Chapter 7 murder on sunday morning

It was Sunday morning, and I indulged my Sunday morning laziness, killing time in front of the TV.A new film is being broadcast on TV, it is a documentary, the title is "appropriate" at this time - "Murder, It Happened on Sunday Morning". After reading the beginning hastily, I turned off the TV and went to work.I didn't expect this movie to be amazing. Just a few days ago, I received a letter from a friend who was a first-year law student at a university.She had just finished watching the Simpson case when she asked a question.She asked: The U.S. legal system puts so much emphasis on protecting the rights of defendants, so who will protect the rights of victims?In the civil trial of the Simpson case, the plaintiffs won, but the criminal trial failed.And the justice that victims seek is achieved through criminal justice.When defendants are not convicted, justice has not been served for them.Her question came back again: Who will protect the rights of the victims?

At this time, the TV was replaying the murder that happened on Sunday morning.This time it was too late to turn on the TV, I only watched the tail.Putting it together head to tail reminds me of the girl question.So, I decided to take a serious look at this case, because I think it has become, at least to some extent, a footnote to the Simpson case. It's not a very complicated case.It happened on May 7, 2000, in the early hours of a quiet Sunday morning.In Jacksonville, Florida, USA, in front of the Ramada Hotel, a gunshot was heard suddenly.When the police arrived, they saw Mr. James Steffen, an elderly foreign traveler, guarding his wife in great grief.His wife, sixty-four-year-old Mary Ann Steffen, was lying on her back in a pool of blood.A bullet fired at close range shot into her head from near the eye socket, and she was already dead.

The murder took place at about seven o'clock in the morning. Mr. Stephen and his wife had finished breakfast in the hotel dining room and were walking to their rooms with coffee.According to Mr. Stephen's recollection, he saw a young black man snatch the small bag hanging from his wife's shoulder and shoot her fatally. Standing beside his wife, Mr. Stephen not only met the murderer face to face, but also witnessed the whole process, so he should have enough time to remember the murderer's face.Therefore, he became the most important witness in the whole case. According to Mr. Steffen, the killer is estimated to be between 20 and 25 years old, six feet tall, wearing a dark T-shirt, shorts, and wearing a hat commonly worn by fishermen.

This is robbery and murder with a clear motive, and there are witnesses. The case itself is not complicated. Florida, with its warm climate and long coastline, is almost a replica of Guangdong Province in China.Its coastal tourism is well developed and is often the first choice for domestic tourists.The retired old people in the north, whenever possible, are almost like migratory birds, flying there in winter and staying there for several months.Tourism is one of Florida's most important revenue earners.The safety of tourists has naturally become a top priority.With such a major case of murdering passengers, the pressure on the public security police to solve the case quickly can be imagined.The police in charge of criminal investigation started near the hotel, looking for possible suspects based on eyewitness descriptions.

In this way, not long after the incident, at about nine o'clock, two security police officers encountered a black teenager, Brandon Butler, who was walking on a nearby street.He lives in this area.Brandon was still in high school, but he was tall and strong.He wears glasses and looks calm. He said that he looks like twenty years old, which is also believable. Brandon is pulled over by the police.There was no other reason to stop him than the fact that the murderer was a black youth, and so was he.At first, the police were very polite. After all, they didn't have any evidence, and they just wanted to try their luck in solving the case on this young man.Fifteen-year-old Brandon, inexperienced, agreed to go with them.He was first taken to a hotel for identification by witnesses to the murder.Mr. Steffen, seventy-five years old, saw Brandon and was instantly sure: this was the murderer he had seen.The old man said something that was later quoted repeatedly in court by the prosecution.He said: "I am convinced that this is the man who killed my wife. I will not put an innocent person in jail." So Brandon was taken to the police station, and a few hours later, according to the full confession he signed, he Formally arrested for robbery and murder.Due to the dangerous nature of the crime, judges routinely do not allow suspects to be released on bail in such cases.So, fifteen-year-old Brandon has been in prison since that day.

Brandon grew up in an ordinary black family, not rich, but the family is harmonious and the religious atmosphere is strong.There is a big difference between this case and the Simpson case, that is, the defendant does not have the money to hire a big-name lawyer.Under Florida law, he gets a free "public attorney."Public lawyers don't earn much, and taxpayers pay for their salaries.According to the general rule of "cheap is not good", many people also doubt whether the quality of public lawyers is reliable. Anyway, the case fell to local public attorneys Patrick McGuinness and Ann Fennell.

No one noticed that there were still two Frenchmen wandering on the streets of Jacksonville.They are not light-hearted tourists, but two filmmakers, the director Jean-de Lestrade, and the producer Denis Poncet.They came to the United States because they wanted to use film as a means to conduct a transnational study.Through filming cases, find out the differences in the judicial systems of the United States and France.God knows how they came to this unremarkable city just at this time, as if sent by God. When making a film, you always need to find an interesting story, and when doing research, you also need to find a representative case.But at first, they got nothing.They held their nerves, and soon when they met with a lawyer in court, they met Brandon, who had not yet officially started the trial.The case caught their attention.Afterwards, the director recalled: "Brandon Butler's expression was peculiar to me. He seemed to be completely lost. His eyes were always looking for the parents who were not there that day. At that time, I didn't know him at all. Guilty or not. However, I'd love to film him on his way to trial."

After some hard work, the court allowed them to film lawyers' work and court hearings.This is the origin of the film we saw. Lawyer McGuinness is an "old gun" who is nearly fifty years old, almost smoking cigarette butt after cigarette.He said his job has always been to defend murder suspects.This case has similarities with the Simpson case at the beginning, that is, it seems that the defendant is out of action.Although lawyers later said that such a case should never have gone to trial.But in my opinion, based on the evidence available, it is almost inevitable that a grand jury should let it go to trial.

Public lawyers do not earn astronomical legal fees like private lawyers. But lawyer McGuinness was not sloppy after taking over the case.He read the case file carefully, feeling "more and more angry", and seemed to be fighting spirit.He conducted extensive pre-trial investigations.It was already autumn, half a year after the incident, that the trial officially started. Before the trial, Brandon's family held hands and bowed their heads in prayer: Oh God!Thank you for having Attorney McGuinness to help us, he is an amazing attorney.Lord, we trust in your holy name, amen!This is really a classic American life scene.The photographer must be very excited when shooting.

Because such a scene is quite rare in their hometown France. The first witness is Criminal Investigation Police William.He presided over the witness identification process and was the first officer to question Brandon at the police station.Through questioning, the prosecutor showed the jury William's veteran professional experience. The subtext was: such a professional detective will not violate the procedures in the handling of the case, and the result of the investigation should be correct. The defense lawyer tried to let the jurors know by questioning: this is not the case.During the initial trial, the defendant stated that he was at home when the crime occurred, and that he had just left the house when he encountered the police at nine o'clock.Police Officer William, who is a professional criminal investigator, did not conduct further verification.He didn't check with Brandon's parents whether his son was at home at the time; he didn't check with the neighbors around when they saw Brandon go out.

Although he had legally promised to arrange a public attorney for Brandon, he did not do so immediately.After the first confrontation, I feel that this free public lawyer is not bad. The second witness appeared at the request of the defence.It was an old man picking up cans, named Steven.On the morning of the second day after the incident, he was driving along the street, looking for cans in the trash can.That day he had a windfall - a lady's small satchel.Open it up and you'll find ID cards and more.Jacksonville is not a big city, and the murder has long been a household name on television.He immediately realized that this was the evidence of murder.He called the police and thought he had done a good thing.But he never dreamed that the police came looking for him again.He opened his mouth and said: "Boy, where is the gun?" The attitude was extremely bad. The old man was confused and said, "I didn't see a gun. You can search if you want, but I didn't have any gun."According to the law, the police cannot search without a search warrant issued by the court, and it is your right to keep the police away.However, if you agree to be searched, you voluntarily waive the right.As a result, the police did not search, as if the fraud did not come out, so forget it. Attorney McGuinness asked the old man to tell his story by asking questions.He wanted to use the testimony of the old man to let the jurors see that the police handling the case had a tendency to make false accusations.Not only that, but he also noticed that the trash bin where the old man found the physical evidence was a 20-minute drive from the crime scene.For Brandon, who doesn't have a car, that's a long way.Brandon was detained near the scene of the crime within 90 minutes of the incident.It is not impossible to run back and forth for ninety minutes, but it is not easy.The lawyer also pointed out that there are thousands of trash cans coming from the scene of the crime, and there may be special reasons for the perpetrators to throw them here.He pointed out that the area near the trash can is a slum area where drug dealers hang out, implying that the police did not conduct due investigation in the area.He also pointed out that such a covered trash can must be opened by hand to throw things away, and the criminal investigators did not even come to collect fingerprints, which probably lost the real chance to solve the case. The lawyers did a good job, but it was only a peripheral detour.Seeing this, I couldn't help but think that the key to the case being opened for trial is the witnesses and the suspect's confession.If the lawyer does not make a breakthrough on these two points, he still cannot go straight to the core and win a breakthrough.So getting into the core evidence debate is what matters. The first key to solving a case is witness testimony.Mr. Stefan insisted that the murderer he saw was the defendant, without hesitation, and never changed his mind.This point can hardly be discussed further.The defendant's lawyer can only point out that when Mr. Steinfein first saw the defendant and said "it was him", the distance between them was still quite far, and it was not enough to confirm.However, the old man also immediately said that he had to get closer to confirm again, and then he and the defendant were almost face-to-face, and still determined that the defendant was the murderer. The second key to solving the case is the defendant's confession.Here a serious dispute arose.In court, regarding the defendant's confession process, the witnesses of both the prosecution and the defense presented two sets of diametrically opposite but both testimonies. One of the prosecution's key witnesses is Michael Grove of the Sheriff's Criminal Investigation Unit.In court, he described Brandon's plea process like this: When Michael Grove walked into the interrogation room, Brandon said to him: "God, I'm so glad to see you."Grove then asked, "Is that an accident?" Brandon nodded and said, "Yes. I didn't mean to shoot the victim." As he spoke, he hugged Detective Grove and cried. stand up.Grove hugged him back.Brandon also said the victim once gave him bad looks. Grove went on to testify: "It's all about that, and I just whispered in his ear, 'Why did you shoot this lady?' And he replied, 'I didn't mean to hurt anyone, I just wanted to Her handbag.' He also said that I threw the gun away, but forgot where. I asked about the murder weapon, and he said it was in the back of an eighteen-wheel truck. I said to him, I am very grateful His cooperation, but I don't believe he put the gun in the back of some truck. That's when he said, I left the gun in the woods." They then took the suspect to the woods to find a gun.but not found. Through questioning, prosecutors gave Detective Grove the opportunity to vehemently deny that he had obtained a confession illegally.The defendant's lawyers tried unsuccessfully to induce him to admit that he had lied in court.The lawyer could only suggest to the jury that this was a 240-pound former athlete who would have seriously injured the suspect if he attacked him.Such hints were opposed by prosecutors in court. The lawyer once pointed out that Brandon was led into the woods in handcuffs, and if he was attacked, he could not resist.Detective Grove immediately said firmly that I would not allow anyone to attack him.The implication is that he himself will not attack the defendant. It can be seen that this is an experienced police officer who testified sincerely and dealt with it impeccably. Later, Officer Daniel, who made the confession statement, testified in court.He also told the story of being told of his guilt and confessing his guilt, and his own statement of guilt, which fits perfectly with the situation described by Detective Grove.What the attorney was able to point out to the jury was that the confession, written in the first person, was simply Officer Daynell's transcript, with only one signature being the defendant's.The "crime" "confessed" in the confession is likely to be the arbitrary play of the police officer who made the record. However, this does not reverse the situation.As Officer Daniel said, a large number of suspects have low education levels and cannot write or are too lazy to write by themselves.He often acts as a proxy, which does not violate legal procedures.He frankly admitted that the transcript was written according to his own customary words, but he emphasized that he relied on the facts stated by the defendant.Finally, he read the full text to the defendant according to the procedure.The defendant agreed to sign it. The above is the testimony of the police. The main witness for the defense is the defendant Brandon himself.He testified in court that when he met Michael Grove, he never said he was happy to meet the officer.He said Detective Grove was okay with talking to him about sports at first.But after he denied killing, Detective Grove began poking his chest with his fingers, saying, "Niggers like you always call me mad." Then, at dusk, he was taken into the woods by several police officers inside.The others stopped halfway, and Michael Grove, alone, led him deep into the woods. According to Brandon, Detective Grove punched him twice in the stomach, knocking him to his knees.Then Michael Grove grabbed him by the shirt and pulled him up, punching him again in the left eye.He took two or three steps back and wept.He was taken back to the police station, where Officer Dainier produced a piece of paper and began writing the confession for him.After writing, he was asked to sign, and he threatened to kill him if he did not sign.Officer Dainier hit him again, rendering him briefly unconscious.So he signed the confession written by the police. For this part of the testimony, the defense arranged to be presided over by attorney Ann Fennell.Such an arrangement was probably not random.Fennell is a mild-mannered, middle-aged female lawyer who has been the city's public attorney for twenty-three years.When she was asking what had happened to Brandon, her attitude and tone conveyed her deep sympathy for the defendant to the jurors.Finally, she asked Brandon to answer directly in court whether he had killed someone.Brandon answered clearly: no.I have never been to that hotel. During this period of testimony, the cooperation between defense lawyers and witnesses was excellent. These are two completely different versions of the "defendant's guilty plea," which of course can lead jurors to completely opposite judgments.Further evidence for the defense is the photo taken by the defense for Brandon.In the photo, his face was swollen under his left eye. Of course, this can be regarded as physical evidence for the police to extract a confession. But Brandon is black, and the skin color change caused by the bruise is not obvious in the photo.Brandon has a round face, and the swelling can be seen in the photo, but it is not very serious.If you think about it from the opposite angle, on the one hand, the degree of injury shown in the photos does not seem to fully match the intensity of the attack described by the defendant.Taking it a step further, self-harm is also a possibility.Is it possible for any suspect to accuse the police of extorting a confession by torture and escape punishment as long as he finds an opportunity to injure himself, such as quietly punching himself in the face in a prison cell? It must be noted that there are many who believe Officer Grove's testimony.Trust, of course, comes from him seeming smart and kind.Both he and his father are local security police officers in the city.The so-called local security police are elected.It is the people in the community who recommend trustworthy people to come out to maintain law and order for everyone.Therefore, it can be seen that this family is respected by everyone in the local area.In this case, his credibility also comes from another reason: the police officer Grove, who is accused of insulting and beating the defendant with "nigger" and assaulting the defendant, is also a black person like the defendant. Another witness for the defense was the defendant's mother.The key to her testimony was the so-called "alibi".She testified that she woke up around seven and saw Brandon twice at her home.In order to prove that the defendant was at home when the crime happened, not at the scene of the crime.But on the one hand, her judgment of the time was just her own habit of getting up, and she didn't check the clock to make sure.On the other hand, she mentions seeing the accused twice, but between those two times, there was still a lack of witnesses for Brandon's "alibi" time. The defendant’s mother also testified that she visited the prison for the first time on the night of the incident, when the child saw her, she cried and said to her: “Mom, I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it! But because they made me sign the A piece of paper, I'm going to stay in this place for the rest of my life!" She couldn't help wiping her tears, and Brandon was also crying.The scene was very touching, but jurors always have doubts in court: As a mother, she naturally has a strong desire to save her child. Is her "alibi" proof reliable? When all the witnesses have testified, it is the final closing argument.During closing arguments, State Attorney Ms. Haley Shorstein told the jury to reject the defense's evidence point by point. She pointed out that the defense's sensational police conspiracy theory that several police officers beat and framed a fifteen-year-old child in partnership is simply not credible.If you believe this statement.Well, I suggest that you should call as soon as the trial is over, notify the FBI, notify the media, etc., because this is a terrible serious crime. She also showed the jury a black-and-white photo that is routinely taken by police after a defendant pleads guilty.The photo was not too large, and it seemed that the defendant was not injured in this photo.The prosecutor finally reminded the jurors: You should think again, there are witnesses in this case, and Mr. Steffen, who witnessed the murder, testified against the defendant.With witness testimony alone, we already have conclusive evidence beyond "reasonable doubt". Defense lawyer McGuinness's concluding defense had a completely different style, rising to a "theoretical height" from the very beginning.His first sentence was: "Winston Churchill often said that the level of civilization in a country is determined by the manner in which the police enforce the criminal law." He then warned the jury that the city's law enforcement police Something went wrong: "We are in big trouble!" He pointed out that after the incident, the police had many things to do to collect evidence, but they did nothing, "just go all over the street to find black people."He asked the jury, would you be satisfied with such "evidence"?He repeated the circumstances of the police's forced confession described by the defendant in his testimony, and once again showed a large color photo of Brandon's injured face.He ended by warning the jurors that the real criminals were still at large because of police failures. After the conclusion of the argument, the judge announced that this is the end of today, and everyone should go back and clear their minds.Early the next morning, the twelve jurors returned to court. The judge gave instructions before they began the long examination.He explained to the jurors that the so-called "reasonable doubt" in the legal sense means that this kind of "doubt" comes from reasoning, or assumption; or the evidence is conflicting or insufficient.Therefore, if you find that you are facing "reasonable suspicion", you must make a judgment of "the charge does not meet"; if you find that you are facing "reasonable doubt", you must make a judgment of "the charge does not meet". This is a rather awkward sentence, but it is the key to American justice.No matter how reasonable the inference is, it is not enough to convict.Conviction must have beyond 'reasonable doubt' unquestionable evidence.Therefore, the defendant's defense lawyers often say: "reasonable doubt" is our savior.In the eyes of ordinary people, if the defendant is found to have a strong motive to commit the crime, it should be detrimental to the defendant, but in the eyes of lawyers, this is far from the case.Because of the existence of the motive for committing the crime, people usually draw logical and reasonable inferences.It is possible to ignore evidence under this strong logical force, and even replace evidence with reasoning naturally.At this time, it is not far from winning the defense and the defendant being released.This is why the prosecutor has repeatedly emphasized that she has witnesses, because witnesses are evidence beyond "reasonable doubt". The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the others watched as the jurors filed into rooms that only they could enter.The bailiff locked the door and no one could re-enter or interfere with their judgment process.All Brandon's parents and relatives can do is still pray. In just forty-five minutes, the jury announced that they had reached a unanimous verdict.After getting the news, everyone hurried back to the court again. In this documentary, the cameraman has almost kept silent, and at this time he couldn't help it. We heard him ask the defense lawyer outside the camera: What do you think of the jury's verdict in only forty-five minutes? omen?Attorney McGuinness replied, I really don’t know, maybe the judgment is in our favor, maybe it’s in the prosecution’s favor.After hesitating for a while, he added: I hope it is beneficial to us. In front of the court, the bailiffs greeted the people concerned about the case and went in to observe the final verdict.Everyone in the courtroom looked tense. The jury announced they had reached a conclusion: Brandon was found not guilty of both counts, first-degree murder and robbery. Brandon, who had always seemed introverted, smiled.Relatives were cheering as the news reached the court.In the corridors of defense attorneys' offices, colleagues wrote congratulatory messages on blackboards.It was November 21, right before Thanksgiving, and for the Brandon family, they got the best Thanksgiving gift God ever gave. In the public gallery of the courtroom, throughout the trial, the victim's family, Mr. James Steffen, and his daughter sat.Here they are strangers, and their home is in Tokawa, Georgia, only fifty miles from ours.Although this place is remote, it is still famous.It is the birthplace of the famous US ace Marine Corps 101st Division.Looking at them, I really feel like looking at folks, their expressions are so familiar.These people are hard workers.They are always busy and usually retire late.It is only in the last few years of life that one begins to enjoy the leisure of old age.Their favorite place to go is the beach in Florida.The Ramada where the accident happened is also a mid-range hotel where they often rest.Now, it has become the old man's sad place. They are not intellectuals, and they will not issue a warning like the old Goldman in the Simpson case: "Justice has not been served! We have not only lost a lawsuit, we have lost an America!" However, I believe that in Behind the restrained faces of Mr. Stephen and his daughter, their disappointment and resentment were no less than that of old Goldman. What's more, for Mr. Stephen, he saw the murderer with his own eyes, identified the murderer, but watched as he was let go by the jurors. Although this case is not that complicated, it has many similarities with the famous Simpson case. Both cases were interracial murders.The murdered were all white and the defendants were all black.The prosecutions in both cases had quite strong evidence respectively.In the case of Simpson, a large amount of physical evidence was obtained at the defendant's home; in this case, the prosecution had witnesses and the defendant's confession.The defense lawyers in both cases relied on accusing the police of false accusations as their defense.In both cases, racial discrimination against blacks became one of the defense lawyers' defense strategies.Moreover, in both cases, the so-called "framing the accused" by the police has no conclusive evidence.In the end, the defendants in both cases were acquitted and released on the spot.For the victims, "justice" does not seem to have been "done" through this criminal trial. The criminal part of the Simpson case developed into a judicial encyclopedia, making other trials pale in comparison.It doesn't seem to make much sense to introduce this similar case again.However, the question of the college student is touching me.She was a reader of the Simpson case, and she had just put down her book when the question was asked.As a law student, she should also have an easier time grasping the gist than other readers.As mentioned in the books she read, in criminal cases, the plaintiff is the government, which is powerful.It also mentioned: Whether Simpson is guilty or not, from the public to legal experts, there have always been differences.Her question should be able to find the answer in the book.So, I wondered what made her subconsciously ignore what she had just read and stubbornly believe that victims' rights were ignored and that no justice was being done for them? People have a universal, natural tendency to sympathize with victims.When a suspect with certain evidence appears, he will involuntarily tend to see "the evidence is confirmed and the defendant is convicted".Otherwise, it means that "justice has not been done", because once the defendant is let go, even the "hope" of "justice" disappears.However, it is not fair to simply attribute the problems of college students to such tendencies. In the Simpson case, the key to the prosecution's failure was the perjury of the police officer as the key witness in court.But looking deeper into his perjury, it was only about his personal criticism of black people in private.During the entire trial process, there was no perjury that could be proved to be directly related to the case evidence, let alone direct evidence of police frame-up. On this basis alone, the accused was acquitted by the jury.This really makes readers of the case unable to accept it easily and swallow this breath. So, let's get back to this "Sunday Murder".In this case, one of the key pieces of evidence for the prosecution is only in a state of "dispute".Police witnesses for the prosecution, who didn't even testify at all, were found to be perjured, not even indirectly. The police and the defendant, that is, the witnesses of both the prosecution and the defense, only accused each other of perjury, but they were unable to implement it.However, the witnesses possessed by the prosecution are still there. Under such circumstances, the defendant was still released. If the story ended here, like the Simpson criminal case, it would not be a footnote to the Simpson case, but a repeat. The defendant Brandon was released in court, which naturally caused a stir in the local area.For lawyers, the goal is to win.After winning the case, just pop the champagne to celebrate. What happened next has nothing to do with him.But after this case, we did not see the defense attorney McGuinness overly happy, and even his heavy back appeared in the movie screen, and the voice-over was a passage of his conclusion in court: "Right now, there's still an armed criminal, between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, who's getting away with it, and probably hurting more people, because the job of finding the real criminal isn't being done when it should be. ’” Not satisfied with his professional victory, he additionally started further investigation after the verdict. Months later, he finally learned that a black teenager, also a high school student, had revealed that he was the killer.Finally enough evidence was gathered to lead to the reopening of the case.The defendant was not only prosecuted, but after the trial, due to the overwhelming evidence, the jury found him guilty.Justice for the victims has finally been delayed. There are only a few seconds in the last film, which seems to be a slowed-down shot, but it is the most moving moment in my opinion: Brandon, who still looks restrained, leads his beloved big yellow dog with a short tail, freely Take a walk on the street. At this time, the case became a footnote in the Simpson case. When a person goes to court as a defendant, there are always some personal and physical evidence against him.When the accused complains and denies that he has committed a crime, the only thing the court process can do is to extract and analyze evidence.False testimony by a witness amounts to not only framing someone, but in some cases even killing them.Permitting perjury undermines the foundations of the entire judicial process.Therefore, perjury is a serious crime in the United States.It pursues perjury, the very act of lying under oath in court, without analyzing whether the content of the lie is relevant.That's how President Clinton was nearly impeached for a seemingly innocuous lie. However, we can see from the Sunday murder case that the perjurers often have the luck that cannot be verified, coupled with the instinct to protect themselves, no matter how severely the punishment of perjury is imposed by the judicial system, perjury still occurs frequently.Although the defendant was exonerated in the case, several police officers deny to this day that they ever beat Brandon.However, if criminal proceedings of "illegally extorting confessions by torture" were to be brought against them, it would still be difficult to convict them.Because at this time, they have become defendants, and solid evidence is also required for conviction. It can also be seen in this case that not only may there be intentional perjury, but there may also be unintentional wrong evidence such as "mistaken identification of the victim".Not to mention that there might be two people with the same name and look alike - in this case we see the convicted murderer look nothing like Brandon.But for an elderly person in shock, it is possible to misidentify. The jurors in this case were ordinary people doing the same thing as many other juries.They are balancing evidence among contradictions and guessing at facts.It must be admitted that this is the case in many cases, and there is no ironclad and unshakable evidence as expected.As long as the defendant pleads not guilty during the trial, the biggest contradiction in the court has been established, that is, the prosecutor's allegations and the defendant's declaration of innocence.If there is no incontrovertible evidence, the American jury, according to the principle of "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" we mentioned earlier, generally releases the person.This kind of "release", of course, has the risk of "misplacement", but if this is not the case, countless Brandons will have to be wronged in prison for life. I have seen how many jurors are full of conflicts and cannot be at peace for a long time when they describe their decision choices after work.This is the most basic fact that judicial judgments must face: not every case is ironclad, and there is no perfect judicial system that can guarantee a 100% distinction between right and wrong.Therefore, "justice" on the trial bench should not be pursued excessively.It must be admitted that there are times when "cannot be stretched". At such times, the "solved case rate" cannot be pursued.Because miscarriage of justice is doubly injustice—the wrongdoer goes to jail while the real criminal gets away with it. It is precisely this difficulty in weighing evidence that often occurs in fact, which not only creates a heavy psychological burden on jurors, but also creates a sense of helplessness for some innocent defendants and their families.There are always some people in society who will be involved in lawsuits, and this is a part of social life.Just like in daily life, disasters may occur at any time, and people will feel helpless and powerless. These are the natural sources of religious feelings among the people.Several times throughout the documentary, we see the Brandon family praying on various occasions.This allows everyone to realize more clearly that judicial justice is not absolute, and it is not something that you must be able to achieve if you want to achieve justice.That is a field that needs to be continuously explored by human beings, and more haste makes waste. This is also what the judge in this case said to the Brandon family at the end of the trial: I hope you will do more volunteer work for this judicial system when you go back.Because it is the system that helps you.法官很清楚，没有完美的司法制度，而只有相对好一些的、蒙冤者更少一些的制度。幻想没有意义，有意义的是大家努力，多做一些具体工作，帮助那些陷于困境的人。 在这个“星期日谋杀案”出现新的转机之后，出现了一件不寻常的事情。那就是女检察官和格鲁夫警官公开表示，为布兰登的遭遇向他道歉。 检察官的道歉是极为罕见的事情。因为她是代表国家和社会在寻求公正。这就是那名大学生问题的答案。谁在为受害者伸张正义？整个国家和社会其实有天然的、要为被告伸张正义的动力。所以，在一般文明社会，刑事审理的原告都不是受害者，而是国家的检察官（公诉人）与被告对簿公堂。其原因，是刑事案件直接影响社会生活的安全，社会有强烈的动机委托政府找出案犯。假如一个凶手在逃，一个社区甚至一个城市都会鸡犬不宁。因此，社会总是会通过纳税聚集财富，养活大量的刑侦、执法警察和检察系统的法律人员为受害者寻求正义，也就是为社会寻求正常生活的保证。 因此，为原告出面的检方，有一个重大的“优惠条件”，就是“主权豁免”。也就是说，刑侦执法人员、检察人员是在按照社会的委托行使国家主权。只要按照预定的司法程序做，就没有超出社会授权的范围，就是合法的。假如他们按照程序做，即使最后发现是错判了，也不能向他们追究法律责任。所以说刑事审判的被告，是面对着整个社会伸张正义的诉求和行动。 在这个案子中，女检察官海利·肖斯坦没有任何违反程序的做法，她只是在得知真凶被找到之后，回想自己的起诉，曾经给了布兰登这个十五岁黑人少年以超常的精神压力，她便无法从个人的自责中解脱出来。虽然她不论从动机到行为，都没有错，那是她的工作，都是合法的。从她的道歉，也可以从另一个侧面，理解司法公正之路的艰难。 格鲁夫警官的道歉十分含糊，其诚意还是一个谜。他仍然否认自己违法逼供。不论他心里怎么想，大家一般也估计他不会承认具体的违规行为。因为那将会导致针对他的刑事诉讼。 由于没有过得硬的证据，三位涉嫌逼供的警官都没有受到刑事定罪。但是格鲁夫警官从此离开了治安警察的岗位，另外两个留下的也被调离了刑侦部门。 布兰登和政府达成和解，获得了五十万美元的补偿。其原因，是警察有明显的违规作业。他们一家试图建立一个基金会，以帮助同样可能遭受冤狱的人们。大家并不因为布兰登获得了经济补偿而减少对他的同情，正如布兰登的父亲所说，这孩子受到的精神创伤是长久难以愈合的。现在，布兰登不论去哪里，他都会带一只手机，里面储存着他们家庭律师的电话号码。他眼中的这个世界，将永远是不安全的、是不能信任的。 最后，我还想说的是，这个故事和辛普森案相似的地方，是涉及了种族问题。记录这个案子的法国导演，在他的成功之后的讲话中，曾经背诵了他心目中“美国最伟大的人物马丁·路德·金”的一段话，就是那段世界闻名的、对种族和睦相处的“梦想”。然后说：他们是在马丁·路德·金的梦想三十八年之后，拍摄了这样一个故事，“一位少年，仅仅因为他是黑人、在犯罪现场附近大街上行走，就被扣留、逮捕和送往监狱。如果说我们是在作着记录，那是因为我们相信，作为讲述故事的人，我们能够帮助这样的梦想成真”。 那是一段很动人的讲话。这段“仅仅因为是黑人”，在街上走都会因种族歧视而获罪的说法，最初来自被告律师的法庭辩护。他和辛普森的辩护律师们一样，强调了警察的种族歧视导致了本案的诬陷与冤狱。由于“星期日谋杀案”的真凶被定罪，布兰登被洗刷，这段话在相关文章中被广泛地正面引用，使得该案的种族色彩日益强烈。 然而，假如我们冷静地去看。这段颇为动情的话却并不完全与事实相符。而是抽去前提，换掉了概念。 不错，警察是因为布兰登的肤色而在大街上截留了他。可是事件的前提，是在杰克逊维尔市，有人目击一名黑人杀了人。我们可以想象，假如目击凶杀的老先生看到的是一名白人凶手，急于破案的警察截留的目标就会完全不同。也就是说，刻意做种族文章，看上去似乎在提升意义，事实上却大大削弱了该案的警讯内涵，无意中减轻了这个城市中公民权利丧失的危险度。并不是如人们所说，黑人在街上走没有保障，而是在警察滥权之下，任何人都没有安全的保障。这不是种族问题，而是如何遏制警察滥权的问题，是如何维护法律和司法程序，竭力为每一个个人追求司法公正的问题。 事实上，诬陷布兰登、刑讯逼供的主嫌格鲁夫警官，本人就是一名黑人。而为黑人少年布兰登辩护成功的两名律师都是白人。在判定布兰登罪名不成立的十二名陪审员中，有一多半是白人。从种族问题的角度切入，这兴许还是一个相当正面的例子。 在这里经常出现的、对种族问题的此类不确切描述。起因于人们尤其是知识阶层，有很强烈的、要表达自己对弱者深切同情，以及要挺身为底层代言的倾向。这是知识阶层由来已久、经久不息的一个情结。这也恰恰旁证了知识阶层和底层事实上的本质差异。这种差异给知识阶层带来越多的不安，他们产生这种表达的意向就越趋强烈。无疑，贫穷与恶劣的生活状态导致罪恶。可是，对这种联系的探究，应该引出的是社会学意义上的如何消除贫困、消灭罪恶根源的研究和行动，而不是对已经结出的罪恶之果表达泛滥的同情，不论这个恶果是个别的罪犯或是群体的暴民。道理很简单：任何罪行都是有受害者的。而知识阶层假如放弃面对犯罪行为的道德立场，甚至提供过分的借口和“理解”，不仅无助于弱势群体自身的演进，甚至可能将他们带入更为危险的困惑和歧途。这是另一个很有意思的话题，以后再找机会展开吧。 因此，我更愿意忽略这位法国导演在讲话中续貂的种族渲染，而记住他在同一段讲话中，对这个质朴而精彩的纪录影片所下的简短定义。他说：“我们的影片在描述公正，讲述的是每一个个人在被证明有罪之前，他所拥有的、被假定为无罪的权利。” 那是他在2002年奥斯卡金像奖颁发仪式上的讲话。他们拍摄的这部《谋杀，发生在星期日早晨》获得这年颁发的最佳纪录片奖。回想初看影片时的生疏，不由笑话自己，真是孤陋寡闻了。