American TV series Detective's Daily Life

"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 look in the defendant's eyes.

"Don't worry about him."

Chuck said expressionlessly.

"Are you really going to give Phoebe's request a second thought?"

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

"I'm not Alexandre Dumas."

Chuck said bluntly.

"hehe!"

Rachel thought of Chuck's long-term scientific research strategic partners, which she could hardly count with two hands. She was a little hesitant about this, but she was still very happy.

how to say.

Anyway, she got in the car first.

Of course, we hope to seal the car door as tightly as possible to prevent others from squeezing in.

"Phoebe can't even resign?"

Monica is a little more generous than Rachel. Anyway, she has accepted so much. Even Rachel was pushed into the car from behind by her. Daofei is really not much better than one.

And even though Phoebe's confessional scene last night was all about acting, it's undeniable that there was definitely emotion involved.

Of the three sisters, Phoebe was the only one left out. If it had been her, she wouldn't have been able to bear it and wanted to get in the car together.

So after chatting all night long last night at best friend's 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 told Chuck directly about this matter.

But unexpectedly and within reason, Chuck refused.

The reason is not that Phoebe's looks and figure don't have enough scientific research points.

Think about it too.

Although Phoebe has an eccentric character, she is beautiful and has a good figure. She is the tallest among the three of them. She also likes to dress herself up and has various hairstyles.

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

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

The meaning behind the words is that if we all work together, if you stick to the end, I can do it too.

Whenever you want to dodge, she will dodge too.

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

This made her realize.

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

Phoebe's living habits are also very bad. It would be fine if she didn't have mysophobia. If she can meet the standards of ordinary people like Rachel, as long as she helps, there will be no problem.

But Phoebe was so unhygienic that she even kept rats in the apartment.

Take a peek and see the whole leopard.

How could Chuck, a severe mysophobia patient, agree to sign Phoebe as a long-term strategic research partner?

Not even one-time ones.

"It's easy to change a country, but it's hard to change one's nature."

Chuck shook his head in denial.

It's easy to change Phoebe's job, but it's impossible to change her living habits and attitude that are seriously inconsistent with Chuck's.

"All right."

Monica smiled bitterly.

She knew there was no way Chuck would agree.

In fact, she wasn't very optimistic about Rachel at first. Without Ross's added help and push from behind, Rachel would have no chance no matter how sweet she looked.

And Phoebe doesn't have Ross's bonus and assistance. It's impossible for Chuck to 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 libertine like Barney Stinson, and having the same face as a minor movie star is not a huge bonus.

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

The thought of this gave her a headache.

For a long time in the future, they will most likely have to face Phoebe's "pity". The intensity of this reference will definitely exceed the frequency of Phoebe citing tragic experiences such as her mother's suicide in childhood.

Just as they were telling stories about Phoebe, Executive Assistant Prosecutor Ben Stone asked Chuck to testify in court as an expert witness.

Chuck got up and took the witness stand.

The executive assistant prosecutor followed the video analysis process provided by Chuck and repeated it in front of the judge and jury in court in the form of questioning.

Chuck's magic naturally attracted everyone's attention again.

When Executive Assistant Prosecutor Ben Stone finished questioning, the defense attorney stood up and walked to the witness stand and asked: "Dr. Wolfe, you proposed a plea bargain when you first met my client. Let my client be charged with first-degree manslaughter, right?"

"right."

Chuck said expressionlessly on the witness stand.

"First-degree manslaughter, four to 12 years. You said you would ask the executive assistant prosecutor to recommend a minimum sentencing of four years, and you also said that this was the best option."

The defense lawyer looked around the jury: "Because this is New York, it's impossible to acquit, right?"

"right."

Chuck had no intention of denying it.

"But you supported my client's counterattack and killed two armed robbers, right?"

the defense attorney continued to ask.

"That's right."

Chuck still nodded.

"You also have impressive insights into legal immigration and illegal immigration, and the eclectic thinking of juries."

The defense lawyer took a deep look at Chuck. It was strange that Chuck didn't hide it at all and admitted it so straightforwardly. However, this did not prevent him from pursuing the victory because after he repeated what Chuck said at that time, it was no surprise that There was an uproar in the courtroom.

Both the judge and the jury looked unhappy.

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

The compromising thoughts of the jury are, at best, to avoid an unjust, false and wrongful conviction, and at worst, to avoid responsibility. They are the snowflakes of "no snowflake in the avalanche is innocent" that has led to the increasing crime rate in New York.

People often hate certain people because they see shortcomings in these people that they are unwilling to admit.

And naturally I hate people who are too honest and unwilling to admit 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 and you became angry?"

"be opposed to!"

Executive Assistant Prosecutor Ben Stone immediately stood up and objected: "Purely personal speculation!"

"The objection is valid."

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

"All right."

The defense lawyer smiled and signaled that he would not ask this question again. He took a few steps to adjust his emotions and continued to ask: "Based on your expert opinion, how will the jury decide this time?"

When Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Stone wanted to object again, he laughed and said, "I'm withdrawing the question."

He spread his hands and returned to his seat.

It is said that the question is being withdrawn voluntarily, but as soon as this kind of question is asked, the fatal influence has already been transmitted.

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 the two murder charges into one innocent and one guilty, so how does he do it now?" It’s up to us? How should we judge?”

Without this public 'withdrawal' issue and the defense lawyer's previous exposure of Chuck's judgment on this case, both the judge and themselves would have already had an idea.

But now that this idea has been exposed in this way, wouldn't it be a slap in the face if they went with the outcome that Chuck predicted at the beginning?

It's one thing to guess it, but it's another thing to tell it in advance.

Therefore, the best judgment result that retains humanistic care and demonstrates objectivity and independence, which is one not guilty and one guilty, must not be said by them.

Then there is only one result.

Or acquitted of both counts of murder.

Or guilty on both counts of murder.

Both of these are too extreme. No matter which outcome, they, the jury members, will be swept away by the public opinion afterwards, causing them to bear huge psychological pressure, who should not have to bear this.

Even the real pressure afterwards.

The so-called jury does not have to bear any real influence from public opinion and justice. It only needs to follow its own heart and make its own verdict. That is an ideal result.

The most indispensable thing in the United States is that confidential information that should be top secret is leaked at just the right time.

This is also an ancestral craft.

Once the results of the jury's discussions in a closed environment and the final choices made by each person are leaked, they will be under very serious pressure from reality.

Isn’t this too terrible!

And New Yorkers who should not have to endure all this, who can easily give judgments and shape objective and independent thinking, have to endure this because of Chuck.

This makes them angry and anxious.

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

He had no fluctuation in his heart.

The jury is supposed to correct and supervise legal persons who are purely legal but morally ambiguous from the perspective of ordinary people and make a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

Instead of making them muddy.

The fair and objective jury in the movie 12 Angry Men is just like the image of America in countless Hollywood blockbusters, beautifying it to look like the American dream.

But the reality is nothing like the American dream.

It's not that there is no fairness and objectivity, but more of it depends on which one of the defense lawyer or prosecutor is the most handsome, sweet-tongued and nice to talk, whichever one will be believed.

If you can find an excuse not to participate, then you can find an excuse to avoid it. If you can make a compromise, then make a compromise. If you can make peace, then make peace with it.

The political stance will still be there.

If the jury really convicts from the perspective of ordinary Americans, as is its function and responsibility, then why can so many criminals who should be sentenced be killed in and out of prison, and how can so many wealthy criminals commit such crimes? Why was he acquitted obviously?

Public opinion outside is abuzz. Why does the jury that is supposed to represent the majority of ordinary people outside always come up with results that completely disappoint most ordinary people?

yes!

The judge can overturn the jury's verdict.

But that's an extremely rare shameless situation.

In the vast majority of cases, it is not because of the unwillingness to take responsibility or the troublesome parties that the result is a slap in the face of most ordinary people.

In this case, Chuck didn't care whether they felt uncomfortable or not.

The closing arguments have arrived.

“Every law-abiding citizen has the right to protect himself properly when others are about to harm him or her. 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 theoretical safety, not possible safety, but complete safety!

My client's safety was lost the moment they walked in. Just look at the past of the two habitual robbers and their loaded pistols.

Submission or resistance?

My client had no choice.

Look at those cases in Los Angeles and San Francisco!

My client did not give in to these thugs.

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

The defense attorney watched as the jury made his closing speech.

The Executive Assistant Prosecutor then gave his own speech, again with the same words, reminding the defendant once again that the pursuit outside his jewelry store was murder, and asked the jury to think about if they were accidentally killed or accidentally killed in such a pursuit. A scene where someone is killed thinking he is an enemy.

The jury went in to deliberate.

"Dr. Wolfe, I really didn't expect you to be so candid."

Everyone was waiting outside for the jury to come out with the results. The defense lawyer came over with the defendant, sarcastically saying with some disbelief and suppressed ecstasy.

This case has really been a roller coaster ride for him.

Originally he thought he could win.

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

However, using Chuck's courage to publicly admit those incorrect words that offended the jury and offended many people, this honesty gave him a renewed sense of victory.

And unknowingly, 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 no weaker than the sponsorship and connections brought by the Rifle Association.

The defendant’s jewelry store owner on the side had a much more complicated look in his eyes.

There is both joy in insisting on believing that he has been through all the hardships, disappointment in Chuck for not insisting on being on his side, and admiration for Chuck's ability to openly admit that things he said were incorrect.

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

It wasn't until the news of the jury's appearance came out, everyone re-entered the court, and when he heard the jury representative announcing the result, he was shocked and figured out what the problem was.

Since Chuck is so upright, there is absolutely no need for him to lie to him. The suggestions he gave him before are probably really the best solutions for him.

But now it's too late.

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

"guilty!"

"What is the jury's verdict on the second indictment in this case, second-degree murder of Cabbage Booker?"

"guilty!"

"No!"

After hearing the results, the jewelry store owner realized what the problem was and stood there in shock, with only his wife's desperate cries heard in his ears.