Peter Adams was determined to do a good job and impress Brooklyn. Checking for spelling and sentence errors is a job that even an experienced clerk like Nelly, let alone Peter Adams, would be negligent.

This job requires patience, concentration, and no distractions. Unfortunately, none of these three are available to anyone of Peter Adams' age.

So when Brooklyn came down from the courtroom and asked about his progress, Peter Adams swore that it was almost done.

When the second trial in Brooklyn was over and he returned to the inner court, Peter had already completed the checking. Brooklyn glanced at a confident Peter Adams and asked Jerry to scan and upload the file.

Enter the electronic version into the program. Three seconds later, eleven errors were singled out by the program. Peter Adams watched from the sidelines, his face flushing suddenly.

"What is the defendant's name?" Brooklyn didn't go to see Peter, archived the revised dossier, and asked casually.

"Huh?"

"What is the name of the defendant in this dossier that you only read in the morning?" Brooklyn repeated.

"Jack... Jackson... This... Sfield? Peter Adams stumbled as he asked.

"Jackson J. Sfield." Brooklyn said with a straight face.

"What was the first question asked by the prosecutor's lawyer when he cross-examined the victim's witnesses?" Brooklyn continued.

Peter Adams was already red to the base of his neck. He avoided Brooklyn's gaze and stared at a pot of greenery on Nelly's desk, unable to answer for a long time.

"He asked how many people he had been in x relationships with before he had x relationships with Jackson J. Sfield." Brooklyn replied.

Jackson J. Sfield was a land commissioner. Faced with the prosecution's lawsuit, Jackson J. Sfield argued that he did not know and that they had posted it on their own initiative.

His lawyer exonerated Jackson by saying that he had sex with someone else before he had a relationship.

The case was taken over halfway by Brooklyn, and Brooklyn remembers it well. Even though this bad excuse is a common excuse, Brooklyn still remembers it well.

"How did the prosecutor refute it?" Brooklyn asked again. This time Peter Adams didn't think about it for long

"The prosecutor's argument that the victim's relationship with another person has nothing to do with the present case, that the victim in this case is a minor, and that Jackson had a relationship with the victim is a fact, and that this is not changed by the previous victim's conduct." Brooklyn raised an eyebrow.

The prosecutor's rebuttal goes something like this.

"After the defendant's lawyer raised an objection, why did I rule that the objection was invalid and agreed that the victim's relationship with another person had nothing to do with the object?" Peter Adams thought for a moment

"This is Jackson J. Sfield and the victim, not anyone else who had a relationship with the victim."

"Do other people who have had relationships with the victim need to be punished after they testify in court?" Brooklyn asked, putting down the file, straightening up.

Peter Adams shook his head.

"Why?"

"Immunity of witnesses?" Peter Adams hesitated, he said uncertainly

"Prosecutors ask others to testify in court, and they can apply for witness immunity to exonerate themselves from their crimes." Brooklyn was somewhat pleased.

It is not surprising to know that witness immunity exists, but as a student at Harvard Law School, it is strange not to know that witness immunity exists.

It's one thing to know, it's another to remember. In practice, people tend to forget the existence of witness immunity and refuse to testify in court for fear that they will confess their criminal acts and be punished.

Or some people will forget the existence of witness immunity, be tricked by the prosecutor, and when they testify in court, they will also confess.

Witness immunity, unlike criminal immunity, is not a non-waivable right. The immunity of witnesses is fundamentally different from criminal immunity, it belongs to the content of the transaction between the prisoner and the prosecution, and its essence is that the prisoner appears in court to testify and help the prosecution prove the facts of the crime related to him, and as a transaction, the prosecutor waives the right to prosecute the criminal facts of the witness.

Peter Adams was able to answer this question, which shows that his basic knowledge is very solid.

"Why did it that the other person who had a relationship with the victim had nothing to do with the victim was previously ruled to be a witness, and then accepted the prosecution's request to have a relationship with the victim?" Brooklyn continued.

At the trial, Brooklyn ruled that the victim's relationship with another person had nothing to do with him, arguing that the trial should focus on the relationship between the defendant and the victim, rather than the relationship between the other person and the victim.

But when the prosecution later called for other people who had been in a relationship with the victim to serve as witnesses, Brooklyn approved the petition.

It's a very winding question. At first glance it sounds unremarkable. Is there anything wrong with the fact that the judge submits an application for a witness through the prosecution, which in itself is the power of the judge?

Is there anything to ask? But when you think about it, Brooklyn's decision sounds a bit contradictory.

The rhythm of the trial needs to be controlled by the judge, and many rich people act as defendants, and the rich will bring in a large number of invalid, useless, and irrelevant witnesses and exhibits, dragging the trial rhythm to pieces, extending the trial time indefinitely, and dragging down the plaintiff alive.

If the judge does not impose a restriction on this, the trial will become a mere contest of money. Everyone is staying up to see who can't survive first.

As a result, the judge will often reject the party's application for witness evidence that is not related to the present case. In this case, Brooklyn has previously ruled that 'other people have a relationship with the victim' as an unrelated matter, and later allowed the prosecution to bring 'other people' to testify in court, which is inconsistent.

Peter Adams thought for a moment, but couldn't find an answer. When he first heard the question, he thought it was ridiculous and almost blurted out, 'This is the power of the judge'.

After thinking about it carefully, he thought of the question Brooklyn had raised earlier, and he slowly came back to his senses.

Why did Brooklyn make an inconsistent decision? Peter Adams was at a loss. He couldn't figure it out.

"What is the prosecution against?" Brooklyn prompted.

"Jackson's lawyer argued that the victim had been in a relationship with someone else before he had a relationship with Jackson." Peter Adams replied subconsciously.

"So, what is he against?" Brooklyn asked again. Peter Adams was at a loss.

What is against? Didn't he answer? What else can be opposed? Isn't that embarrassing me?

Are you looking at the previous questions that can't help but make it difficult for me, and you're starting to make things difficult? Peter Adams thought so, subconsciously recalling Brooklyn's question.

Suddenly, Peter Adams reacted

"What is objected to is that the victim has a relationship with someone else."

"The fact of the eucalyptus is the fact that Jackson was in a relationship with the victim. And the fact that the victim had a relationship with someone else has nothing to do with it! ”

"But the fact that the other person who had a relationship with the victim established a connection with the victim through the fact that he had a relationship does not fall into the category of irrelevance! Not within the scope of the prosecution's objection! ”

"The purpose of the prosecution's request for 'others' to testify in court is to prove that even if the victim claims to be an adult, during the relationship, he can know that the victim is a minor based on common sense such as physical development!" Peter Adams became more and more excited, looking at Brooklyn expectantly.

Brooklyn nodded. If a parent gives birth to a child and the child is charged with a criminal act, it is not possible for the prosecution to extend the responsibility to the parents on the grounds that 'the parents gave birth to the defendant', but it can prove the criminal act by having the parents appear in court.

The fact that the parents gave birth to a child is not related to the child's participation in the crime, but the parents can prove that the crime occurred and the parents are related to the crime.

He found Peter Adams to be a very sharp man. While these are things that any lawyer can figure out, Brooklyn is already impressed that Peter Adams can figure it out, given the current situation of Harvard students.

Perhaps the lower the expectations, the greater the surprises? Peter Adams was thrilled to pass his first exam in Brooklyn.

The excitement lasted until lunch, when he returned to his inner court office, where he came to his senses when Brooklyn threw him another dossier.

Peter Adams longed to go to court, but his ego kept him from speaking. Therefore, he could only accept the file awkwardly, sit on the sofa, and look at the backs of Brooklyn and others with envy.

…………………… In the afternoon, after a trial of bribery cases involving F.D.F.D. officials, Brooklyn received a call from Pol.

David was wounded. In order to chase an illegal gunman, he fell down the fire staircase outside the old apartment building, which nearly killed him.

David is currently in the hospital for a bandaging with a broken radius, a sprained elbow, a slight bone crack in the forearm, and a cracked rib.

Pol called to inform Brooklyn that David had been in a brief coma while buried under the fire staircase, and that his emergency contact was Brooklyn Ray.

Ball felt the need to let Brooklyn know what was going on with David. In addition to this, Pol also wanted Brooklyn to persuade David.

The conversation he had with David in the changing room at noon not only did not alleviate David's condition, but only exacerbated the degree of his death.

Talking about the scene, Pol can't help but recall the scene at that time. Said with some trepidation

"Judge Brooklyn, you need to talk to David. Oh, my God! I was stupefied! I thought he was going to be finished! ”

"He survived this time, what about next time?"

"Our job is already dangerous, and he can't continue to take such risks."

"Okay, I'll talk to him." Brooklyn said. She could tell Pol's rustiness in the title.

In the past, he often went to the NYPD to deliver food, and the members of the Eucalyptus team were very familiar with him, and never shouted 'Judge Brooklyn'.

Bol used to follow David and call him 'Blue' directly for a while.

"Okay." Pol nodded

"If it doesn't work, I'll have to report to Director Frank and ask David for a psychological evaluation."

"I don't want to do it, but it's for his safety." In today's weird atmosphere of the NYPD, Pol is almost betraying David and showing his loyalty to Frank.

This was a naked betrayal for others, especially the members of the Eucalyptus group. When the police treat traitors, they never know what their subordinates are merciful.

They have 10,000 ways to exclude, suppress, and frame traitors, making them miserable. After hanging up the phone and thinking about it, Brooklyn sent a text message to David, inviting him to come to the house for a gathering in the evening.

The three brothers hadn't been together for a long, long time. David was quick to text back. Confirming David's agreement, Brooklyn put down his phone, and Ray called out.

"David is injured." Brooklyn said. Ray immediately became nervous

"Seriously? Where is he now? Brooklyn shook his head and gave a brief account of the situation, focusing on what Bol had asked him to persuade David.

At the Old Gun Bar that day, he thought that David was talking angry words, and with their relationship, those words would soon pass.

From that day to now, David hasn't said a word to him. Having just listened to Pol's statement, Brooklyn suddenly realized that he had made a serious mistake.

"You've gone a step too far." Ray commented, glanced back at the party who was about to enter, and shook his head at Brooklyn

"We'll talk about it later." ……………… After work in the afternoon, I drove Brooklyn and drove Ray home, stopping by to buy ingredients.

"The number of dead and wounded in the riots in New York is almost as high as 911." Ray said. Brooklyn subconsciously shook his head

"911 killed and wounded 3,000 people."

"But it was a KB attack by KB elements, and that KB attack shocked the world." Ray continued

"The aftermath of that KB attack is still being felt today."

"But there were no KB attacks last weekend. You have planned everything. ”

"You should be glad that last weekend's unrest did not cause 3,000 casualties. Just in time for a KB attack. Brooklyn was tempted to retort that it wasn't.

He wanted to refute that the turmoil was not planned by himself, and had nothing to do with him. But he couldn't say it.

It was true that he had not planned the upheaval, but he acquiesced, and he watched and reached out to grab the fruit. Ray and David were not wrong to blame him for the turmoil.

Because he took advantage of the turmoil and reaped the benefits.

"Blue, from the beginning of the shooting, you have become particularly impatient." Ray is still talking

"Your style of doing things is becoming more and more aggressive, and more and more unscrupulous."

"I almost don't even recognize you." Brooklyn shook his head, not defending himself.

"You need to take it easy, Blue, you're pushing yourself too hard."