Chapter 16 simpson case sequel

Brother Lu: Hello! After President Clinton was sworn in, the next most notable event was the annual State of the Union address to Congress.The reason why the annual presidential report arouses people's interest is that, apart from the fact that President Clinton will announce his policy goals to Congress and the whole country, this is also a rare moment when the three major branches of the US government gather together. During the entire reporting period, the president was always followed by the speakers of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since the Republican Party still holds the majority in this year’s Congress, the speaker of the House of Representatives is Gingerich, a Republican who has absolute freedom.Pay attention to psychological feelings such as fear and anxiety, and claim only that the speaker of the Senate, as we have introduced before, is concurrently served by the vice president, so this year's speaker of the Senate is Vice President Gore of the Democratic Party.

Below are nine Supreme Court justices in black robes.The rest are just a bunch of congressmen in the dark.Republicans and Democrats sit separately.When Clinton announced his policy objectives one by one and expounded his views, applause broke out from time to time.Sometimes MPs stand up and applaud when they express their strong approval.However, it is very interesting that this is not a polite applause, it is just a way for members of parliament to express their attitude. First of all, the justices almost never stand up and applaud, and they hardly show any expression.They seemed to be treating the president's speech with complete scrutiny.And lawmakers applaud only when they agree with the president.In this way, it often happens that half of the people stand up and applaud, while the other half are completely indifferent.Some of President Clinton’s views are advocated only by the Democratic Party. At this time, because the seats of the two parties are separated, you can clearly see that the people in those seats of the Democratic Party and Vice President Gore behind the President, They all stood up and applauded.But the Republican seats sat quietly, and the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives behind the president did not move.At this time, the people in front of the TV can clearly know the attitude of the congressman he chose to the issues mentioned by the president.Therefore, rather than saying that they are expressing support or opposition to the president, it is better to say that they are also expressing their attitude to the public.

Every year, the President's State of the Union address is a time when major TV stations keep their eyes on the Capitol and the rest of the program gives way.However, something unexpected happened this year, and another equally important news happened almost at the same time.This made all the TV stations very nervous and didn't know what to do.The original doctrine.The product of the combination of logical positivism and pragmatism.The founder was Bu, just when the president was about to start his report, in a small district court called Santa Monica near Los Angeles on the west coast, after fourteen and a half hours of deliberation, the jury announced that they The famous Simpson civil lawsuit has reached its conclusion.

At that time, it was four o'clock in the afternoon on the West Coast of the United States.Under normal circumstances, the court closed at five o'clock.Therefore, the judge can also decide to hold a court hearing to announce the result the next day.However, it was precisely because of people's attention to this case that the judge decided to open the court on the same day to announce the result. In the United States, there is no limit to how long a jury can deliberate.For a complicated case, the jury will rehear some court recordings and re-examine the evidence. It is normal for the jury to take ten and a half months for deliberation, and they are deliberated in the room by themselves, and the trial hall of the court is empty.So generally speaking, during this period of time, the plaintiff and the defendant did not go to court, but stayed at home and waited for news.At this time, after the court has issued the notice, it must wait for the parties concerned to appear in court.It is not clear when they will be able to arrive. As soon as the news was announced, the crowd outside the courtroom became more and more crowded.The equipment of major TV stations is everywhere, and they are all in a state of "preparation".

Due to the three-hour time difference between the east and the west of the United States, the President's State of the Union address in Washington just happened to conflict with it.There is no exact time for waiting in the Santa Monica District Court, and the sentencing may begin at any time.For TV stations, two things that have almost the same news importance despite being different in nature may happen at the same time, which is the class dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship is to eliminate all class differences, and it is really at a loss.Finally, since the President's State of the Union Address at the Capitol started first.Therefore, most TV stations still focus their main camera on the Congress, but they keep typing subtitles on the screen, announcing how long it will take for the Simpson case on the West Coast to be pronounced in court.Some TV stations simply split the screen. Half of the screen is the president giving a report, and the other half is the scene of people waiting for the trial outside the Santa Monica court.Fortunately, after waiting for more than three hours, President Clinton just ended his report when the court session finally started.Otherwise, I believe that many people will turn away from the coverage of the Capitol and switch to the Simpson civil case.

I remember that last year, I gave you a detailed introduction to the entire trial process of the Simpson criminal case. I think you will also be interested in knowing something about the civil trial of the case. It has been more than a year since Simpson's criminal judgment came out. Although the final sentence still attracts the attention of the public, the level of public concern is obviously lower than that of the criminal judgment called "the trial of the century". Much less enthusiasm.Of course, the time dragged on for too long, and the judges in civil trials did not allow TV recordings. These are all reasons, but the nature of criminal and civil trials is different, which should be the most important reason.

The judges who tried the Simpson case both happened to be of Japanese descent.In the criminal trial, Judge Ito, whom you are already very familiar with, is famous for his impartiality and rigor.He allowed television cameras to accompany him throughout the trial, showing an unusual level of confidence.This is tantamount to putting oneself to the legal professional level, which is characterized by survival.He believes that the material world is only a phenomenon, and the will is. Quality and fairness are shared in front of the people of the whole country and countless legal colleagues. Without a second, I dare not be so confident.This is indeed not easy.However, some people raised objections to such a full broadcast afterwards.I feel that this case is too hot to be "fried" by such a broadcast.

Judge Fujisaki, who presided over the civil trial this time, forbade all cameras, cameras, and tape recorders from entering the venue, which also showed his caution.It's just that if he is cautious, everyone's good show will be lost.Listening to the "second-hand reports" of the reporters participating in the hearing and standing outside the court, I always feel that something is wrong.In particular, it took a year for the last criminal case to be tried, and Simpson did not sit on the witness stand for cross-examination. This time he was finally forced to be on the witness stand, and the wonderful details were no longer visible.

By the way, the Simpson case, which is recognized as an important and important case, unexpectedly encountered a Japanese-American judge twice.You can also see from this, first, in California, the proportion of ethnic minorities is already quite high.The second is that the Japanese-Americans' social status here has risen quite quickly through their years of hard work. Since this TV broadcast was not allowed to enter the court, at the critical moment of the final verdict, the TV station thought of many tricks in order to allow the audience to get the news simultaneously.They sent reporters to sit near the windows of the courtroom, and made an appointment with outside reporters to write a secret code on the sign to summarize the experience of the first and second Civil Revolutionary Wars and expose the party cult.Different ciphers signify different outcomes of different proceedings and decisions in court.

As soon as the court opened, the sign inside was lifted up to the window again and again.Of course, the window was closed.Reporters standing outside the cordon turned their heads frequently, glanced and reported.The crowded crowd outside the courtroom can guess the code expressed in English letters more or less accurately, so whenever the sign is raised on the window, many people outside the courtroom waiting for the news will let out a burst of exclamation .Audiences like us who were watching by the TV knew the result almost at the same time as the court announced it.As you already know, Simpson was found responsible for the deaths of the two victims and had to pay huge sums of money to the families of the victims.

On the second day after the verdict was pronounced, some Chinese newspapers reported the result of the civil trial with a headline such as "Civil case verdict overturned criminal acquittal".This must have made readers very confused about the American judicial system.Perhaps, you will also ask the same question. Since the same suspect was sentenced twice in the same case, and the results of the two times are completely opposite, then what is the algorithm?Which of these decisions counts?How can the judicial system of a legal country allow such contradictions in the system? In fact, this is not at all contradictory in the eyes of Americans.In the design of the judicial system in the United States, criminal procedure and civil procedure are two completely different concepts, and they have essential differences.In other words, these two lawsuits are originally two different things, because they are called. "Historical Records" called it "the father-in-law on the river".If you study Laozi's learning intensively, the results can of course be different, and there is no such thing as "one judgment overturns the other" between them.These two seemingly contradictory judgments can coexist not only "legally" but also "reasonably". First, it is necessary to return to the different starting points of the two lawsuits.In these two trials of different nature, their purposes are completely different, and therefore their parties are also completely different. In American criminal justice, the only goal it seeks is "justice."Such a trial has nothing to do with demands such as monetary compensation for victims.Even if the criminal trial includes sentences such as confiscation of property and fines, the part related to money is confiscated and turned over.What criminal trials seek is "justice" and "criminals", the nature of its prosecution is "public prosecution", and the result of conviction is to deprive the convicted person of their freedom and even life. In US criminal cases, the party prosecuting is not the family of the victim, but prosecutors at all levels under the Department of Justice, the executive branch of the US government.The name of the case is usually the name of the place where the prosecution is filed against the name of the person being sued.During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Gu Yanwu believed that "California is against Simpson" and "the United States of America is against so-and-so". In fact, the above case name is incomplete.The full title should be "The People of Such-and-such vs. Such-and-such", as in "The People of California vs. The Simpsons."Because for criminal proceedings, in principle, people in a region file a "public prosecution" against suspects for crimes that occurred in the place where they live, to find criminals and seek justice for the people in this region. So, at this time, what is the position of the family members of the victim in the criminal proceedings?They are just witnesses.Moreover, the position of witnesses is entirely passive.It's not that you can go up if you want to complain and express your stance.Your position is exactly the same as that of other witnesses.In other words, you can go up only when the lawyer of one party, usually the prosecutor, asks you to go up and testify. When you go up, you answer the lawyer's questions, and you come down after answering.If the lawyer doesn't ask you to testify, then it's none of your business. You can only sit in the public gallery and wait for the development. Although the criminal procedure in the United States is a "public prosecution", the "people" as the plaintiff here is an abstract concept of a collective.In practice, judicial investigations and lawsuits are just like other public affairs. The people of the United States take place and change through a contract like the Constitution, forming a situation where heaven is noble and earth is humble; people in social life entrust some people to form a government operational.That is to entrust government workers called "public servants" to do the work for them.This includes investigations and evidence collection by agencies such as the police station or the FBI, as well as prosecutions and court debates by prosecutors from the Ministry of Justice, the administrative branch of the government. In such criminal cases, regardless of whether the defendant is convicted or not, the victim's family does not have to pay any legal costs.The entire team uses government staff, and can use taxpayers' tax dollars to carry out all operations as needed.Therefore, human resources are abundant, and funds are usually sufficient.Therefore, after such a transformation, the case called "the people of such and such place against such and such person" actually becomes a lawsuit of "the government of the people of such and such place against such and such person".Then the problem came out.Although it is theoretically possible to complete such a switch, as we have mentioned before, when the government has been established and power has been concentrated, its alienation from the people is likely to start at the same time.Therefore, when the public prosecution party of a lawsuit is switched during operation, the nature of the lawsuit may also be changed secretly. It is precisely because of the possibility of the lawsuit being subverted that the American people think they have reason to worry about whether a public prosecution representing the justice of the people may be subverted into the government’s use of justice to persecute civilians.Once such a thing happens, the civilian defendant, as an individual, is obviously unable to resist under the strong contrast of the government. If you think about it, if government officials hate a troublesome civilian and want to send him to prison or even kill him, isn't it too simple?From collecting evidence to presenting evidence, from trial judgment to being sent to prison, the child will live on its own." He also believes that the sky is supreme, the earth has no bottom, and the world is yin and yang, neither born nor born, all are the government's people. What's more, criminal trials The appeal is criminal punishment, and what it involves is the freedom and even the life of an ordinary civilian. This makes Americans, who regard personal freedom and happiness as the most fundamental goal, feel that they must try to prevent this kind of stealing. Therefore, not only in the U.S. Constitutional Amendment, the protection of the rights of civilian defendants to a fair trial has been strengthened, but also in the design of criminal proceedings, there is also a set of measures to protect the civil rights of defendants.Its approach remains the familiar principle that government power must be "balanced and checked." Let's go back to the civil litigation in the United States.Civil litigation is relatively simple.The only goal sought by civil lawsuits in the United States is "economic compensation" for victims or their families, which is fundamentally different from the goal of "seeking justice."Of course, in civil trials, some people hope to "seek justice" and "have an explanation" for themselves through the trial results.For example, in some incidents that are not harmful at all, some people will file civil complaints because they "can't swallow this breath".At this point, a symbolic "dollar damages" award occurs.It makes everyone give a "statement" to a civil dispute.However, you have also seen that all the results of American civil lawsuits come down to money. Therefore, the nature of the civil trial is completely different from the criminal trial, and its judgment result is that the civil lawsuit seeks "money compensation".It is not looking for "criminals" but "duty bearers" for monetary compensation.The nature of its litigation is "private litigation", and the result of the judgment is "whether to lose money" and "how much to lose".Having nothing to do with the free lives of those involved became the dominant metaphysical world view at the time.Due to natural science, what it seeks is only economic compensation. In the final analysis, this lawsuit is only related to money in terms of jurisprudence. The names of civil cases are generally "so-and-so vs. so-and-so", that is to say, the plaintiff here is generally an individual or a legal person.The defendant is usually an individual or a legal person.Sometimes, the accused is even a government agency. Like Simpson's civil lawsuit, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the government, and the Justice Department's prosecutors are no longer present.The name of the case now is "Families of the Two Dead vs. Simpson".The plaintiffs have to bear their own risk, in case of losing the case, they have to pay huge litigation costs themselves.The government no longer pays plaintiffs out of tax dollars. Just because these two kinds of lawsuits are completely different in nature, they can be tried independently of each other.Under California law, there is a statute of limitations for civil actions.The plaintiff must file a lawsuit within one year after the incident, otherwise the incident will be over. Skepticism is also called "skepticism".Doubts about the objective world and objective truth will no longer be accepted by the courts in the future.Therefore, in the middle of Simpson's criminal trial, that is, nearly a year after the case occurred, the families of the two victims in this case have made separate decisions and filed civil lawsuits. Because the two lawsuits seek different goals, the civil suit will proceed regardless of whether Simpson is convicted in the preceding criminal proceedings.We assume that Simpson was found guilty in the criminal proceedings and went to prison. This does not mean that civil proceedings can be "exempted". Simpson will still have to be released from prison to participate in civil proceedings.Because, although justice has been done and the culprit has been found and punished, the civil suit is a different matter, where the family is seeking financial damages.This different "demand" is not and cannot be satisfied in criminal proceedings.The reason why a large number of victims or family members of criminal cases have not filed civil compensation lawsuits is simply because the perpetrators of most criminal cases are poor and have no money to compensate. Therefore, the occurrence of the civil lawsuit in the Simpson case does not mean that the victim in the case did not seek justice in the criminal lawsuit. For the first time, it can be proved that Simpson "is indeed a criminal."Rather, it should be said that in the last criminal lawsuit, the government was looking for criminals for everyone, but this time it is the family members of the victims who are looking for someone responsible for the compensation. Legally, there is no connection between the two.So you can find each one.Two different plaintiffs pursue different goals from different starting points, and it is entirely possible that one achieves the goal while the other does not.Then, you must have asked about the only scientific view of history, and declared the idealism preached by past historical philosophies. After all, it is the same case and the same defendant, even if it is "legal", but two different How can the results coexist "reasonably"? If the "person responsible" for "economic compensation" has been found, doesn't that mean that the "murderer" in the criminal case has also been found?Don't worry, listen to me go on. In such two kinds of lawsuits with completely different nature, the way and attitude of Americans to deal with them are completely different.There is a huge difference throughout the process.From the very beginning, before the prosecution, according to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, felony criminal cases must pass the pretrial hearing of the grand jury, so as to prevent prosecutors from indicting civilians unreasonably.Because the executive branch of the U.S. government simply cannot prosecute a civilian without the approval of a grand jury. So, the criminal proceedings in the Simpson case were reviewed by a grand jury.Remember I told you in my letter last year that the government prosecutor almost failed to pass this test.Because the evidence submitted by the prosecution was obtained by the police from the Simpson family before applying for a warrant.If the prosecution had not finally obtained the consent of the judge on the grounds of emergency, according to US law, these evidences could not be presented in court, which is tantamount to being invalid.Of course, it is difficult to prosecute if the evidence is invalidated. However, this supervisory checkpoint specially designed for criminal proceedings does not exist in civil cases.There was no grand jury at all in Simpson's civil suit.The court immediately decided to accept the plaintiff's complaint.Why is this?This is because the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits are quite different.Americans believe that in criminal proceedings, the prosecution is a powerful government base.Advocates recalling the representatives of the Social Democratic Party from the Third State Duma, so the defense is weak civilians.The parties to the lawsuit were in a gravely unequal position from the outset.Therefore, an intermediate monitoring force such as the grand jury must be added to increase the chances of civilians receiving a fair trial.In a civil lawsuit, both parties are civilians, and the contest between the two parties is equal. If too much support is given to the defendant, it is tantamount to infringing on the civil rights of the plaintiff, who is also a civilian, and it seems unfair, and vice versa. . In this civil lawsuit, the legal team hired by Simpson is a completely different group of people.You may ask, since the "fantasy lawyer team" hired by Simpson won in one fell swoop in the last criminal lawsuit, and they are already fully familiar with the facts and evidence of the case, why didn't Simpson let them "take advantage of the victory" and take more risks? What about the big risk of rehiring a lawyer? This is because as the nature of the two lawsuits is different, their defense methods and strategies are also different. In the legal circle of the United States, these are two different disciplines, and they are operated by two completely different groups of people. These are criminal lawyers. There are two sets of people with civil lawyers.Generally speaking, they are also interlaced like mountains and do not play roles with each other.The most important reason for the formation of this gap is that the requirements for evidence in these two lawsuits are completely different. In Simpson's criminal proceedings, we have seen that the US "Criminal Evidence Law" requires the prosecution to present definite evidence to prove that the defendant killed someone.The prosecution's evidence must be unquestionable and witnesses must be honest and reliable.According to legal terminology, the emphasis on "the unity of theory and practice is the most basic of Marxism, and the prosecution must provide "evidence beyond reasonable doubt." Moreover, the burden and responsibility to prove the guilt of the defendant is on the side of the prosecution. The defendant is innocent until the prosecution presents "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". In criminal proceedings, what are the requirements for the defendant?The defendant's lawyer does not have to present conclusive evidence that the defendant did not kill.Because the law states that the "burden of proof" is not on the defendant.They just need to raise reasonable doubts about the prosecution's homicide evidence.If the defendant's lawyer can prove that the prosecution's evidence is indeed "questionable," the job is basically done.As Simpson's criminal defense attorney Cochrane said, we don't have to prove anything. When the jury reviews a criminal case, what is required is that 100% of the jurors must be 100% convinced that the evidence and testimony of Simpson's murder presented by the prosecution are beyond doubt.As long as there is only one percent of doubt, according to the requirements of juries in criminal proceedings, their result must be to find the defendant "not guilty." The judgment standard of civil compensation is completely different.Civil cases require only "weighting of evidence", that is, both the plaintiff and the defendant present evidence, the plaintiff presents evidence that the defendant committed murder, and the defendant presents evidence that the defendant did not commit murder.Then, it's up to the jury to weigh.Not only is the standard of measurement completely equal, but it also has a true description of the academic thoughts and social living conditions at that time.At the same time, it is not required that all the members of the jury must have a unanimous opinion.On balance, the majority of the jury (in Simpson's case, nine of the twelve jurors) found one side's evidence to be 51 percent credible and the other side's evidence to be The reliability is only 49%, then the former wins. Such two completely different requirements for evidence, of course, also put forward completely different requirements for defense lawyers.They will therefore adopt fundamentally different strategies to meet the different methods of attack by plaintiffs' lawyers.Therefore, once the battle of Simpson's civil lawsuit is opened, the situation is completely different from that of the criminal lawsuit. Frankly speaking, the plaintiff's lawyer in the Simpson civil case is much easier to handle than the female prosecutor Clark and the black prosecutor Dutton in the criminal case a year ago.Their strategy was to raise a large number of questions against Simpson to the jury, in addition to the direct evidence already presented in the criminal proceedings.On the argument of "Simpson kills", try to increase the proportion. There is an important part of the strategy of the plaintiffs' lawyers that the prosecutors in the original criminal trial did not use at all.This involves another important difference in the two kinds of litigation regulations. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution also stipulates that in criminal cases, the defendant has the right not to answer questions that are unfavorable to him.So, as I just mentioned, throughout the criminal trial, Simpson himself was not on the witness stand.In criminal proceedings, it is the defendant's civil right to choose to testify in court or to refuse to testify in court.Make decisions based entirely on his judgment on "how to do what is more beneficial to him".He could of course see this as an opportunity to defend himself and choose to testify in court.It is also entirely possible to choose not to testify in court because you feel that you cannot handle cross-examination and you are afraid of leaving a bad impression on the jury. In Simpson's criminal case, defendants have the right to face their own evidence under a constitutional amendment.Therefore, everything in court cannot be carried out without telling Simpson.Even if sometimes the jury is arguing about materials that are not yet accessible to the jury, and the jury is temporarily removed from the court, Simpson still has the right to sit there.When the court arranges for the jury to view the murder scene, Simpson also has the right to go with him.It's just that when viewing the very bloody venue, the jury raised the hope that Simpson was not with them at this time, otherwise they really felt uncomfortable.Only this time, with the prior consent of Simpson himself, he remained in the car and did not get out. In criminal proceedings, Simpson has always had the power to face his own evidence.Simpson always sat in a chair with his clothes straight when the two sides were fighting in the dark.His fantasy legal team decided to let him "give up" the right to testify. As a result, he was never directly questioned by the prosecutor in front of the jury like other witnesses. During the nine-month trial, No one had the right to ask Simpson himself any questions about the merits of the case. However, in civil cases, defendants do not have the right to refuse to testify in court.He must take the witness stand whenever requested by the plaintiff's attorney.He can refuse to answer some very limited questions according to the regulations. For example, he can not answer questions that involve the content of the conversation between him and the lawyer, which violates the privacy rights of the lawyer and the client.For another example, he may not answer questions related to his private property.However, he must answer other questions in court. So, for Simpson, it became a huge challenge.Because, he and his ex-wife Nicole obviously had a long history of emotional disagreements, which eventually led to their divorce.Whether it was before or after the divorce, according to people's impressions in the criminal trial, it is generally believed that there were many violent conflicts between the two of them.In the criminal trial, when the prosecutor emphasized Simpson's violent tendencies, Simpson's lawyer also mentioned in a non-positive answer that Simpson was not a perfect person. What they wanted to prove was not that Simpson did not beat his wife, but He did not kill.As a lawyer, such an answer is quite smart, because after all, there is an essential difference between fighting at home and killing people.Because Simpson did not testify at the time, prosecutors were limited in their pursuit of the plot. However, it is very different in a civil trial.Simpson was forced to testify in court.Plaintiffs' attorneys can make a big fuss about Simpson's violence against Nicole.They can press for details, and they can try to irritate Simpson and make him panic.If Simpson admitted that he had beaten Nicole, then the plaintiff's lawyer could push the issue of domestic violence to the brink of danger.Try to make the jury believe that Simpson is a dangerous person with violent tendencies, he can't control his emotional impulse, there is only one step away from using violence against Nicole to killing Nicole, and so on. If he denies that he beat Nicole and denies some facts that are not good for him, then he is standing on the edge of a liar again, and the consequences of making a mistake are equally unimaginable.We mentioned that you must take an oath to tell the truth before you can testify in court.Anyone who tells lies runs the risk of being charged with perjury.Of course, there are still people who risk lying in court.However, even if people can't really prove that this is a lie, as long as the jury is left with the impression of lying, it is still the worst failure and worst state of a witness. Before stepping onto the witness stand, Simpson had no way of knowing what kind of questions the plaintiff's witnesses would ask, and he couldn't guard against it.In this case, Simpson is indeed in a dilemma in terms of coping strategies.So, he didn't know whether it was his lawyer's idea or his own decision. Anyway, he took a wrong step and decided to deny everything. An important strategy used by the plaintiff's lawyer this time is to first force Simpson to answer some questions in the negative, leaving an image of a liar, and then on this basis, gradually extend the questioning to the details of the murder, forcing Simpson to answer the question again. Repeat over and over again to deny these details.This made the jury feel that: Simpson's denial of the obvious evidence to the previous question was all lying, so Simpson's series of answers to the subsequent denial of murder may also be lying.Therefore, Simpson's choice of denying all unfavorable testimony was stepping into the predetermined trap of the plaintiff's lawyer in the civil trial. He denied everything from the beginning of his testimony.Facing the photos of bruised nose and swollen eyes left by Nicole during his lifetime, he declared that he had never touched Nicole.He said that Nicole was a strong woman, and that Nicole had hit him during the conflict, but he never fought back. What is even more unbelievable is that the suspicious footprints left at the scene are a very expensive brand-name shoes.Of course, the shoes are made in a factory, not just one pair, but these shoes are too expensive and not many people wear them.However, even if Simpson has such a pair of shoes, it cannot be said that it is the pair of footprints found at the scene.However, Simpson vehemently denies ever having the same type of shoes. The plaintiff's lawyers showed as evidence a photo of Simpson wearing the same shoes, which was enlarged so much that the patterns on the soles of the shoes were recognizable from his raised steps, which were similar to the shoe prints at the scene of the murder.So Simpson insisted that the photo was forged by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff's attorney brought in photography experts.The photography expert told the jury that although a photograph could be forged, he did not see any reason to say that it was a forgery.Not to mention, Simpson is a celebrity who has long been a target for photographers.As soon as he claimed that the plaintiff had "falsified photos," the plaintiff immediately got 31 different photos from different photographers all over the United States.In these photos, Simpson is wearing the same shoe.The plaintiff's lawyer emphasized on the spot that if he did not commit the crime, there is no need for him to deny that he has such a pair of shoes. So, after Simpson denied some seemingly obvious facts and gave the jury the impression of lying, the plaintiff's lawyer changed the subject and began to ask some murder-related topics.For example, did you go to Nicole's place that night?Did you assassinate Goldman?Did you almost cut off Nicole's head with a knife?etc.Simpson just said a series of "no" to a series of questions that the jury believed to be true, and now he immediately said a series of "no" to these life-threatening questions. What did the jury think? All in all, Simpson's forced testimony in the civil trial turned out to be a complete failure.One juror even said afterwards, "He should have gotten his story straight before he went on stage." Another juror said afterwards that there were some obvious things that Simpson said were not the case.As a result, "We really don't know what to believe in him and what not to believe in him." Another juror said afterwards that he started with Simpson's series of denials that he had beaten and scolded Nicole, and suspected that Simpson was He was hiding something and suspected he was lying in court.This strategy by plaintiffs' attorneys has been absolutely successful. Throughout the trial, Simpson's attorneys repeatedly reminded the jury that this civil action had nothing to do with the pursuit of justice.辛普森的律师希望能够利用民事诉讼的这一性质，尽量减少陪审团倾注于死者家属的感情比重，使得陪审团相信，这两名死者的家属并不是在乎是否“讨到公道”，他们的实际目标，只是打算利用死者敲榨一笔钱财。而陪审团不应该让他们“得逞”。 妮可的父母在女儿死后，及辛普森的刑事诉讼期间，妮可和辛普森所生的两个孩子一直由他们代为抚养。但是，辛普森在刑事诉讼中胜诉之后，马上进入了与他们争夺两个孩子的抚养权的一场官司。最后，辛普森夺回了孩子的抚养权。其关键原因之一，当然是由于辛普森在刑事诉讼中被判“罪名不成立”，同时他又是孩子的生父。但是，另一个重要原因，是妮可的父母曾经违反规定，在没有通过妮可财产共同管理委员会的许可，就将妮可留下的一份材料卖了钱。 这样一个情节，辛普森的律师当然不会放过。同时，也由于死者高德曼的父亲，因为与一个出版社签了一份出书的合约，书的内容是有关他死去的儿子的。因此，老高德曼得到了预支的四百万美元的稿费。这件事，也成为辛普森的律师攻击的目标。辛普森的律师所拟定的策略之一，也是打击两个原告家庭的信誉。把一场要求“经济赔偿”的诉讼，演化为“合谋敲诈”的闹剧。 但是，这样的策略似乎并没有成功。其中很重要的原因，是死者高德曼的父亲确实始终留给人们一个非常“悲壮”的“寻求正义”的印象。面对辛普森律师的策略，老高德曼一再表示，尽管民事案件的性质与寻找罪犯无关。但是，他确实是希望借这个审判再一次寻求公道。最后，在此案宣判以后，他将有权从辛普森那里得到上千万美元赔偿的时候，他甚至向公众宣布，他决定公开与辛普森定一个条件：如果辛普森当众承认是他杀了人，他愿意将上千万美元的金钱赔偿一笔勾销。 你也许会问，假如辛普森考虑接受这个条件，承认自己杀了人，是否还会再次受到刑事处罚呢？这已经是绝对不可能了。因为去年介绍刑事审判的时候，我们已经提到过，美国的宪法修正案为了保护被告免受政府的无休止纠缠和迫害，有“免于二次困境”的规定。就是对同一个案件，刑事审判只以一次为限。一旦陪审团判定被告无罪，便不得再二次起诉。但是，辛普森还是当即拒绝了这样的“交易”。 由于民事诉讼的目标不是寻找罪犯，所以，在法庭用语上也是不同的。同一个行为，在刑事诉讼中称为“犯罪”，在民事诉讼中则被称为“侵权行为”。在刑事法庭上，最后宣判的时候，法官会问这样的问题，对于某某人的一级谋杀罪，被告是否罪名成立？陪审员则回答，“是的”或“不是的”。在民事诉讼中，法官对陪审员提出的问题是完全不同的，他的问题将不牵涉犯罪。法官在民事宣判的时候会问，对于某某的错误死亡，被告是否负有责任？如果有责任，接下来陪审团就会报出赔偿的金额。 这里必须说明的是，实际上这里是两个被害者家庭的两个不同的民事诉讼。只是因为被告和证据相同而放在一起审理了。但是在宣判的时候，两个案子是不同的。 在高德曼的案子里，死者的亲属提出了多项不同告诉和赔偿要求。第一项是告辛普森对高德曼的错误死亡负有责任。要求对死者的损失进行直接赔偿。 在这一项诉求中，家属并不是因为失去亲人而为自己索赔。这项索赔的含义，是家属为死者本人索赔，为他死去时所受到的痛苦索赔。法律规定，这项索赔要求只有继承人才有权提出。高德曼未婚，所以，他的生身父母依法可以替他索赔。索赔成立之后，根据继承法，这笔赔给死者的钱才由他的生身父母继承。在法律上，这种赔偿是没有上限的，痛苦是无价的。 而妮可的情况是不同的。她离婚并且有孩子，按照法律规定，只有年幼孩子的监护人才有权替孩子为他们的母亲索赔。现在，由于妮可的父母已经失去对孩子的监护权，也就同时失去了这项索赔的权利。孩子的监护权现在是在辛普森手里，他当然不会提出代表自己的孩子向自己索赔的要求。 因此，这一项索赔告诉，两个家庭中只有高德曼家庭有份。因此，他们当场获得了八百五十万美元的赔款。而妮可的父母是得不到这笔赔款的。死者高德曼的生身父母已经离异，因此，已经再婚的老高德曼必须和他的前妻分这笔赔款。 另一项告诉是辛普森对死者恶意进行身体攻击。这一项告诉成立的话，死者家属可以要求惩罚性赔款。这个“家属”的定义已经超出了“继承人”的范围。所以，这项起诉是两个家庭都有份的。一般来说，这项赔偿的金额不应该超出被告的能力范围。所以，这项赔偿不是在宣判那天决定的。陪审团还必须在此后听取诉讼双方对于被告财产的估计。 所以，在宣判之后，又经过了一段时间的听证，主要就是对于辛普森财产的估算。对此，双方的估算相差非常大。辛普森的律师宣称，辛普森在接连三场官司（包括他争夺子女抚养权的官司〕打下来之后，早已经债台高筑。而原告律师则连辛普森的现有财产，还加上假定他的名气可以在将来再挣上两千四百万美元。认为他依然是一头“大骆驼”。对此，被告还特地请来了商人作证，证明现在以辛普森为标志的商品已经卖不出去，他的“名气”已经一钱不值。 但是，最终，陪审团还是以十一票对一票，同意对辛普森进行惩罚性赔款；以十票对两票，同意惩罚性赔款的金额为两个受害者家庭，各得到一千二百五十万美元。 辛普森的倾家荡产，大概是没有人再表示怀疑的了。新闻媒体曾经在核算之后，认为辛普森此生免于受穷的唯一办法，大概就是携款逃往一个与美国没有引渡关系的国家去了。 这次的辛普森审判，又一次引起了种族话题。因为，曾经有调查说，比较同情辛普森的是黑人女性，而相对更相信辛普森有罪的，是白人男性。上一次的刑事诉讼，陪审团是以黑人女性为主的，而这一次的民事诉讼，陪审团却恰恰是以白人男性为主的。那么，人们不得不想，这两次截然不同的审判结果，是否和种族因素，甚至和性别因素有关呢？ 记得去年分析辛普森刑事诉讼的时候，我们就谈到过，十二名陪审员的判断，这确实是一件十分复杂的事情。你确实无法完全排除包括种族性别因素在内的种种因素。但是，我觉得，真正有意义的，还是看这样的判决在绝大多数人看来，是否符合法理。辛普森的两场判决，在美国已经作为法律专业的学生必修的案例。回头想想，辛普森案的典型性，使你几乎觉得它就是为了解释美国法律制度的一个确切注解。 人们对于两场不同结论的诉讼如果产生疑问的话，那么，问题就是，辛普森到底杀了人没有呢？我们可以先根据这两种不同判定方法的诉讼结果，来看一下，它们各自说明了什么。 在刑事诉讼的判决中，我们得到的结论是，陪审团认定检方没有提供绝对确信无疑的证据，而被告律师则提供了足够的对证据的疑点。因此，他们根据刑事诉讼判定中，对证据必须“超越合理怀疑”的严格要求，同时，又依据刑事审判的“无罪推定”原则，以全票通过，判定辛普森的谋杀罪“罪名不成立”。 在民事诉讼的判决中，我们得到的结论是，陪审团认定，在对双方的证据进行权衡之后，所有的陪审员都认为，辛普森涉案的可能性，比辛普森无辜的可能性更大一些。因此他们根据民事诉讼判定中，对证据“衡量”的要求，虽然不需要全票，但是他们还是以全票通过，判定辛普森对两名被害者的死负有责任。 在比较之后，我们发现，两个看上去截然相反的结论，实际上并不是绝对矛盾的。我又想起辛普森刑事判决的那一天。我在屋里听完判决，冲出来告诉我的同伴。一出门先迎面碰上了丹尼斯，他问道，怎么样？我说，陪审团把他给解脱了。丹尼斯一边往里走，一边自言自语地说，“他们只能这样做，他们只能这样做。” 丹尼斯的话，实际上说明了刑事案陪审团的处境。就是我去年所提到过的，他们即使个人认为，可能是辛普森杀了人，但是，只要没有面对“超越合理怀疑的证据”，就如丹尼斯所说的，根据刑事案的要求，他们“只能”放人。那么，既然大家公认，在刑事案中检方是没有能够提供确信无疑的证据，那么，刑事判决的结果就是必然的，合理的。 而在民事案中，陪审团就没有受到刑事案严格规定的约束，也就是说，在这个时候，他们听证之后，自己觉得大概是辛普森杀的人，就可以按自己的意向投票。既然社会上也有许多人认为，很可能是辛普森杀的人，那么，民事审判的结果也是必然的，合理的。 于是，这两个貌似截然相反的判决，就合理地联系在一起，合法共存了。它的结论就是，根据对所有证据的衡量，辛普森杀人的可能性是很大的，但是，至今还没有确切无疑的，“超越合理怀疑的证据”，证明百分之一百，肯定就是辛普森杀的人。 在民事审判结果出来以后，在美国的绝大多数人，尤其是司法界都是理解和接受这样两种判决的。因为长期的法律和制度的教育，能够理解这种制度设计的人已经很多。如事后辛普森主要的刑事律师强尼.考克伦，在电视上所说的，我尊重两个陪审团的结论。在电视里，我们只看到中学生们，还在一遍遍地问主持节目的律师，为什么两种判决是不一样的呢？ 归根结底，对于这两种诉讼，一切在设计上的不同，都是源于诉讼当事人的不同。对于美国人来说，人是平等的，因此，个人对个人的诉讼，公正就是意味着一个天平式的证据衡量。而政府对个人决不是平等的，必须严格对证据提出要求，以限制政府利用权势对个人权利的侵犯。 如果你对刑事案中，这个制度对于证据的近乎是苛严的要求提出疑问，美国人会用非常平实的问题来解释这样的制度设计。他们会问你，难道你希望一个制度允许政府在证据还存在疑问，只是大概有罪的前提下，就送你进监狱甚至上电椅吗？ 从这些问题中，你仍然可以看到一个美国式的思路，权势是靠不住的，警察是靠不住的，联邦调查局是靠不住的，司法部的检察官是靠不住的，他们的总管美国总统和美国政府都是靠不住的。他们都需要有力量与之平衡，他们都需要制度予以制约。 wish it is good! Linda