It turned out that after Kamazeping released Wang Zhan's threat that day, Judge Arnold's so-called compromise was simply acting!

In fact, it is a delaying tactic, I am young in the end, and I was deceived by this old bastard who doesn't talk about martial arts!

The old guy is also gambling, he is betting that the case will be closed as an iron case, so it will be too late for Kamazepin to propose to cancel the trial.

As long as Sheldon appears in court, the trial of this case will go on very quickly.

Because firstly, this guy is indeed the maker of the bombs used in the two bombings, and secondly, he is too stupid to withstand the verbal attacks of the prosecutor in the courtroom, and he will tell everything in less than three minutes.

In his ruling, he made it clear that "there is no record of Mr. Shelton's view," which means that Judge Arnold held that "Santo asked Sheldon to act as an informant on the condition that the latter be exempted from being testified." "It's Sheldon's lie.

"Too! That's ridiculous! Edward slammed the paperwork down the table, "We've already defeated Santo in court, and Santo himself has admitted to 'essentially making a promise to Sheldon not to appear in court.'"

At the same time, Judge Arnold also decided to give full credit to Santo's testimony, believing that Santo did not know that Sheldon had ever been wiretapped, and that "Santo never obtained any material about Sheldon from the wiretapping, or from the FBI."

And "the court is inclined to agree with the prosecution that there should have been 'not' eavesdropping in context".

He even showed a kind of son-like love for Santo, "During the hearing, Santo insisted that his answer was 'no'. It seems to me that Santo's memories are remarkable because he has always denied that he knew of the Jewish Defence League's wiretapping material and has never used it, despite the constant unfair treatment he has been subjected to, sometimes in a frightening manner."

"I'll go to Uncle! Damn, when will the Jewish judge give birth to an Italian son? Old Bao next door! ”

There was silence in the office.

Everyone didn't know what had happened to Judge Arnold to write such a verdict.

But in fact, everyone knows it.

But what's the use of knowing?

evidence

evidence

What about the evidence?

Was Judge Arnold wrong in this decision?

Yes, Sheldon did make the bomb, but Stuart Cohen and Ian Davis dropped the bomb in the Russian Cultural Office in Mi and the BLM building, causing the explosion and killing Alice Connes.

The irony is that the result was just, but the procedure was seriously flawed.

Not only did the law enforcers know the law and break the law, but the judges and prosecutors also complied in it, turning a blind eye to this obvious violation of the law, as if nothing had happened.

In class, the professor once asked the students how to deal with the conflict between procedural justice and outcome justice.

The view of the United States has always been that procedural justice is far more important than outcome justice.

Because procedures are used repeatedly, as long as there is a problem once, it will go wrong again and again, thus affecting the foundation of the rule of law in the whole country.

The result is unjust, and it may seem that innocent people may be wronged or criminals go unpunished, but it is far less harmful than procedural misconduct.

Of course, as a lawyer, we should do our best to pursue justice for both.

Now, when he was faced with this dilemma, Edward didn't know how to feel.

Do you think Alice Cones can be blinded, or do you denounce Judge Arnold Bowman and prosecutor Solomon as shameless?

On the other hand, is the role he played in this case very glorious?

Yes.

Such as:

A lawyer is not obligated to decide whether his client is guilty, it is the responsibility of the judge or jury

Even the most heinous villains deserve the right to be defended.

Lawyers challenging the government is an important constraint on keeping them connected.

In place of such a legal system, there was only one in the Soviet Union, where lawyers took the cases of those who "could" the right to a defense and defended them

Edward could have opened his mouth to say these things, but what he was doing now was not the pursuit and search for justice?

Justice has always needed to be pursued and sought, because it is impossible to achieve perfect justice by manpower alone, we must pursue it, justice is not a result, but a process.

Edward himself was in such a process, but he did not know whether the outcome he was pursuing was consistent with the process.

Just like this case.

As to why Judge Arnold Bowman made such a decision, he did not care.

What if you care?

I couldn't sue him.

The judiciary in the United States is evidence-oriented, and accusations are made without evidence?

I'm sorry, that's slander, but I'm going to have a lawsuit.

Moreover, the target of defamation and false accusations is still a respected magistrate.

……

Oh, beautiful Solomon! It's beautiful!

"Damn, I'd love to have Sheldon make me a bug and put it in Judge Arnold's living room."

"God, Judge Arnold is really professional." Chris sneered as he flipped through the verdict.

Kamasi and others also came over.

From an insider's point of view, Judge Arnold's decision is in some respects simply absurd, such as the fact that the Southern District Court, in its decision not to prosecute, directly ruled that the police search was unlawful, and that "the government may not ask Schell questions about the items found in his car." ”

And this question is the most important link that connects Sheldon to a series of bombings.

Once it is cut off, then there is no way to talk about the follow-up.

What highlights his professionalism even more is that his verdict rarely involves the relevant judicial formulations of the "exclusionary (illegal evidence)" (the formal written name of the fruit of the poisonous tree), but instead tirelessly and even does everything to fight Edward and his others on various factual issues.

"Old fox!" Kamazeping shook his head, "Arnold knows that we will definitely file an appeal, and the Court of Appeal will be aware of his problems with the application of the law." So he simply abandoned this position. Instead, they interpret the factual evidence in their favor. ”

Barry Slotnik nodded: "This is too good to give Solomon an account - I did my best, and at the same time put a layer of armor on myself to prevent the Court of Appeal from causing him more disadvantage." ”

"Yes," added Bert Witzleben, "the Court of Appeal only hears the law, so that his verdict can only prevail in terms of facts, and thus he has taken advantage of it." ”

There is a basic principle in the appellate court review: the appellate court cannot overturn the facts affirmed by the district court judge in the first instance, except in extremely unusual circumstances.

The reason is easy to understand: the district court actually sees and hears witnesses arguing in person about the details of the case, and of course it is reasonable that the appellate court can check their credibility more accurately by reading a "cooled" case file.

The trial of law is relative to the trial of facts.

The trial of facts means that the court of first instance has to interrogate in detail the details of the case.

Legal trial refers to the trial procedure that only examines the application of law in the case.

In the United Kingdom and the United States, the first instance must be a factual trial + a legal trial, while the Court of Appeal only does a legal trial.

For example, Zhang San went crazy and stabbed Li Si.

So where was the stabbing on Li Si's body, how long and how wide the wound was, how many levels of damage it caused, what the murder weapon was, and why Zhang San suddenly stabbed it, these are all factual trials.

As for the verdict on these facts, whether Zhang San should be sentenced to intentional homicide, intentional injury, or hooliganism/rape at the lowest level should be sentenced to a few years, which belongs to the scope of legal trial.

It should be said that Britain and the United States have done a really good job in this regard, and the documents formed by the courts of first instance in sorting out the facts of the crime are meticulous, and the appellate courts, and even the high courts, can find out the circumstances of the crime as long as they read the documents in detail.

Ahem, having said that, with a judicial veteran like Judge Arnold, even if the relevant documents want to be simple, I am afraid it is not easy, but the more complex and detailed the documents, the more difficult and dangerous they are, after all, the best way to hide a tree is to put it in the forest, Judge Arnold has personally built a "forest of facts", and every weed in between it is carefully cultivated.

Barry Slotnik also added his own opinion: "Yes, so many district court judges are proficient in this - creating the influence of the law by creating facts, deliberately guiding the court in the process of investigating the facts in order to achieve the results they expect, and then tying the hands and feet of said courts."

As soon as the three old fritters touched, they pointed out Judge Arnold's evil intentions.

It's one thing to understand the opponent, it's another thing to dismantle or even counterattack, and the difficulty of the latter is increasing exponentially.

As soon as they said this, Edward also remembered that his teacher had also expressed helplessness about this in class, because no one could do anything about it unless there was an obvious violation of the law in the process.

But now that the traders are well versed in these routines.

How is it possible to give authority to men?

"What a Tmd intangible cultural heritage of humanity! The representative work of the district judge genre "Edward's Curse of Hate To."

He remembered that Judge Arnold had proudly stated on many occasions that "the judgment of this court has never been overturned by a higher court." ”

"I'm still too tender!" Edward muttered to himself, "This ruling looks like it was specifically designed to deal with the Court of Appeals scrutiny." ”

"Sheldon's not look good," Chris interjected, "what's next?" ”

According to the original idea, Edwards' strategy was simple.

The first is to use the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree to exclude all the evidence brought about by illegal eavesdropping and car searches.

Second, use the previous promises of Santo and Solomon to save Sheldon from testifying in court and from being prosecuted.

Third, after combining one and two, Sheldon will most likely be found not guilty, and he himself is an important witness in the verdict of the other two accomplices, Stuart Cohen and Ian Davis. If he does not testify, the government will not be able to crucify the two men on the basis of the available evidence alone.

As for the third point, the government is also very clear, so Santo/Solomon's threat to Sheldon is that "if he does not testify, he will be sentenced to a heavy sentence for contempt of court." ”

The crime of contempt of court is also a pocket crime unique to the courts of the United States.

There is no such crime in China, and there is only a similar crime of obstruction of justice, but generally speaking, as long as it is not insulting a judge in court, beating a bailiff, or something like that, it will not be detained, and if it is detained, it will not be severely sentenced, and it is a big deal to be expelled from the court, or symbolically detained for a few days.

But in Europe and the United States, especially in the United States, it is different.

Wearing shorts and slippers will result in expulsion from court and possibly contempt of court.

Smoking or chewing gum in court can be found in contempt of court.

Taking photographs and recordings without the permission of the judge will be punished for contempt of court.

Interrupting a judge or lawyer at will will be punished with contempt of court.

Lying or making provocative remarks to a judge will be punished with contempt of court.

Refusal to obey a court order is punishable by contempt of court.

The above is quite light.

The reason for this depends on history

"Contempt of court" is a common law concept.

The laws of Henry II of England (1154-1189) created the crime of contempt of court, mainly for those who refused to accept a summons from a court or to execute a court order.

At that time, the court was regarded as the "king's court", and contempt of the court warrant was tantamount to contempt of the king's authority, so could the sentence be lighter?

One of the most famous contempt cases occurred during the reign of Queen Mary I (1553-1558), when the court issued a summons to Lord Batuu to return to England to appear in the lawsuit.

But Batu's butler not only intercepted the summons, but also hurled insults at the court attendant.

As a result, Master Batu was detained with this big hat, and all the land under his name was confiscated by the court.

After the independence of the United States, it completely inherited the British regulations on contempt of court.

In the 18th century, with the rise of printing and publishing, indirect contempt against the press and publishing industry appeared in both Britain and the United States.

Under the relevant law, a judge can pursue contempt of court if he believes that a statement contained in a newspaper or other publication is defamatory to the administration of justice, defames a judge or divulges information about a case being heard.

Therefore, although it is freedom of speech, if someone wants to clean you up, there is also a law to follow.

This is the hallmark of justice.

Everything is legal.

There is absolutely no illegal act.

If there is an illegal act, see the invincible trident of Santo-Solomon-Arnold, and any doubter will be beaten to the ground under the fork.

And if Sheldon refuses to testify, then according to the relevant jurisprudence, he is likely to spend many years in prison and be "reprimanded" by the judicial police.

On the contrary, the other two could have been released.

In terms of benefits, it's actually not impossible.

But Edward agreed at the beginning to acquit Sheldon, and now his stubbornness rises again!