The courtroom was bustling with supporters of the Jewish League and neighbors of the Baltic community.

The guys wore melon-skin hats and prayer scarves despite the heat, and the unsuspecting people thought they were in Jerusalem.

They were more restrained today, and they did not collectively "shake the Jews", nor did they make cursed faces at the judge or perform other religious rituals, which shows that Judge Coleman's reputation is really good.

Other vacancies were filled by the press, family members and even officials from the Federal Prosecutor General's Office.

Kamazepin stepped onto the podium and stated the specifics of Siegel's forced outcry.

Within minutes of speaking, Chief Justice Coleman interrupted Kamazepin and began asking him about the destruction of the wiretapping tapes.

It is clear that Judge Coleman put a lot of effort into the written appeal briefs and the material in the case file provided by the defence counsel, as the question he asked was not deliberately mentioned in Judge Arnold's conclusions.

Obviously, this is also a reflection of Judge Arnold's deep "legal literacy", and his deep understanding of the "Occam's razor" - do not add substance to the discussion if it is not necessary.

But how could Edwards miss such an important fact?

Regardless of whether the judges of the Court of Appeal will pay attention to this issue, it must be written in it, and it should be written in close proximity, and the more carefully written, the better!

Because Edward is ready to go to the federal high court for a lawsuit, he really doesn't believe that the federal high court justices will turn a blind eye to the FBI's illegal eavesdropping and destruction of audio tapes!

Judge Coleman's question was a bit of a surprise and surprise to all present.

However, this is the Court of Appeal, and Kamazepin has long been prepared to deal with any questions asked by the judge.

Just as Kamazepin was pondering how to answer more appropriately, Si Lairi handed him a folder marked with the words "Destroy the tape" in Juan Li's handwriting.

The folder contains precedents, statutes, and audiotape collation materials related to this, and important passages are outlined in ink of different colors, which happens to be assigned to her.

Although she did not have any special legal training, she did a very good job of this work, which of course was inseparable from Edward's careful guidance to her.

Kasamazein has a wealth of experience and a strong ability to read words and colors, and with the various shells provided by this clip, he is even more handy in speaking.

He expected that the other two judges would also be very interested in the issue, so he set aside the original draft of the Plea and concentrated on the reality of the destruction of the tapes and the legal consequences.

In order to include other issues, Kamazepin even creatively proposed a new idea: because the FBI illegally destroyed the wiretapping tapes, it was difficult for defense lawyers to prove that the government had discovered Siyjerger by wiretapping.

When the lawyer puts forward the view that "the government discovered Shelton by wiretapping", according to the judicial principle that whoever asserts the evidence should present the relevant evidence.

But at this moment, important evidence is lost due to the law enforcer's knowledge of the law, so the principle of reversal of evidence should be adopted, that is, the prosecution should prove that the government enforcer targeted Sheldon from the vast crowd by other means and methods, rather than through wiretapping.

If the prosecutor is unable to produce relevant evidence,

Then the government should bear the responsibility for destroying the videotapes, rather than sentencing the defendants.

This view clearly aroused the interest of the three judges.

They questioned one after another, and Kamazepin responded appropriately, and the prosecutor's face began to look ugly.

It is clear that the judges have not yet made their own judgment on the case, which is a great thing and proves that they did not have a preconceived view of the case.

Solomon, on the other hand, was much harder.

The three judges, in particular Judge Coleman, conducted an unceremonious cross-examination of him and Henry Puzeer, also focusing on the destruction of the audio tapes.

His creative explanation before Judge Arnold, who justified the destruction because of illegal acquisition, was unceremoniously denounced by Coleman as heresy, and ridiculed that the court could immediately convict Solomon of contempt of court and then send him to the gallows to "correct" the mistake.

For the prosecution, that's not the worst.

Judge Coleman then pointed to the most crucial and controversial passage, which was "you know it's all wiretapped".

Kabamazepin asked the appellate court to listen to the recording.

The judges accepted the suggestion and said they would examine the recording with great caution after the adjournment.

At the end of the plea, Chief Justice Coleman promised that the BLM explosion was currently in a temporary adjournment as the trial court awaited the Court of Appeals ruling on whether Shelton should testify, and the Court of Appeals judge would make a decision within a few days as soon as possible.

Three days after the oral plea, Edward received a phone call from the Court of Appeal in his office.

He was informed by a civilian staff member that the Tribunal had passed a unanimously decision overturning Judge Arnold's finding of Sheldon Siegal for contempt of court.

Edward was so happy that he personally drove to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to get the verdict!

Now it's finally a victory!

When he returned to the office, everyone, including Sheldon and the others, was anxiously waiting for him.

Edward's hands trembled, and after taking a deep breath, he used a paper cutter to open the envelope reserved for the Court of Appeals.

Begin to read the verdict aloud to everyone.

Chief Justice Coleman's ruling began with a description of Alice Cones's death, arguing that she had been killed "by senseless, cowardly and despicable acts of violence."

The joy on Sheldon's face disappeared, and he lowered his head instead, and his body was also rickety, killing innocent people, even if it was not subjectively intentional, this was an act that disgusted everyone.

These days, Sheldon has eaten enough white eyes and spit stars for this.

Judge Coleman then turned his pen and described the legal issues in the case as "very unfortunate to be in a position where the ugliest aspects of criminal law and its implementation are exposed." ”

"Because of this situation", the ruling reads "... It is not surprising that Mr. Siegar secretly recorded the conversations on several occasions in order to obtain information provided by Sheldon Siegar as an informant, and that the government had repeatedly used inappropriate methods in the process of obtaining information provided by Sheldon Siegar as an informant. ”

“…… And his actions are understandable and permissible...... Mr. Siyjager's involvement in the bombings of the Russian Cultural Office in Mi and the BLM building even when he became an indispensable whistleblower in the government's investigation of the case is just another revelation of the true nature of the participants in these heinous activities. ”

Obviously, Judge Coleman did not have the slightest favor for Sheldon and others, and the tone of the verdict was sharp and mean, but Edward knew that the more this was done, the more beneficial it would be for Shelton, because after scolding, he would usually not be convicted, and because he did not sentence, the judge needed to vent his evil anger in the words of the verdict, so as to show that justice was not completely irrelevant to morality.

The verdict turned around again and began to talk about the issue of the government smearing and even Xiaohui's eavesdropping:

"The significance of the destruction of this evidence in this case must not be underestimated. forcibly prevent the party being wiretapped from providing that evidence to tarnish authentic credentials,...... At the same time, the withholding of the tools and materials he used to collect evidence is simply creating a legal fallacy, which is no less absurd than first gagging a person with a cloth ball and then asking him to defend himself loudly."

In the Tribunal's view, the destruction of the tapes "compelled us to devote a great deal of effort and time to a rigorous examination of the source of evidence that Mr. Sieger was found to be related to the bombing, not through wiretapping, but from 'other independent sources'"

After reviewing the information provided by the government and which Judge Arnold found to be true, the court noted that Siegal had succeeded in recording at least one conversation with Santo, which "provided a completely opposite version of what the police said about how Sheldon Siyeagle's identity was discovered." ”

The subsequent ruling made it clear that, with respect to the recording, the three judges agreed that Santo should have said to Siegel: "You know it's all wiretapped."

Final word!

However, the Court of Appeal came to a puzzling conclusion in its decision:

Because if the NYPD did find clues about Sheldon's involvement in the wiretapping, Shelton's lawyer had the contents of the wiretapping in the hands of the court, completely shattering the prosecutor's claim that the police "had evidence from an independent source" in Santo's lying testimony.

For if wiretapping had been used, the testimony of independent sources given by Santo in court would have been completely implausible and would have had little effect in court.

This conclusion is puzzling because Santo's credibility has been destroyed by other, uncontroversial and unambiguous tapes that ultimately show Santo lying over and over again about soliciting information from Siegel.

On things he couldn't forget, such as his threat to kill Siegel and their "deal" not to ask him what his rights were.

Even in the tape, it is clearly shown that Santo had told Sieger that he had been discovered through wiretapping, and that Santo could easily "forget" because it was not part of his "main mission".

But why did the court focus on this ambiguous conversation, believing that it was all about breaking Santo's credibility?

Edward's guess was that the Court of Appeals justices did not want to unduly embarrass Judge Arnold: if the Court of Appeals had laid out the lies by detailing the inconsistencies in Santo's testimony in its ruling, it would be a reflection of Judge Arnold's trust in Santo from beginning to end as if he were his own son.

This is tantamount to blatantly saying that Judge Arnold is bending the law for personal gain, and that he is using extremely clumsy means.

What's more, if it involves star prosecutors and excellent policemen, if the reporter smells the smell, makes a big report, and makes a big news, then will the judicial face of the United States be gone?

Now that the verdict is written in this way, it is tantamount to focusing on Judge Arnold's "misunderstanding" of one of the conversations, and the circumstances are much lighter and less egregious in nature - at least not a bending of the law for personal gain.

The Court of Appeal's vague judgment tactfully suggests that Judge Arnold may have lacked legal literacy, but his professional ethics are unquestionably excellent.

In fact, whether it is the Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance, everyone is working in the United States, and they are also colleagues, and if it is not a big problem, they generally give each other a face.

Anyway, the first-instance verdict has been overturned, and this is the most important thing, to set things right and uphold judicial justice.

As for other aspects, the defendant's lawyer will not be pursued too closely, they are all legal people, and it is human nature for everyone to be accommodating with each other on this kind of detail issue.

In any event, the Court of Appeals recognized that Santo's testimony was "manifestly implausible and therefore manifestly ineffective in relation to the material aspects of the case," and the court considered how best to compensate for the damage caused by the government's misconduct – and Sheldon would be released.

This result would be unsatisfactory to many, but the Court of Appeal found that there were reasons for doing so:

The judgment begins with a philosophical approach to the judgment, which is a testament to the judicial competence and subtlety of the judges of the Court of Appeal.

"Of course, in the words of Justice Cardozo, because the magistrate has made a great mistake and the criminals have gone unpunished. Some argue that the occasional use of illegal means should be allowed to protect the status of the law.

Justice Brandeis eloquently retorted to this argument: 'Our government is a powerful, all-pervasive teacher, who guides the people by its own example, both good and bad. Crime is contagious, and if the government itself knows the law and violates the law, it will breed contempt for the law and lure the people to go their own way and see themselves as the embodiment of the law. ’”

The Tribunal then pronounced its conclusion:

"We therefore conclude that, in light of the circumstances of Shelton's case, the destruction of the tapes prevented Sheldon from obtaining evidence that was necessary for his defence......

Since the tapes no longer exist, there is no need to remand the case to the District Court for retrial.

In view of this, Shelton's contempt conviction should be overturned and quashed. ”

Finally, in order to emphasize the judicial authority of the Court of Appeal, the ruling specifically stated: "Under no circumstances can the Government prosecute Sheldon for the bombing of the Russian Cultural Office in Mi and the BLM building, or for the crime of concealing a bomb caused by the discovery of a bomb in a car." ”

This is equivalent to completely removing all the shackles from Sheldon's body, or the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of these three guys.

Finally, as if in response to Judge Arnold's attack on Carbamazepine's cross-examination of Santo's methods.

The Court of Appeals took great pains to state that "Shelton's lawyers have demonstrated great skill in clarifying the intricacies of fact and legal substance, and have conducted their investigations with courtesy and courtesy, always with the facts in mind." ”

The observers understood that this was an approval, and that the "little trick" of the court was recognized as a lawful act, or at least that could be inferred.

Although he did not directly point out the legitimacy of this "little trick", Edward knew that it was Judge Coleman who was giving Judge Arnold face, which was not a protection between officials and officials, but a tacit understanding in the workplace.

Edward explained to Siyjergar that he was now at ease, and the latter couldn't believe it was true.

He will never be prosecuted again, and he will not have to testify in court.

After months of ordeal mixed with threats, intimidation, and loneliness, Sheldon Siegall now leaves the courthouse with ease.

A new life was born, no threats of court, no contempt of court, no Santo, and no Jews defending the League.

He no longer had to testify in court — to choose between sorry friends or sitting in jail.

Everything had gone with the wind, and the sword of Damocles that once hung above his head disappeared in an instant, disappearing without a trace.

The case of Siegar v. United States, which ended in a resounding victory for the former, will be widely cited as a classic judgment in the days to come.

……