Brooklyn looked at the jury again.

The long-term closed life made the jurors increasingly anxious.

Especially as time goes by, the trial comes to an end, and the outside world speculates whether Emma Gilson will be found guilty, how the judge will sentence him, and whether the prosecution and the jury will give sentencing opinions.

How much they want to run to the lobby of the hotel where they stay, run to the camera of the reporter who is squatting, grab their microphone, and say their thoughts out loud!

Unfortunately, they can't.

They can't even express themselves to their families.

It's just uncomfortable.

As far as Brooklyn could see, several jurors had pimples on their faces.

Brooklyn then looked at the auditorium.

Everything in the auditorium is normal.

In the past few days, with a 'whistleblower call', the prosecution has launched an investigation into a certain organization, and the voice of public opinion has gradually returned to normal, whether it is for Emma or for the prosecution, a consensus has basically been reached, that is, Emma will inevitably be found guilty.

At the center of their argument was the punishment Emma should receive.

Those who support Emma believe that Emma is still a child and should be treated lightly.

Those who support the prosecution believe that Emma is a madman, and this kind of madman should be locked up with his own kind, not released to harm society, and should be punished.

The two groups of people quarreled on the Internet, and even two days ago, there was an offline confrontation, and more than a dozen people on both sides broke their heads and were taken away by the police.

……

……

On the afternoon of February 7, courtroom No. 9, the trial continued.

After a day and a half of expedited work, Emma Gilson's bone age test results came out.

According to the report, Emma Gilson's bone age is 18-22 years old.

It's a very mysterious age range.

It encompasses both adults and minors, allowing the court to sentence Emma Gilson to capital punishment and leaving the sentence open for discussion.

Brooklyn told Bob as soon as he got the test results, and he would have to change companies for the relevant tests in Court 9 in the future.

He's seen and mud, but he's never seen one so good at mud.

What is the difference between the presence and absence of this report?

The only difference is that it proves that Emma Gilson is well developed and has a more mature bone age than the 15 years claimed by the defense.

“…… Your Excellency, the bone age test results include the age provided by the police, 22 years old, but not the 15 years as claimed by the other side, and it is clear that the age of the defendant Emma Gilson should be considered to be 22 years old, not 15 years old. ”

Wood Ward pointed to the test report and began to talk nonsense with his eyes open.

Brooklyn admired him, he didn't have this skill before.

When it was Dona's turn to cross-examine, she did not dwell too much on the test results, but simply emphasized that "18-22 years old includes the juvenile range, and federal law should be more lenient with juvenile returns." ”

Immediately, she shifted her focus to another piece of evidence.

"Related to this case, case No. 017-EDNY09-084, Prosecution v. Monrika Russell, second-degree arson, the defendants Monrika Russell, were in a highly similar situation to Emma Gilson.

In case 017-EDNY09-084, the defense argued that her client, Monrika Russell, should be identified as a minor and not an adult as indicated by the police, while the prosecution insisted that the defendant Monrika Russell's age should be 22 years old.

The court ultimately ruled that Monrika Russell was 15 years old, but the prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal.

The result of the interlocutory appeal was to uphold the conviction of the defendant, Monrika Russell, at the age of 15. Your Excellency, I am of the opinion that the decision on age in case No. 017-EDNY09-084 is also applicable in this case. ”

This is my spear against my shield!

Brooklyn sighed in his heart, but he didn't show it on his face, but looked at Wood Ward.

Wood Ward lived up to Brooklyn's expectations and immediately stood up to refute it.

He knew that the precedent of the Monrika case was ahead, and this would be the last hurdle in this case, and if he crossed this hurdle, the defendant would be completely defeated, and as long as he could separate the two cases in this round of speeches, the defendant would no longer have the power to fight back, and could only lie down.

"In Case No. 017-EDNY09-084, the age information of the defendant Monrika Russell could not be confirmed to have been modified by herself, that is, although the defendant Monrika Russell subjectively had the will to tamper with her age, she did not have the ability to tamper with the police database.

The defendant in this case, Emma Gilson, has the ability to tamper with the police database, and also subjectively admits that she has the will to tamper with her age.

There is an essential difference between the two. ”

Wood Ward spelled out the difference between the two cases in rigorous terms, and then he faced the jury and gave further examples

"In the judicial process, there is a complete distinction between the two situations. For example, in a criminal case, the prosecution will include relevant persons who are related to the victim, especially those who have had an argument or even cursed or cursed the victim, on the list of suspects for a focused investigation.

But the prosecution will not directly prosecute these people for this. ”

"Men will look at beautiful ladies with admiration, and women will often peek at men when they see pleasing men, but because they see the type of people they admire, they will take action and plan to play cards with each other.

Subjective will and the ability to act and act are two very different situations and should not be confused. ”

"In life, we don't think that our other half will cheat just because he looks at someone a few more times.

In this case, it is not possible to find that Emma Gilson, the party in this case, is in the same situation as Monrika Russell, the party in 017-EDNY09-084, because the information in the police database has been tampered with, which is the same as the party in case 017-EDNY09-084.

Monrika Russell is not capable of tampering. ”

"Therefore, we do not consider the age of the defendant Emma Gilson to be an issue, let alone the interlocutory appeal in case 017-EDNY09-084."

Wood Ward took one last look at Dona, unbuttoned it, and sat back in his seat.

Donna wasn't easily dismissed by Wood Ward, and after tidying up, she got up again.

"My client has a lot in common with Monrika Russell, the client in case 017-EDNY09-084. Their actual biological age is also 15 years old, and the police database data shows that it also does not match their actual age, and they are also disputed because the data age does not match the actual age.

Here, I would like to ask, is the personal information of citizens decided on the basis of data from the police database? Or is it decided on a case-by-case basis? ”

Dona's voice began to rise, her arms waving in greater amplitude, her words fierce and emotional, and her face even flushed slightly.

This is the most basic speaking skill of a lawyer, which infects the audience through rich body language, intense and distinct emotional fluctuations.

It's simple, but it's also great to use.

Except for a few people present who knew about this, such as Brooklyn and Wood Ward, they were all attracted to her.