The daily life of American drama detective

Chapter 485 Detective Chuck, thank you for your honesty that ruined your undefeated myth!

"He's looking at you."

"I don't like that look."

Monica and the others accompanied Chuck to observe the trial of the case, and naturally saw the defendant's eyes.

"Don't worry about him."

Chuck said blankly.

"Are you really going to stop thinking about Phoebe's request?"

Rachel was not very interested in this kind of thing, and immediately couldn't help but look at Chuck with gossip.

"I am not Alexandre Dumas."

Chuck said straightforwardly.

"Ha ha!"

Two pairs of Chuck's long-term scientific research strategic partners flashed through Rachel's mind. She was a little noncommittal about this, but she was still very happy.

how to say.

Anyway, she got in the car first.

Of course, it is hoped that the car door will be welded shut as much as possible to prevent other people from squeezing in.

"Can't even Phoebe resign?"

Monica is a little more magnanimous than Rachel, anyway, she has accepted so much, even Rachel was pushed into the car by her from behind, there are really not many Phoebe.

Moreover, although Phoebe's confession last night was all about acting, it is undeniable that there must be feelings.

Of the three sisters, only Phoebe was excluded. If it was her, she would not be able to stand it and wanted to get in the car together.

So after a long chat last night at bestie night, she promised Phoebe to help.

Monica knew that Chuck was going to appear in court today, so she came here with Rachel. Before entering the court, they directly told Chuck about it.

But unexpectedly, and within reason, Chuck refused.

The reason is not that Phoebe's looks and figure are not enough for scientific research.

Think about it too.

Although Phoebe has a weird and weird personality, she is beautiful and has a good figure. She is the tallest of the three of them. She also likes to dress herself up, and her various hairstyles are very thoughtful.

The twin sister Ursula who looks the same as her is able to act in small movies and become famous, and is remembered by various LSPs, which shows that her basic score is very high.

The reason for being rejected was not the basic points. She also introduced some requirements of long-term strategic partners to Phoebe. Phoebe did not refuse, but said: "If you can do it, I can do it too."

The meaning in the words is that everyone is together, if you persevere to the end, I can do it too.

Whenever you want to dodge, she will do the same.

But even when she felt the same way, the reason Chuck gave for the rejection was precisely Phoebe's work and living habits.

This made her suddenly.

Phoebe works as a masseur, and she comes into contact with so many strangers every day, which is still very intimate.

Phoebe's living habits are also very bad. It's okay without her cleanliness. If she can meet the standards of an ordinary person like Rachel, as long as she helps, there will be no problem.

But Phoebe is so careless about hygiene that she even keeps rats in the apartment.

Peek into one spot and see the whole leopard.

How could Chuck, who suffers from severe cleanliness, agree to sign Phoebe as a long-term strategic research partner.

Not even a one-off.

"The country is easy to change, but the nature is hard to change."

Chuck shook his head in refusal.

It is easy to change Phoebe's job, but it is impossible to change the living habits and attitudes that are seriously contrary to Chuck.

"Ok."

Monica smiled wryly.

She knew it was impossible for Chuck to agree.

In fact, she was not very optimistic about Rachel at the beginning. Without the help of Ross, who pushed her behind, no matter how sweet Rachel looks, she would have no chance.

And Phoebe doesn't have Rose's bonus and help, Chuck can't lower the standard, and the gap is too big, even if Chuck is willing to lower the standard, Phoebe can't reach it.

After all, Chuck is not a prodigal son like Barney Stinson, and having the same face as a little movie star is not a huge plus.

She no longer knew how to face Phoebe and tell the bad news.

Just thinking about it gave her a headache.

For a long time to come, they will most likely face Phoebe's "poor". The intensity of this kind of citation will definitely exceed the frequency of Phoebe's citing tragic experiences such as her childhood mother's suicide.

While they were talking about Phoebe, Executive Assistant Attorney Ben Stone asked Chuck to testify as an expert witness.

Chuck got up and got on the witness stand.

According to the video analysis process provided by Chuck, the executive assistant prosecutor said it again in court in front of the judge and jury in the form of questioning.

Chuck's miraculousness naturally aroused everyone's attention again.

When Executive Assistant Prosecutor Ben Stone finished his interview, the defense attorney got up and walked to the witness stand, and asked, "Dr. Wolf, the first time you met my client you offered a plea deal, Put my client on first-degree manslaughter, don't you?"

"Correct."

Chuck said blankly on the witness stand.

"First-degree manslaughter, 4 years to 12 years, you said that you would let the executive assistant prosecutor recommend a minimum sentence of 4 years, and you also said that this is the best option."

The defense attorney looked around the jury: "Because this is New York, there's no way an acquittal is possible, right?"

"Correct."

Chuck didn't mean to deny it in the slightest.

"But at that time, you supported my client in fighting back and killing two habitual robbers with guns, didn't you?"

The defense lawyer continued to ask.

"Yes."

Chuck still nodded.

"You've also had impressive legal and illegal immigration, and jury eclectic insights."

The defense lawyer took a deep look at Chuck. It was strange that Chuck didn't hide anything and just admitted it so straightforwardly. There was an uproar in the court.

The faces of the judge and jury were not so good.

Because of this kind of truth, it is impossible for anyone to dare to say it.

The idea of ​​the jury to compromise is to avoid wrongful convictions at best, and to avoid responsibility at worst. It is the snowflake of "no snowflake is innocent in an avalanche" that leads to the increasing crime rate in New York.

People often hate some people sometimes because they see shortcomings in them that they don't want to admit.

And naturally I hate people who are too straightforward to expose their shortcomings in public!
"So before you supported my client as a hero, and wanted to help him, why did you change your mind? Is it because my client rejected your kindness, so you became angry?"

"be opposed to!"

Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Stone immediately stood up and objected: "Purely personal speculation!"

"The objection is valid."

The judge glanced at Chuck and signaled the defense attorney to watch his words.

"Ok."

The defense lawyer smiled, motioned himself not to ask this question again, took a few steps, adjusted his mood, and continued to ask: "Based on your expert opinion, what will the jury decide this time?"

When executive assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Stone wanted to object loudly again, he had already made amends with a smile: "I voluntarily withdraw this question."

Talking about spreading his hands, he returned to his seat.

It is said that he voluntarily withdraws the question, but as long as this kind of question is asked, the terrible influence has already been passed on.

Everyone, especially the jury, has received the information and can't help but think about a question: "Detective Chuck was sure that our jury would compromise and turn two murders into one innocent and one guilty, so how is he now?" Look at us? How should we judge?"

If there is no such public 'withdrawal' issue, as well as Chuck's judgment on this case revealed by the previous defense lawyers, whether it is the judge or themselves, they have probably already had an idea.

But now that this idea has been debunked in this way, wouldn't it be too embarrassing if they judged according to Chuck's initial prediction?
It's one thing for you to guess, it's another to say it ahead of time.

Therefore, one not guilty and one guilty, the best verdict that not only retains humanistic care but also demonstrates objectivity and independence, certainly cannot be said from their mouths.

Then there is only one result.

Either be acquitted of both counts of murder.

Either guilty of both counts of murder.

Both of these are too extreme, no matter which result, they, the jury members, will be swept up by the storm of public opinion afterwards, and they, who should not have endured these things, will be under tremendous psychological pressure.

Even the real pressure after the fact.

The so-called jury does not need to bear any real influence such as public opinion and justice, as long as it obeys its own heart and makes its own judgment, it is an idealized result.

The most important thing in the United States is that the confidential information that should have been top secret was leaked just right.

This is also an ancestral handicraft.

Once the jury's supposedly confidential discussion results in a closed environment and the final choices made by each person are leaked, they will be under very serious realistic pressure.

Isn't this terrible!

And he shouldn't have to bear all this. The New Yorker, who can give judgment easily and shape objective and independent thinking, has to bear it because of Chuck.

This makes them angry and anxious.

After no one asked, Chuck, who left the witness stand, could easily read their thoughts from their micro expressions.

There was no wavering in his heart.

The jury should have corrected and supervised the purely legal but morally ambiguous lawyers to make a verdict of guilt or innocence from the perspective of ordinary people.

Instead of making them muddy.

The impartial and objective jury in the movie Twelve Angry Men is just like the image of America in countless Hollywood blockbusters, all beautified like an American dream.

But the reality is nothing like the American dream.

There is no lack of fairness and objectivity, but more depends on whether the defense lawyer or the prosecutor is the most handsome, sweeter and better-sounding, and which one to believe.

If you can find an excuse not to participate, you can find an excuse to avoid it, if you can make a compromise, you can make a compromise, and if you can get along with each other, then make it.

There will still be some political standpoints.

If the jury really convicts from the perspective of ordinary Americans as its functions and responsibilities do, why do so many criminals who should have been sentenced get killed several times in and out of prison, so many rich criminals and so many criminals? Why the obvious acquittal?

The public opinion outside is boiling, why does the jury that should represent the majority of ordinary people out there always come up with results that completely disappoint the majority of ordinary people?
Yes!
The judge can overrule the jury's results.

But that's an extremely rare shameless situation.

In the vast majority of cases, it is not because they are unwilling to take responsibility or bear troublesome muddles that the results of the cases are completely slapping most ordinary people in the face.

In this case, Chuck doesn't care if they feel uncomfortable or not.

It's time for closing arguments.

"Every law-abiding citizen has the right to legitimately protect himself when others are about to harm him, this is the right given to us by the law.

The law also says that deadly force cannot be used when citizens are completely safe.

Attention.

Not theoretically safe, not possibly safe, but totally safe!
My client's safety was lost the moment they walked in, just look at the pasts of the two repeat robbers and the loaded pistols.

Obedience or resistance?

For my client, there is no choice.

Look at those cases in Los Angeles and San Francisco!
My client did not give in to these thugs.

He resisted, which was his will and his legal right. "

Defense attorneys watched the jury deliver their closing arguments.

The executive assistant prosecutor then gave his own speech, again reminding the defendant that the chase outside his jewelry store was murder, and asked the jury to think about what happened if he was killed by mistake or killed by mistake in this kind of chase. The scene where he was thought to be an enemy and was killed.

The jury went in to deliberate.

"Dr. Wolf, I really didn't expect you to be so frank."

Everyone waited outside waiting for the jury to come out with the result. The defense lawyer walked over with the defendant, sarcastically speaking in disbelief and suppressed ecstasy.

This case has really been a rollercoaster ride for him.

He thought he could win.

Then Chuck was brought in to intervene in the case, and he thought it would be no big deal if he lost.

But taking advantage of Chuck's daring to publicly admit those incorrect words that offended the jury and offended many people, this honesty made him feel that victory is in sight again.

And before he knew it, he suddenly remembered that if he really succeeded this time, then in a sense, he would be the first lawyer to defeat Detective Chuck!

The benefits brought by this title are not weaker than the sponsorship and connections brought by the Rifle Association.

The owner of the defendant's jewelry store on the side had more complicated eyes.

There is both the joy of insisting on believing that I have suffered enough, the disappointment that Chuck did not insist on his side, and the admiration that Chuck can openly admit those things that were not true for him.

Looking at the calm Chuck, he couldn't help having a bad thought, but he couldn't think of anything wrong for a while.

It wasn't until the news that the jury came out that everyone re-entered the court and heard the jury representative announce the result that he was shaken all over and figured out what the problem was.

Since Chuck is so straightforward, there is no need for him to lie to him. The suggestions given to him before may really be the best solution for him.

But now it's too late.

"How did the jury decide on the first indictment in this case, the second-degree murder of Siri Booker?"

"guilty!"

"How did the jury decide on the second indictment in this case, the murder of Kale Booker in the second degree?"

"guilty!"

"No!"

After hearing the result, the owner of the jewelry store, who realized what the problem was, stood there in a daze, only hearing his wife's desperate cry.

(End of this chapter)