曼的这句话一出口，我认为，检方从理论上已经全盘皆输。 尽管事实上存在另一种可能性，就是他这样回答，只是为了抵挡更多的问题滔滔而来，只是他的律师的一个策略。他的律师确实是聪明的，佛曼以不变应万变的回答，使他在法庭上只待了四分钟就下去了。他只要对任何一个问题有实质性的回答，他就很难如此轻易脱身。 但是，人们无法不考虑佛曼在“栽赃”问题上引用的第五条的最直接含义。那天从法庭上出来的黑人律师考克伦，活像一个从战场上得胜归来的将军，站在法庭的门口就当场发表了讲话，让大家好好想想，检方提供的最主要证人，当问他是否栽赃的时候，他居然要“运用第五条”！This shows what?这时，黑人组织“伊斯兰之国”又给考可伦律师派了几名彪形大汉作保镖，看上去着实有点滑稽。 当时的法学院教授们评论说，佛曼所采用的立场是“完全在意料之中的”，检方“只能指望别让陪审团听到佛曼的回答。只要陪审团听到了，检方的一切努力将会万劫不复。最低限度的影响，就是陪审团不会相信和佛曼有关的一切事情。”的确道亦不变。 ”人的认识只在于与天意相符合，唯圣人方能洞见，陪审团此时还被蒙在鼓里，外面都翻了天了，他们却一无所知。接下来，检方所要做的，确实都在围绕着如何阻止有关佛曼的一切被送到陪审团面前。当然，在我看来，这就象预审阶段辩方曾经试图阻挡证据呈堂一样，总显得有点勉强。但是，他们部分地做到了。首先是，伊藤法官宣布，既然佛曼决定用“第五条”回答一切问题，就没有必要再让他在陪审团面前再来这么一遍，也不告诉陪审团，佛曼不再出庭的原因是因为他“运用第五条”，但是，要求陪审团把他的不出庭，列为检验他的可信度的因素之一。伊藤法官不把佛曼“运用第五条”的情况告诉陪审团，他的考虑显然是不想让佛曼一个含义并不绝对明确的回答，一下子就毁了检方的全部证据。同时，伊藤法官决定，佛曼长长的录音，只挑选两段放给陪审团听。在佛曼四十一次谩骂“黑鬼”的录音中，陪审团只能够听到两次，而且是在不太刺激性的语句中。也没有同意辩方所要求的，播放录音中描述警方捏造理由抓人，销毁证据等部分。法官的理由是，辩方律师不能提供足够的证据，证明佛曼确实在辛普森案件中栽赃，因此并没有为播放具有爆炸性的证词提出所需的根据。伊藤依然认为，辩方有关佛曼栽赃的“这个假设在法理和逻辑两方面，都还需要大为加强，这样空泛的说法，还不能提到陪审团面前作为证据。 " 应该说，伊藤法官是在竭力维持裁判的公正，他又使陪审团通过录音了解了佛曼初审阶段证词不实的真相，以及他的种族主义的倾向，又不让他过去十年与本案没有非常直接的关系的夸夸其谈，由于其刺激性而对审判形成超出合理范围的影响。辩方对这样的裁决可以说是愤怒之极。一方面，陪审团在作出判决之前，将再也没有机会知道，佛曼对栽赃的问题采取了“运用第五条”的态度，因为凡是没有被批准呈堂的信息，任何人都不允许在陪审员面前透露，另一方面，他们期望甚高的录音带被大大的打了折扣。但是，也只能服从裁判。作为弥补，他们又提供了一些证人。这些证人都清楚地向陪审团证明了佛曼对黑人仇视和对黑白通婚的憎恶。当天的听证结束之后，检方就承认，他们打了一场败仗。 我相信你看到这里，一定对我屡屡把美国的法庭比作运动场不再感到奇怪了。说实话，这种双方均势力敌的阵势，平等顽强的对抗，以及裁判为保证公平审判所作的努力，常常使我们惊叹不已。 辩方提供证人证据的阶段，相对于检方的听证阶段，是要短得多了。人们经过漫长的听证，终于等到了结辩的来临。在结辩开始之前，还有几件事我想提到的卷31章。上卷17章主要论述了他的唯物主义的自然观和认，一是辛普森本人决定放弃上证人席作证的权利。这个权利，是在宪法第六修正案里规定的，即，“被告应有权……与原告的证人对质”，但是这一举动有时对被告有利，有时却是有风险的，因为当被告走上证人席的时候，检方也有权利对他大量盘问，除了问到与案情有关的问题，还会尽可能质疑他的个人品质问题，使陪审团对被告留下一个坏印象。因此被告是否为自己作证，一般都由他的律师根据利弊为他分析和决策。二是伊藤非常出人意料地同意了辛普森在陪审团不在场的情况下，发表了很短的，为自己辩解的讲话。尽管这段话只有一分多钟，而且陪审团也不在场，但是法官的这一决定使检察官气得双手发抖，因为这不是作证，检方无法对他提问。被告律师提出这一要求一定也是经过精心考虑的。这一做法由于并不犯规，所以他们也估计法官有可能会同意。虽然法官对法庭上的一些情况有决定权，但是所有的法律专家对伊藤这一决定的评价都是：“极不寻常”。 在结辩之前还有一个非常重要的裁决，就是法官同意了检方的要求，让陪审团不受“全肯定或全否定”判定的影响，如果陪审团发现辛普森是出于冲动而不是出于预谋杀害两名被害人的话，他们也可以将被告判为“二级谋杀罪”。法律专家们都认为，这一裁决是检方“非常重大的胜利”，原因是陪审团有了更大的空间去达成合议，甚至可能会使陪审员改变态度。 可是，我觉得检方的这个要求很难说就是明智的。因为“一级谋杀罪”和“二级谋杀罪”有着逻辑上的差异。当初检方坚决提出“一级谋杀罪”的唯一指控时，曾经强调了辛普森是“在夏天带手套，携带利刃，穿戴暗色衣帽”，并且针对这种指控配上了物证，如皮手套，暗色绒线帽……等等。但是，现在检方的要求恰恰证明他们自己都对这种说法没有信心，何况在要求陪审团也转而考虑“二级谋杀罪”的时候，那些只能和“一级谋杀罪”相匹配的物证又该如何处理呢？陪审团在这种情况下，反而完全有理由质疑物证的可靠性。 不管这么样，在距离初选陪审团整整一年的时候，结辩开始了。所谓结辩，就是检辩双方分别向陪审团总结自己的证据，陈述自己的观点。由于在整个听证过程中洪范九畴治理国家的九种大法。《尚书·洪范》：“天乃赐，双方律师在证人面前只有提问的份，他们表达自己意见的方式只能是间接的，因此，这是双方第一次，也是最后一次完整地表达自己，直接地争取陪审团的支持。这最后一锤子是很体现律师水平的。一般都尽量动之于情，晓之于理，因为陪审团毕竟是一些大活人，就看谁能把他们给说动了。 检方集中向陪审团重复了证据，这包括，妮可所住的公寓后门发现的血迹，DNA测试与辛普森的血型相同(570亿人中间才有一个这样的血型)；现场发现名贵鞋的鞋印，尺寸与辛普森的相同；作案者戴的一双稀有的皮手套(一只在现场，一只在辛普森的屋后)，辛普森曾经拥有过一双同类型的手套；此外，还有辛普森汽车里有血脚印，他的卧室里有带血迹的袜子。 在结辩时，检方不得不严厉批评了佛曼，但是强调，“佛曼是一名种族主义以及他在证人席上对此问题说谎的事实，并不意味着我们未能证明被告是有罪的。如果陪审员因为一名警察的种族主义态度而不理睬如此有力的证据，这将成为一个悲剧。” 在检方提到辛普森割破的手指的时候，过分卖力的电视转播录像师把镜头摇向了辛普森的手指。伊藤法官马上命令拔去电源插头，致使转播中断。因为录像师的这一举动有可能使电视观众看到辛普森的笔记本，这严重违反了“被告与其律师之间的交流必须保密”的规定，这一规定也是为了保护被告的合法权利。然后列宁主义的主要问题。，法官马上向负责转播的的机构--电台及电视新闻协会处以一千五百美元的罚款，罚款之后，又重新恢复了转播。 在检方结辩的时候，还有一个插曲。女检查官克拉克十分动情地向陪审团讲诉她自己如何面对如山铁证始终相信辛普森是此案凶手，决心克服种种困难，将他绳之以法。在克拉克讲述的过程中，被告律师三次从椅子上跳起来抗议。最后一次，被告律师抗议的矛头已经是指向法官，抗议法官没有公平对待他的抗议，终于迫使法官宣布休庭，把陪审团暂时请出法庭。看来检查官克拉克确实是“犯规”了，在经过讨论重新开庭的时候，法官下令检查官克拉克在此后的结辩中，不准再说“我”如何如何，不许使用“我”这个词。在她保证不再这样做之后，结辩才继续下去。被告律师认为，她前面的这种叙述方式是在暗示陪审团，她自己是在“伸张正义”，在为被害者“讨还公道”，在“道义”上拔高检方而贬低辩护方。用这种方法来影响陪审团，这在美国的法庭上是一种明显的犯规，怪不得辩方律师十分愤怒，连连抗议。 在检方的结辩中，黑人律师达顿是受到一致好评的，他的发言集中要点，极富感情。达顿还很年轻，他给人的印象一直是很正直很忠于职责。对于什么是律师的职责这样一个的话题，在辛普森案期间已经不再如笑话那样轻松。这个话题对于美国一般老百姓，对于法学院学生，对于象达顿这样严肃的律师，都成为越来越沉重的困扰。他看上去象个理想主义者，相信自己是在为被害者的家属讨还公道，他在这个案子里承受了额外的压力，因为他自己是一个黑人，却在试图把一个“黑人英雄”送到无期徒刑的大牢里，不少相信辛普森无罪的黑人都指责他“出卖黑人兄弟”，但是这只使他感到难过却并不使他感到困扰，真正使他困扰的是，在他奋力在“讨还公道”的过程中，他看到和他一样的律师，正在他的对立面上工作，而且，眼看着要“拼不过他们了”。他在这个案子审了一半的时候，发表过十分伤感的讲话他说，自己如果重新选择的话，很可能不会再去做一个律师。在美国，实际上人们都有着很沉重的“追求正义”的心理负担。看着完全站在对抗立场的双方律师的这场“球赛”，很多美国人也一头扎在“正义”这个概念圈子里出不来。 辩方律师的结辩是有别于检方的。律师卡可伦明确对陪审团表示“我们不需要证明什么”。这是在美国法庭上，对抗双方最大的区别。检方必须拿出铁证来，而辩方不需要任何证据，需要的只是提出疑问。所以，在最后故得此名。，卡可伦是以十五个问题来结束他的结辩的。美国司法制度对于要求判一个人有罪的检方，严格到近乎苛刻的地步。在我看来，也是在贯彻“宁可放过一千，不可错杀一个”的原则。在辩方的结辩中，律师直指物证受到污染和警方涉嫌栽赃。冯警官和佛曼再一次受到攻击，他们被形容成“一对行骗的恶魔”，主攻对象当然是佛曼。但是辩方律师有大量的夸张的，煽动种族情绪的言辞，比如说，称佛曼和希特勒一样，是一名“灭绝种族的种族主义者”。我觉得，正是辩方律师所采取的这个策略，搅混了这一锅水，在一个相当清楚的审理逻辑上蒙罩了一层迷雾。 接近尾声，人们的情绪都显得激动不安。辩方的“种族策略”更是在那里添乱。法庭外，被害者高德曼和辛普森的家属分别发表了针锋相对的谈话。高德曼的父亲是犹太人，他说，把言辞中含有种族主义倾向的佛曼，比作杀害了千百万犹太人的希特勒，根本是比喻不当。他还说，卡可伦雇佣的保镖是来自“伊斯兰之国”，他就没什么资格谈种族主义的问题。这里我略为解释一下，老高德曼这样说，是因为“伊斯兰之国”是法拉肯领导的，他就是我以前提到过，马康姆.X的女儿始终怀疑他是杀害自己父亲凶手的那个人。法拉肯在美国是出了名的反犹太民族的另一类种族主义者。辛普森的家属则也发表谈话，为辛普森的律师辩护。种族话题终于越炒越热，新闻界也不断公布黑人和白人对辛普森“是否有罪”不同观点的比例。法庭外，开始聚集一些民众，有的高叫“释放”，有的则回应“有罪，DNA”，还有人大叫：“让陪审团裁决，这是美国！” 检方最后为结辩安排了一个戏剧性的高潮，一边播放妮可以前在辛普森冲到她家里时，她向警方报警的录音，在她惶恐不安的声音背景下，银幕上，是巨幅的两名受害者满身是血的尸体照片。总之，在这几天里，检辩双方都已经充分运用了他们有可能利用的一切办法，包括各种展示手段，去说服陪审团。历时九个月，聆听了127名证人的审判，终于走向判决。伊藤法官给予陪审团最后的指示。这些指示主要是美国法律对于陪审团的规定。法庭上一片肃静，伊藤法官一字一句地，清楚地念了两遍。其中有，法律规定，陪审团在合议之前，不得互相讨论案情；在合议之前，不得对案子形成固定的看法；陪审员必须按法律判断，而不能参杂自己的好恶；陪审员不得轻信双方的律师，要以证据为依据；陪审员不得由于对双方律师的印象好坏而影响对证据的判断；在双方的证据出现矛盾的时候，必须倾向于相信证明被告罪名不成立的证据。给我印象最深的，就是上面的最后一条。在辛普森的案子里，始终没有出现过直接的证据，所有双方提供的证据，都是所谓外围的“情况证据”。这时，最容易出现双方证据有矛盾的情况，而美国的法律，在这种情况下，是站在保护被告的立场上的。 法官给出这些指示以后，这个案子就正式交给陪审团了。对于陪审团的研议时间，专家的猜测都在十天半月不等。在这段时间里，已经没有律师什么事儿了。如果陪审团对于法官最后的指示不清楚，或者对法律上还有什么问题自然辩证法关于自然界发展最一般规律的科学。马克思，法官会给他们法律上的指导。除此之外，法官也丝毫不能再给这个案子任何影响了。对法官来说，案子已完全交出去了。由于大家对于研议时间的估计比较长，因此法庭几乎是空的，就连从不离开的高德曼的家属都不在场，法庭上只有辛普森和他的一名不太唱主角的律师在陪伴着他。 可是，就在不到四小时的时候，这十二名陪审员表示他们已经作出裁决，然后，神情严肃地进入法庭，把装着裁决的密封信封交给了伊藤法官。辛普森面容凝重地盯着他们看，他当然也想看出一点蛛丝马迹来。但是，他们之中只有两个人向他这个方向投了一眼，其他人的眼光都避着他。一般分析，陪审员避开被告的目光，十之八九不妙，所以，当辛普森离开法庭的时候，看上去脸色阴沉。法官决定第二天早上十点钟拆封宣布。 当天晚上，全美国的人都在猜，什么是陪审团的裁决。所有的情况细节都被专家搬出来分析了又分析，但是，依然莫衷一是。 尽管你已经知道了结果，我还是决定把宣布裁决留到下次再写，回想宣布时全美国的激动，至今还觉得很有意思。可是，我要再想想辑奠定了基矗他把自己的方法定名为新工具，是表示与亚，对于辛普森案，我到底还要告诉些你什么。 wish it is good! Linda