"As an expert in psychology and micro-expressions, how do you think a person with mental illness and those without mental illness should be distinguished and defined?" Anne Aldington came up and asked an unusual question.

Carl Littleman's eyes lit up, he thought for a moment, and spread his hands.

"Ma'am, you have a good question. Frankly, it stumped me a bit. ”

"As I said before, mental illness is more dependent on the feedback of the subject's subjective feelings, and at present, we cannot determine it through objective means such as reagents, specific movements, images, etc." He paused, and was about to speak at length when he was interrupted by Anne Aldington.

In other words, mental illness is more of a subject, that is, the subjective feedback of the patient, even if the patient is objectively normal, the patient can still be diagnosed as a disease by misleading and other means to cause subjective feedback bias. And we can't avoid that right now, right? It's a leading question, but Quint doesn't have time to bother with it, he's getting together with Jason Bull and figuring out how to get one back.

Anne Aldington has more experience than him. She didn't let Carl Ratman give a long lecture, she simply replaced the tirade with a simple and easy-to-understand metaphor.

"That's right, pretty much that's true." Carl Litman felt that the lady was smarter than the man just now, and even her face softened.

"Or it could be said that as long as a person understands the principle of the test well enough, he can give false subjective feedback as needed to mislead the test results towards whatever result he wants, right?"

"It's theoretically possible." Carl Lentman nodded.

"In other words, if a person understands the whole set of test principles enough, no one can be sure whether he is sick or not, and he can let himself get sick if he wants to get sick, and if he doesn't want to get sick, he won't get sick, right?" Anne Aldington continued to ask.

"If you're talking about the diagnosis, yes, yes." Carl Litman replied as he winked at Anne.

"The defendant was able to deceive the professional psychiatric appraisal agency twice, indicating that he knew enough about the principles of the test, and under such a premise, is his psychiatric appraisal really credible?" Anne Aldington's question seems to be asking Carl Rentman, and it seems to be asking someone else.

"Psychiatric evaluation relies on subjective feedback from the subject." Carl Litman stared at Anne Aldington and replied with a smile in his eyes

"The result is also a subjective result, and although we have made it as close as possible to the objective result through many means, it is still not objective enough."

"If you use something called credibility or confidence to mark the similarity of the appraisal results to the objective results, usually the appraisal results given by the appraisal agency are 90% credible."

"Subjective feedback is misleading, which reduces credibility, but it is usually not less than 80%."

"If you ask me if this report is credible, I'll tell you, it's 80 percent credible?" Carl Lentman continued with a smile

"Maybe you can believe the first 80 percent of it." It was an obvious joke, and several jurors in the jury bench burst out laughing.

It's a lot more interesting than boring technical vocabulary. Anne Aldington was not discouraged and asked again, but Brooklyn rang the gavel to stop her question.

He was impatient and the two sides continued to wrestle over whether the report could be trusted.

"Psychiatric evaluation is limited by scientific and technological means, the depth of human exploration of the spiritual world, and the subject's mental and emotional fluctuations, and cannot give accurate results such as analogous mathematical formulas, astronomical trajectories or grammatical vocabulary. However, the court accepted the psychiatric results, that is, the assumed that the psychiatric results were 100% credible, and asked the two parties not to continue to entangle over whether the psychiatric appraisal was credible. ”

"After consideration, the court believes that the legal certification materials issued by the relevant appraisal institutions that have been recognized are admissible, that is, they are 100% credible." Anne Aldington was silent for a moment and said in a cold voice

"But Peter Johnson has done three psychiatric evaluations before and after, and the conclusions of the three psychiatric reports are not the same." Brooklyn patiently explained

"It is precisely because of the difference in the results of the first two psychiatric evaluations that the court will apply for a third psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. Considering the possible loopholes in the previous two appraisal processes, eight experts were invited to design new appraisal ideas for identification. ”

"But only two of the eight experts signed the results, and the other six did not approve of the results." Anne Aldington argued unflinchingly.

Brooklyn was silent and did not explain further. It's not that he has nothing to say, but it's a matter of the power of judges.

In this court, he may or may not accept this appraisal report. There were reasons for adoption—two professionals, Dr. Garretman, signed for it, and there were reasons for not adopting—and eight professionals did not sign it.

It is the judge's discretion whether to accept the appraisal results. Because of his trust in Dr. Lentman and his own abilities, Brooklyn has now decided to adopt the results of the examination, which is his exercise of the power of a judge.

Anne Aldington disagreed with the judge's ruling, and Brooklyn explained that she was explaining her doubts, and if she continued to explain, it would be a question of the judge's authority.

Now Anne Aldington's continued questioning of Brooklyn's decision is not a question of objective right or wrong—the judge's decision to admit a piece of evidence is itself the judge's power, and there is no right or wrong—but rather a challenge to the judge's authority.

Even if this kind of lawsuit goes to the Supreme Court and the president, Brooklyn will win it. Anne Aldington mistakenly interprets Brooklyn's acceptance of the results as a judge's subjective sympathy for a mentally ill defendant and a lack of support for the prosecution, ignoring the fact that this is in itself the judge's power.

"We applied for an interlocutory appeal against the court's decision on the defendant's three psychiatric reports." Anne Aldington saw that Brooklyn did not speak, and threatened in a cold voice.

"The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal against the court's decision on the defendant's three psychiatric reports." Brooklyn immediately announced

"While the interlocutory appeal is pending, the court will suspend the hearing of Eucalyptus No. 018-EDNY09-018." At the same time as the announcement, Brooklyn immediately stood up, rang the gavel, and then turned around and left, ignoring the bewilderment of everyone below, for fear that Anne Aldington would regret it.

"Bob, immediately prepare all the materials for Eucalyptus No. 018-EDNY09-018 and fully cooperate with the prosecution's appeal request." Brooklyn returned to the inner court, commanding as he went

"If she fails to appeal to the Supreme Court, continue to cooperate with her, if she wants to appeal to the Senate to the president, even if she wants to appeal to God, we will cooperate with her." ………………………… In the evening, the latest developments in the explosion attack in the cafeteria of Baruch College made major media news.

With the exception of eye-catching programs, the highly professional and serious media is overwhelmingly on Brooklyn's side.

One thing that anyone with a little experience in court can understand is that it is not a question of whether the evidence should be admissible, nor is it a question of whether the evidence is legal, it is a question of the prosecution challenging the authority of the judge.

Judges have supreme authority in court! This is a power given to judges by the judiciary and is one of the foundations of federal justice.

In the courtroom, the judge is the one who has the most say. The judge's words are even greater than the truth! If it is found that there is a problem with the judge's trial, it may file an appeal after the conclusion of the trial, and its own circuit court or Supreme People's Court will accept it, and if it is found that the judge has made an unfair judgment, it may complain to the judge after the trial is completed, and its own judicial conduct committee will conduct a review, but the judge cannot be challenged in court.

It is precisely because judges are given the greatest say that they can boldly judge any case without regard to the identity and status of the person in the dock or the plaintiff's seat.

Once this point is shaken, once the judge's right to speak is challenged, will the judge still dare to try someone with higher status and power than himself in the court?

When given the highest right to speak, judges may be affected by the powerful position outside the court, and now even the highest right to speak has been withdrawn, and the factors outside the court have a greater impact on the courtroom!

In addition to some eye-catching programs, the regular media have analyzed this reasoning, expressing support for Brooklyn Judge and condemning Anne Aldington's behavior.

Even ABC, who has never been accustomed to Brooklyn, didn't say that Brooklyn wasn't at all. They think

"Brooklyn Lee's approach is fully in line with the requirements of the judge's profession, and in this matter, his approach is flawless." When it came to Anne Aldington's behavior, the ABC host was mercilessly accusatory

"Prosecutor Anne Aldington's conduct has a very bad effect, and she is abusing the prosecution's interlocutory right to appeal and pushing the foundation of federal justice. The role of the interlocutory right of appeal is not only to filter and screen the evidence, but also to challenge the authority of the judge. And Prosecutor Anne Aldington took less than three seconds to think about it, God! This looks more like a personal vendetta! A's program host said directly pessimistically

"Once the interlocutory appeal rules in favor of Anne Aldington, it will be the darkest moment for federal justice. From now on, there will be no justice and fairness in the federal judiciary, and no judge in the federation will dare to make fair and impartial decisions. And the culprit who opened Pandora's box with his own hands and caused all this is Anne Aldington! ”

"Remember this woman! When the darkest hour comes, she is the culprit! "The next day, Saturday.

Solidarity with Brooklyn and denunciation of Anne Aldington began to emerge on the Internet. New York, Gloinois, Kansas, Indiana, Texas, Montana...... State court judges, magistrates, and federal district court judges from all over the world have expressed their support for Brooklyn.

Detroit, Los Angeles, Washington, New York, ...... Prominent federal prosecutors or retired judges have condemned Anne Aldington.

More and more people in the judicial circles began to pay attention to this matter, and more and more people in the judicial circles expressed their views on this matter.

So public opinion began to develop in strange directions. Professionals and most expressed their support and sympathy for Brooklyn, while a small number of recalcitrant people expressed sympathy and support for Anne Aldington, and they strongly condemned those who supported Brooklyn and Brooklyn himself.

Their reasoning is simple: so many people bully a woman, which is both undignified and sexist.

Shouldn't Brooklyn, as a man, take a step back? Even if the foundation of federal justice fairness and justice is leveraged, is it not pitiful that Anne Aldington has been condemned by so many people?

What if she can't think of suicide? This voice is very weak, but it is very firm, and it thrives in the continuous fermentation of public opinion.

As a result, the influence of matters that were originally only concerned by the judicial community and a small number of people began to expand. Things started to get out of hand when a man who claimed to have met Anne Aldington posted a picture of Anne Aldington with a haggard face and swollen eyes.

The weak voice suddenly grew stronger, and the focus of the debate began to change from 'Anne Aldington should not abuse the prosecution's interlocutory right of appeal to question the authority of the judge' to 'male verbal violence against women'.

Brooklyn began to be widely condemned. More and more people poured into Brooklyn's social accounts to leave messages, asking him to publicly apologize to Anne Aldington, whether it was the parties Brooklyn and Anne Aldington, or a group of judicial figures were confused.

People can't understand why the essence of things can still change. Anne Aldington clarified on her social account.

She claimed that this was just an ordinary interlocutory appeal, an argument within the court over the different perceptions of evidence between the prosecution and the judge, regardless of gender.

She wrote

"Even if there is a new female judge, or if I am a male prosecutor, things will still happen, and they will not change." In the afternoon after her clarification was issued, another strange voice emerged, quickly replacing the voice that had been in support of Anne Aldington.

'Why only men and women!' This is discrimination against non-binary genders! At this point, Brooklyn felt as if it had nothing to do with him.

In just one afternoon, Anne Aldington was directly sprayed by this surging mysterious force to autism, she directly closed her social accounts, and accepted an ABC interview, yelling at the camera

"This is a formal, legal and compliant judicial act, don't give me a hat! I don't discriminate against anyone! Please also ask a certain group not to provoke a prosecutor! Especially female prosecutors! Her mood was obviously a little broken, her cold appearance could no longer be maintained, her big eyes were watery, but she still stubbornly held back her tears and refused to let them flow.

She yelled at the end of the camera

"People who have not studied law have no right to make any judgment about me! You don't have the right to say that about me! After that, he turned and left.