chuantiaoyu

应不少会员要求，Boston Legal结案陈词汇总由灵儿来整理，不过由于集数较多，结案陈词又通常很长，不是短时间内就能整理好的，不过灵儿还是会抽空不断更新，希望能对相关人士提供某些帮助~~~
除了结案陈词，灵儿会对这个案子的剧情作一下简单陈述，希望可以和大家重温BL最为出彩的地方

此帖严禁灌水，如对某些案例有自己的看法，请另发讨论帖欢迎讨论。

严禁灌水，也请不要回复“LZ辛苦了”之类的话，谢谢广大BL的爱好者

Season1
第1集 ——种族问题                      2楼
第3集 ——性骚扰                         3楼
第4集 ——受伤的嫌犯                   4楼
第5集 ——医德                            5楼
第8集 ——同性恋圣诞老人             6楼
第10集                                      7楼
第11集——苏丹问题                       8楼
第12集——科学与神学                    9楼
第13集——女拉拉/药物风波              10楼
第14集——疯牛病                         11楼
第15集——酷刑/逃婚                      12楼
第16集——自我冷冻/广播风波           13楼
第17集——德州法院                      14楼
第1季第2，6，7和第9集无结案陈词

Season2
第1-2集 ——黑寡妇                      15楼
第4集 ——为民除害/枪支案件                      16楼
第5集 ——汽车自燃                              17楼
第6集 ——万圣节女巫/伊拉克大兵                      18楼
第7集 ——小丑                      19楼
第8集 ——目击证人                      20楼
第10集——牧师的手指/信用卡欺诈                      21楼
第12集——家教                      22楼
第13集——个人信息安全                      23楼
第14集——被劫持的民主                      24楼
第15集——天主教医院                      25楼
第16集——协助自杀                      26楼
第17集——戒烟，否则你被解雇               27楼
第19集——拒绝纳税                      28楼
第21集——重婚/沉迷游戏                      29楼
第23集——种族歧视                      30楼
第24集——起诉Alan Shore/食品安全                      31楼
第25集——第一大国                      32楼
第27集——明星安全                      33楼

第2季第3，9，11，18，20，22和第26集无结案陈词

Season3
第1集——器官交易                      34楼
第4集——食人                      35楼
第5集——宗教信仰自由                      36楼


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2009-1-6 20:24 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
Head Cases
Season 1，Episode 1

101.jpg (27.51 KB)

2008-12-27 02:04

在这一集中，黑人女孩参加全美巡演的面试，而且非常地演唱了歌曲“Tomorrow”，但被拒绝，因为她是黑人，和漫画中要求的肤色不符…下面是本集中客串牧师的演员Al Sharpton以一个黑人的立场在法庭发表观点…

Denny Crane: Pull a rabbit out of your hat.
Denny Crane: 从帽子里变出只兔子来（寓意另辟蹊径，出其不意，无中生有）

原文：
Reverend Al Sharpton: Could I be heard, your Honor? I heard about this matter. I would like to address this court on what I consider . . .
Judge Rita Sharpley: I’m sorry, Reverend, but you have no standing here.
Reverend Al Sharpton: I have standing as an American citizen speaking up on a civil rights violation.
Judge Rita Sharpley: Reverend Sharpton, I will ask you to step down . . .
Reverend Al Sharpton: I have standing as Bobby Kennedy had standing, . . .
Judge Rita Sharpley: You have no standing in this meeting.
Reverend Al Sharpton: . . . on the steps of the courthouse in Alabama!
Judge Rita Sharpley: No one is denying this little girl an education, sir. She just can’t play Annie.
Reverend Al Sharpton: You may think this is a small matter. But this is no small matter. This child is being denied the right to play an American icon because she doesn’t match the description. Those descriptions were crafted 50 years ago! We’re supposed to be in a different day!
Judge Rita Sharpley: Reverend . . .
Reverend Al Sharpton: You talk about racial equality, how we’re making progress. The problem with that progress is it’s always a day away. Tomorrow, tomorrow—you love that!—because it’s always a day away. I’m here to stick out my chin today! Today! Give us an African-American Spider Man! Give us a black that can run faster than a speeding bullet and leap over tall buildings in a single bound! Not tomorrow—today! Today! The sun needs to come out today! Not tomorrow, your Honor! God Almighty! Give the American people a black Orphan Annie. It’s just not good enough to say she doesn’t look the part.
Reverend Al Sharpton: That’s what you call a rabbit, son. Denny Crane.

译文：
神父Al Sharpton: 请允许我发言，法官阁下，听说此事，我十分乐意在此表达我的观点…
法官Rita Sharpley: 很抱歉，神父，您没有立场…
神父Al Sharpton: 我以一个美国公民的身份在此评论公民权利的侵犯
法官Rita Sharpley: Sharpton神父，请你退下
神父Al Sharpton: 我站在此地，正如Bobby kennedy（肯尼迪家族成员，全家都主张人权）站在Alabama州法院的台阶上
法官Rita Sharpley: 先生，没人在否认她的受教育权，她只是不能扮演Annie.
神父Al Sharpton: 也许您认为这是小事，但它不是，这个孩子被拒绝了成为美国偶像的权利，那些作品已经过去了50年，今日的世界应有所不同
法官Rita Sharpley: 神父. . .
神父Al Sharpton: 您说种族平等取得了怎样的进展，但这种进展总是在说未来如何，“明天，明天，你们喜欢它” 因为它总是在今天之后，我要在今天疾呼，就在此时此刻，给予我们黑皮肤的蜘蛛侠吧，给我们一个比子弹还要快穿梭在高楼顶端的黑人英雄吧，不是明天，而是今天，今天，太阳要在今天升起，不是明天，法官阁下，全能的主啊，请赐予美国一个黑皮肤的孤儿Annie吧，说她不像角色，这个理由是站不住脚的。
神父Al Sharpton: 这才是那只兔子，孩子，Denny Crane.



Al Sharpton
美国公众人物，牧师。美国政治，公民权利和社会正义的积极分子，曾在2004年被提名为民主党候选人去竞选美国总统。比较著名的是他自己主持的电台演讲和维护黑人的权利。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:04 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
Catch and Release
Season 1, Episode 3

103.jpg (32.6 KB)

2008-12-27 02:06

证券公司的女副总裁被迫辞去工作，原因在于总裁对有夫之妇的她不断进行性暗示，并对其名誉造成了影响，女总裁决定进行起诉。Alan Shore为原告辩护，Alan的前妻为被告辩护。两人结案陈词同样精彩，最终原告获赔12.5万美元。

原文：
Alan Shore: Some people simply cannot let go. You love a person so desperately. You perhaps begin to lose sight of reason. And you begin to act unreasonably, perhaps out of control, even. It’s possible Daniel Ralston had no control over his behavior. Maybe he truly couldn’t stop pursuing Wendy Moore. Maybe he had to keep calling. Had to schedule those lunches. Had to seemingly stalk her, if you will. He was in love with her. People in love lose their grip. But what’s at issue here is her state of mind. Her mental state. Not Mr. Ralston’s state of mind. But Wendy’s. Was she reasonably upset by this relentless pursuit? She’s a married woman with a family, trying to salvage her marriage and her boss keeps calling. Keeps coming. Keeps coming. Keeps propositioning her. The fact that she once loved this man only makes it worse. More difficult. What choice did she really have but to leave? Maybe that was his plan all the time. He knew he couldn’t fire her. Maybe that was his psychological game. Where the only thing she could really do in the end was get in her car, and drive off. He created a hostile working environment with repeated, unwelcomed sexual advances, ladies and gentlemen. That is prima facie classic sexual harassment.
Christine Pauley: Love happens in the workplace all the time. In fact, it’s where most affairs start. Most relationships. It happens. So do breakups. As a woman, I am offended by the onslaught of these lawsuits. As neutral as the language may be, sexual harassment law is gender biased. It exists to protect woman. It feeds into the perception that women are weaker than. It goes all the way back to common law where women were denied the right to enter into contracts because we lacked mental capacity. Today’s harassment law is designed to protect us from sexual banter in the workplace because we just can’t take it. I can take it. Can you? Can you? Do we really need to cleanse the workplace of all sexual expression so that it’ll be safe for us? These laws treat us as if we were either psychologically or emotionally impaired. And I’m sick of it. Are some cases legitimate? Absolutely. But here, this woman is a grown up. She entered into an adult consensual relationship with her boss. It ended. Perhaps bumpy. He’s hurt. He’s still in love. So she sues. She wasn’t fired. She is a college-educated vice president of a brokerage firm. She’s 34 years old. She’s a professional. She’s here today to tell you that she can’t stick up for herself. She is here today trying to take advantage of a law that declares women to be the weaker sex. Not for me, ladies and gentlemen. I wouldn’t have gotten in my car and driven off. I’d have sooner driven over him. Let’s treat these people—both of them— as if they were grown-ups.

译文：
Alan Shore:有些人会看不开，当你深爱一个人，你可能就会失去理性，变得荒唐，甚至失控。Daniel Ralston就可能控制不住自己的行为，或许他真的情不自禁想追求Wendy Moore，或许他必须不断的打电话安排那些午餐，如果可能还想跟踪她，因为他深爱着她。人陷入爱河就会疯狂，但问题在于她，她的精神状态，不是Mr. Ralston的，而是Wendy的。她活该被这种无理的追求骚扰?她只是个在尝试挽回婚姻的女人，而她的上司三番五次的骚扰，不放过她，她的确曾经爱过这个男人，却只让情况更糟，除了离开她还有什么选择?可能从头到底都是他的计划，他知道他没权解雇她，于是他玩起了心理游戏，她要结束纠缠的唯一选择就是--上车，然后走人。他这种无休止令人厌恶的性示好，制造出了敌意工作环境，这就是最典型的，证据确凿的性骚扰。
Christine Pauley:工作场所总有着爱情，可以说是大多数婚外情的发源地，这很正常，分手也是。作为女性，我厌恶这样的诉讼，中立的说，现今的性骚扰法例带有性别偏见，它的存在是为了保护女性，给人的感觉就是女性是弱者。所有这些可以追溯到早期英国法，女性由于心智上的缺陷而不得参与契约的制定。性骚扰法例是为了保护我们在工作场所不受骚扰，因为觉得我们不能忍受，可我能忍受。你能吗?你呢?我们真的需要一个无性的工作环境?那我们就安全了?这些法例认定我们在心理和感情上都是脆弱的，我很厌恶这样。有些案子的确伸张了正义，肯定有，但这个案子，这位女士是成年人，她和上司有了一段你情我愿的关系，最后不欢而散，他受到了伤害，却仍爱着她，她却因此而告他。她没有被解雇，她受过高等教育，是公司副总裁，她三十四岁，是专业人士。她今天来告诉你们她不能保护自己，她是在利用法律的偏见，宣称女性是两性关系的弱势。我可不是，各位，我不会开车走人，我会开车撞死他。请把这些人--他们双方，真正当作成年人来看待。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:06 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
Change of Course
Season 1, Episode 4

104.jpg (19.27 KB)

2008-12-27 02:06

Crane Poole & Schmidt律师事务所意外接到一宗刑事案件，鉴于高级合伙人Edwin Poole的精神状态，决定由毫无刑事案件经验的Lori Colson来合伙辩护。被告由于惊慌而开枪射杀了警察，警方没找到枪，没有目击证人。在抓捕行动中将被告射伤，并以死期快到为由骗取其杀人的供词。。。

交叉询问：
原文：
Dr. Karp: They told me that he was religious. That maybe if he thought he was about to die his conscience would get the better of him.
ADA William Preston: So you told Mr. Litch he was dying?
Dr. Karp: Yeah. I’m not proud of it. But I probably should’ve—
ADA William Preston: And doctor, did you also hear Mr. Litch confess to killing Officer Devereaux?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
ADA William Preston: You’re sure?
Dr. Karp: I’m very positive.
ADA William Preston: Thank you, doctor.
Edwin Poole: In fact you told him he had less than an hour to live?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
Edwin Poole: You lied to your own patient?
Dr. Karp: They told me that he had murdered a police officer, and –
Edwin Poole: As a result of this despicable conduct, were you disciplined by the hospital?
Dr. Karp: My privileges were suspended for three months.
Edwin Poole: And you’re back in the E.R. now?
Dr. Karp: No. No. I’ve started my residence in the neurology department.
Edwin Poole: Your specialty is the brain?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
Edwin Poole: Doctor, as a neurologist, how does trauma and extensive blood loss affect the brain?
Dr. Karp: Uh, sometimes it can compromise mental functioning.
Edwin Poole: Can it cause a person to become delusional?
Dr. Karp: I don’t believe he was delusional that night?
Edwin Poole: Did he suffer trauma and extensive blood loss?
Dr. Karp: Yes. Yes, he did, but –
Edwin Poole: Can you state to a medical certainty that he was not delusional?
Dr. Karp: No.
Edwin Poole: One last question, and this one I ask you as a layperson, a human being. Is it conceivable to you that if you had a loved one who had panicked and committed a horrible crime, say murder, somebody you cared deeply for—perhaps a brother, a best friend, maybe your son had done this horrible thing—and you lay in a hospital bed dying, is it conceivable that knowing you were dying, you might take the blame for something you didn’t do just to spare your loved one a life sentence?
ADA William Preston: Objection!
Edwin Poole: Sustained! Did it ever occur to you that night, doctor, Warren Litch said he committed the crime simply to protect somebody else?
Dr. Karp: No. No, it didn’t.
Edwin Poole: I bet it never occurred to the police, either. Nothing further.
译文：
医生 Karp: 他们告诉我他是信教的，当他意识到自己快死的时候也许…他的良心会让他作出正确选择
检察官 William Preston: 所以你告诉Litch先生他快死了
医生 Karp: 是的，我并不以此为荣，但是我也许应该…
检察官William Preston: 医生 你听到Litch先生承认…是他杀了Deveraux警官吗？
医生 Karp: 是的
检察官 William Preston: 你确定？
医生 Karp: 非常肯定
检察官 William Preston: 谢谢你,医生
Edwin Poole: 他骗你你还能活多久…事实上，你告诉他活不过一个小时
医生 Karp: 是的
Edwin Poole: 你对你自己的病人撒谎？
医生 Karp: 他们告诉我他谋杀了一位警官…
Edwin Poole: 作为这种卑鄙行为的后果，你受到医院的处罚了吗？
医生 Karp: 我的执照被暂停了3个月
Edwin Poole: 而你现在已经回到急诊室了
医生 Karp: 不，不，我只是开始在神经科做住院医生
Edwin Poole: 你的专长是脑科？
医生 Karp: 是的
Edwin Poole: 医生，作为一名神经科专家，外伤和大量失血会对大脑产生什么影响？
医生 Karp: 呃，有时会损害精神官能
Edwin Poole: 会让人产生错觉吗？
医生 Karp: 我不认为那天晚上他是产生错觉
Edwin Poole: 他的确是受了外伤还有大量失血吗？
医生 Karp: 是的，是的，他的确如此，但是我…
Edwin Poole: 你能作出确切的医学诊断来证明他没有产生错觉吗？
医生 Karp: 不能
Edwin Poole: 最后一个问题，请你作为一个医学外行一个普通人来考虑，是否有可能，你所爱的惊慌失措犯下了一桩可怕的罪案，比如谋杀，而他是你所深爱的人，你的兄弟，你最好的朋友，也许你的儿子，做了这么可怕的事情，而你躺在医院的病床上，奄奄一息。是否有可能，你知道自己将不久于人世，会认下自己从没做过的事情，就只为了帮你所爱的人免去一生的牢狱之灾？
检察官 William Preston: 反对！
Edwin Poole: 反对有效，医生，那天晚上是否听到Warren Litch说他认罪只是为了保护其他人？
医生 Karp: 不，没有这回事
Edwin Poole: 我打赌警察也不会注意。我问完了。

结案陈词：
原文：
ADA William Preston: You heard from witness Frank Simmons who saw an S.U.V. speed by him a mile from the scene around the time of the murder. With a license plate beginning with 3-L-6. Mr. Litch’s S.U.V. has a license plate beginning with 3-L-6. And when the police entered the defendant’s apartment, what did he do? He didn’t ask “What’s this about?” He didn’t say, “Hey, what’s going on?” He knew exactly why they were there, and he immediately began his escape. And then in the hospital, he confessed. It wasn’t a delusional confession. He described a fact pattern that was completely consistent with the crime. The defendant admitted that he was afraid of yet another drug conviction that would land him a life sentence. He panicked, pulled out a gun, and fired. Now, his lawyers suggest he was, perhaps, delusional when he confessed or that he simply lied to protect the real killer. A friend or a loved one. Desperate suggestions for a desperate client. It’s insulting to this court, to you, and especially to that woman and her two children. Warren Litch murdered her husband. Warren Litch killed their father. He admitted to the police that he did so. Let’s not waste any more time.
Lori Colson: I don’t know about you, but if I hear that someone confessed to a crime, then I just assume he’s guilty. But if I hear the confession is coerced, then---. For example, you could have a man bleeding out with a stomach wound, put him in a room with police and clergy who keep insisting to him that he did something and he might actually come to believe it. And gee, what if it was a friend or a loved one who was driving Warren’s car that night? That would explain why Warren was trying to flee, wouldn’t it? He likely knew the police were coming to mistakenly arrest him. Did the police investigate any of this? My God, we all assume Warren Litch is guilty. But what if he isn’t? Now, let’s turn to the other evidence. Wait. There is no other evidence. No gun, no witnesses, no fibers, no forensics. All they have is that coerced confession. Now, you might think he did it. And if you’re determined, you can even still assume it, I suppose. But if you’re to uphold the law and demand proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and if we don’t demand that, do we really want to send a message to the police? “Hey, forget the evidence. Just bring us that confession.”
译文：
检察官 William Preston: 你们已经听过Frank Simmons的证词了，大约就在凶案发生时，他在离案发现场一英里处，看见一辆SUV飞快地驶离…车牌是以“3L6”开头的，Litch先生的SUV牌照也是以“3L6”开头，而当警察闯入被告的公寓时，他是什么反应？他没有问“这是怎么回事？”没有问“嘿，你们要干吗？”他很清楚为什么警察会出现，然后他决定马上逃跑。接下来，在医院里，他认罪了，不是因为错觉才招供，他详细描述了他所犯下的罪行，被告承认了他当时是因为害怕…再次被定贩毒罪，从而被判终生监禁，他慌了，掏出枪，开火。而现在他的辩护律师说，也许他在供认时，产生了错觉，或者他只是想保护一个朋友，一个爱人而撒谎顶罪，绝望之人的垂死狡辩，这侮辱了法庭，还有你们，尤其是侮辱了那位女士和她的2个孩子。Warren Litch谋杀了她的丈夫，Warren Litch杀害了他们的父亲，他已经向警察供认了罪行，没必要再浪费时间了。
Lori Colson: 我不知道你们怎么看，但是如果我听说某人承认犯罪了，我会认为他是真的有罪，但是如果我知道他是被迫的，那么比如说…一个腹部伤口流血不止的人，被一屋子的警察和牧师，坚持指认他做了某件事，也许他就会信以为真，如果他的好友或亲人，刚好那天晚上开了Warren的车，那就能解释为什么Warren会想要逃了，不是吗？他能预感地到警察会错误地逮捕他，警察调查过这些吗？上帝，我们全都认为Warren litch有罪，但是如果他没有呢？现在我们再来看看其他证据，等等…没有其他证据，没有枪，没有目击证人，没有纤维，没有法医鉴定，有的只是一份被迫做出的供词。你们可能认为是他做的，甚至认为这是理所当然的，但是如果你相信法律，要求用证据以排除所有合理疑点，当我们放弃这种要求时，我们真的希望对警察说…“嘿，去它的证据，只要口供就好”


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:06 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
An Eye For An Eye
Season 1, Episode 5

105.jpg (25.89 KB)

2008-12-27 02:12

某人假想自己得了某些疾病，向医生寻求帮助，医生治疗了他半年，不过并没有实质性的效果，因为他不过是普通的头痛并且患有典型的抑郁症，病人决定起诉医生…最终医生被判决赔偿32万美元…

交叉询问：
原文：
Attorney Braxton Mason: Dr. Rayburn, over these six months that Mr. Morgan was in your care, how many visits did he make to your practice?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: Thirty-eight.
Attorney Braxton Mason: Is that a lot?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: Four times as many as any other patient. We joked he was the office mascot. You name the condition, Mr. Morgan was convinced he had it. Cold, flu, bronchitis, uh, shingles, adult-onset diabetes.
Attorney Braxton Mason: Mr. Morgan contends your neglect drove him to this state.
Dr. Steven Rayburn: The truth is I bent over backwards to accommodate him. He always needed to be seen immediately. And busy as my practice is, I always made the time.
Alan Shore: Oh. So, these 38 visits - on the house?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: I’m sorry?
Alan Shore: They were free visits?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: No.
Alan Shore: Oh. So you charged him. That makes sense. So, with all his complaining, his incapacitation, that pinched look on his face, there’s nothing wrong with him?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: Nothing clinically, no. It’s in his head.
Alan Shore: Traditional home for the migraine, is it not?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: It’s psychosomatic. He’s a classic hypochondriac.
Alan Shore: I see. Well, there’s a diagnosis. Tell me, what treatment did you prescribe for my client’s classic hypochondria?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: I’m a general practictioner, not a psychiatrist.
Alan Shore: So you referred him out to whom?
Dr. Steven Rayburn: No one in particular. I did tell him he needed help. I believe I even gave him a list of practitioners.
Alan Shore: Ah. So he kept coming to you. You kept taking his money. You did not treat him. And you referred him to … no one in particular.
Dr. Steven Rayburn: I’m a G.P. I told him to seek mental treatment. I advised it. I can’t force it.
Alan Shore: Once again, he kept coming, you kept taking the money, and you referred him to … no one in particular.

译文：
律师 Braxton Mason: Rayburn医生，Mr. Morgan 由你来负责超过6个月了，他来过你这多少次?
医生 Steven Rayburn: 38次
律师 Braxton Mason: 算多吗?
医生 Steven Rayburn: 比其他病人多出四倍，我们玩笑说他是办公室的吉祥物，你说的出病状，他就坚信自己得了那些病，伤风，感冒，支气管炎，带状疱疹，成人发作性糖尿病…
律师 Braxton Mason: Mr. Morgan 认为你的疏忽导致了他今天的状况
医生 Steven Rayburn: 实际上，我已经尽量的容忍他了，他总要求立刻见我，无论我有多忙，我总是挤出时间
Alan Shore: 所以这38次 都算在诊所头上？
医生 Steven Rayburn: 什么?
Alan Shore: 它们都是免费的？
医生 Steven Rayburn: 不是
Alan Shore: 哦~! 所以你是收了钱的，这就合理了。所以当他抱怨浑身无力，痛苦的脸皱成一团，其实一点毛病没有
医生 Steven Rayburn: 临床上没有，而问题出在他脑袋里了
Alan Shore: 只是普通的偏头痛，对吗?
医生 Steven Rayburn: 是心身失调，他是个典型的抑郁症患者
Alan Shore: 我明白了，所以，还是有个诊断的，那么告诉我，你开出了什么处方来医治我委托人的典型的抑郁症？
医生 Steven Rayburn: 我是全科医生，不是精神病学医师
Alan Shore: 所以你建议他出去找…谁?
医生 Steven Rayburn: 没有特定的谁，我告诉了他，他需要帮助，我甚至给了他一个从业者的名单
Alan Shore: 所以当他仍然来看病，你只是继续收钱，却不治疗，而且还建议他去看…一个不确定的医生
医生 Steven Rayburn: 我是全科医生，我告诉他，要进行精神治疗，我只是建议，我不能强迫他
Alan Shore: 所以我们再总结一次，他不停的来，你不停的收钱，然后建议他去看一个…不确定的医生


结案陈词：
原文：
Attorney Braxton Mason: It’s bad enough that patients are running to the courts suing their doctors for all their ills. Now we have one suing for his imagined ills. This case represents the height in frivolous litigation. What’s next? Seeking damages for a bad dream? I hope not.
Alan Shore: “Frivolous.” Is that what he said? “Frivolous”? Astonishing. This man, who suffers, day in and day out, from migraines so excruciating he cannot work, can’t endure 10 minutes at his computer - a trained software engineer. And here he is subjecting himself to depositions, to examinations, the laborious, mindnumbing blather of attorneys. All for what? Frivolity? For six months Bill Morgan reached out to his doctor, week after week, each time invoiced for thousands and thousands of dollars in sum. And then each time dismissed, patted on the head and sent on his way. Had Mr. Morgan actually received the right medical care, or even been directed to a doctor who could specifically give him that care, psychiatric or otherwise, his current state would most likely have been alleviated. But the defendant couldn’t be bothered to care. As Dr. Rayburn told you himself, he treated Bill Morgan like a mascot. Opposing counsel regards him as a nuisance. He’s a human being. He’s a human being. We teach our children that everyone is entitled to respect and dignity. How pathetic it is when adults can’t abide such a basic lesson in humanity. How unconscionable.

译文：
律师 Braxton Mason: 糟糕的是，病人们跑到法庭来，因为自己生病而状告医生，更何况这次是幻想中的病。这是场毫无意义的诉讼，接下来会是什么?因为恶梦追讨损失?希望不会。
Alan Shore:“毫无意义” 他是这么说的吗?“毫无意义”？令人震惊！这个男人，日夜受着折磨剧烈的偏头痛，让他无法工作，身为一个软件工程师，在电脑前甚至无法坚持10分钟，他遭受辞退，接受检查，忍受律师们让人脑子发麻的唠叨，这些都为了什么? “毫无意义”?六个月来 Bill Morgan每周都向医生求助，每次都被收费超过千元，却每次都被打发，只是拍拍头送他走，Mr. Morgan得到过实质性的医治吗?或者被指导去找一个能给他正确医治的医生？精神科或其他的，可以减轻他的疼痛，但被告甚至不愿麻烦自己这么做。正如Dr. Rayburn自己说的，他把Bill Morgan当成个吉祥物，辩方把他当成个讨厌的麻烦。他是个人，他是个人啊！我们教导孩子们，人生来就应有尊严，被尊重，可悲的是，成年人们却无法遵循人性这最基本的一点，多么荒谬。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:12 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
Loose Lips
Season 1, Episode 8

108.jpg (35.9 KB)

2008-12-27 02:38

圣诞节来临，扮演了8年圣诞老人的Gil Furnald因为被发现是同性恋和易装癖而被公司开除，于是他找到Crane Poole & Schmidt事务所为其辩护。此案的结案陈词依然会有客串第一集的牧师Al Sharpton的精彩表演…

交叉询问：
原文：
Gil Furnald: I’ve been sitting in that chair as Santa for eight years, and I’ve been an exemplary Santa. People will tell you, even if they don’t shop at Gordon’s, they come to see me.
Alan Shore: For how many of those eight years have you been dressing as a woman?
Gil Furnald: All of them.
Alan Shore: And in all this time, had your cross-dressing ever been an issue at work?
Gil Furnald: No. I was always in the Santa costume. People never even knew. It was always my intention to keep my worlds separate. So, it’s been my secret.
Alan Shore: But your secret got out.
Gil Furnald: Last week, I had a boy in my lap—eight years old. I asked him what he wanted for Christmas. He said, “Santa, please make me normal.” He was starting to cry as he said it.
Alan Shore: He said, “Make me normal”?
Gil Furnald: Yes. He said, um—He said he was sick. He said that he liked to wear girls’ clothes, and he was sure he’d go to hell. And I said, “Son, you’re not alone, and you’re not sick.” And I told him about me.
Alan Shore: Thank you, sir.
Atty. Phillips: So, while on the job, you told an eight-year-old boy that Santa is a cross-dresser?
Gil Furnald: Yes.
译文：
Gil Furnald: 我坐在那儿扮圣诞老人八年了，而且我扮的圣诞老人堪称典范，会有人告诉你，即使他们不在Gordon购物，他们也会专程过来看我
Alan Shore: 这八年中你穿女人衣服有多久了?
Gil Furnald: 所有这八年
Alan Shore: 那么在这八年里，你的异装癖有没有影响到工作?
Gil Furnald: 没有，我一直都穿着圣诞老人的衣服，人们不会知道，我小心的让这两个世界没有交集，所以，这一直都是我的秘密
Alan Shore: 但你的秘密泄露了
Gil Furnald: 上周我让一个小男孩坐在膝盖上，8岁，我问他圣诞节想要什么礼物，他说 “圣诞老人，请把我变正常” 他开始边哭边说
Alan Shore: 他说 “让我变正常”
Gil Furnald: 是的，他说，嗯，他说他病了，他说他喜欢穿女孩的衣服，还坚信自己会下地狱，然后我就说，“孩子，你不是唯一的”“而且你也没病”，然后我说了自己的秘密
Alan Shore: 谢谢你，先生
Atty. Phillips: 这么说，你在工作的时候，告诉一个8岁大的孩子圣诞老人是个异装癖?
Gil Furnald: 是的

结案陈词：
原文：
Judge Harry Hingham: Mr. Phillips, have you got anything to say before I listen to him?
Atty. Phillips: Mr. Furnald was fired mainly because my clients feared he’d share his secret proclivity with a child, which, by his own testimony, is exactly what he did.
Alan Shore: I object to that summation; it was entirely too short.
Judge Harry Hingham: What?
Alan Shore: I’m only worried for you, your Honor. If you’re inclined to rule against us, he’s got to at least give you a good argument to hang your hat on, so it looks good to all this media. Did you notice the media here?
Judge Harry Hingham: Are you on drugs? You’ve got 30 seconds.
Alan Shore: That’s what I was afraid of. Your Honor, the child in question, whom my client shared his secret with—that child was in pain. Being a good Santa Claus, Gil Furnald sought to relieve that pain.
Judge Harry Hingham: By telling him he was a ho-mo-sexual.
Alan Shore: Those three little words again. He did not tell the boy he was gay. He only said that he also liked to dress in female attire. And that, only after the child himself broached the subject.
Alan Shore: He encouraged the boy not to feel that he was sick. He urged him not to feel alone. It was a onetime occurrence strictly intended to speak to the heart of this one child. There is no evidence that this man has committed any wrongdoing, nor is there any compelling evidence that cross-dressers are inherently lascivious, and the defendant knows that. Cross-dressing is but a pretext that the defendant has hung its hat on to disguise the fact that Gil Furnald was terminated because he is gay. Last time I checked, it was not a firing offense for a civilian to be either ho, mo or sexual.
Judge Harry Hingham: All right, already. I’ve heard enough. I’m going to rule on this.
Alan Shore: You can’t rule yet.
Judge Harry Hingham: Why not?
Alan Shore: I don’t know. Well . . . What if, say, some big celebrity were to come charging through the door?
Reverend Al Sharpton: Sorry, I’m late, Judge. I’ll make this quick..
Judge Harry Hingham: Who the hell are you?
Reverend Al Sharpton: The image of Santa Claus has been crafted for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, but we’re supposed to be in a different day. Give the world a black Santa Claus. Let the people have an African-American come down the chimney bearing joy and good will.
Alan Shore: Gay, not black.
Reverend Al Sharpton: The prejudice against gay people must stop. We all say we’re for gay rights. We all say we accept homosexuality. But give a gay man a hug, sit in his lap . . .
Judge Harry Hingham: Who is this man?
Reverend Al Sharpton: Let the bells of tolerance ring out this Christmas.Let people open their minds as they open their presents underneath the tree. We need your mind, judge, today. Let the gay man be my brother, be your brother, be the schoolteacher, be the construction worker! Give the world a gay Santa Claus! God Almighty . God Almighty, God Almighty. Leave out the cookies and the milk this Christmas Eve for a holly, jolly homosexual! God Almighty!
译文：
法官 Harry Hingham: Mr.Phillips 在他开始前，你还有什么要说的?
Atty. Phillips: Mr.Furnald被解雇，主要因为我委托人担心他与孩子分享自己的癖好，而且根据他自己的证词，他也确实这么做了
Alan Shore: 我反对这样的结案陈词，实在太短了
法官 Harry Hingham: 什么?
Alan Shore: 这是为您考虑，法官阁下，如果您准备宣判我们败诉，他起码该替你提供个好说词，让你有话可说，媒体看来才会合情合理，注意到媒体在场了吗?
法官 Harry Hingham: 你嗑药了? 给你30秒
Alan Shore: 我怕的就是这个,法官阁下，关于那个孩子，我委托人与之分享秘密的那个那孩子活在痛苦之中，作为一个圣诞老人，Gil Furnald觉得有责任解除这种痛苦
法官 Harry Hingham: 就通过告诉他自己也是个同性恋吗?
Alan Shore: 又提到这三个字了, 他没有告诉男孩他是个同性恋,他只是说自己也喜欢穿女人的衣服,他还鼓励那孩子不要认为自己有病,告诉他不要觉得孤单,这是仅有的机会可以深入到这个孩子的内心世界,没有证据能表明这个男人做错了什么,也没有任何确凿的证据能证明异装癖者就天生淫荡, 辩方也很清楚这一点,异装癖只是个被辩方紧咬不放的一个借口,来掩饰Gil Furnald因为同性恋被解雇的的事情, 我查过以往的记录,从来没有一个解雇纠纷是因为“同”“ 性”或“恋”的…
法官 Harry Hingham: 好了，可以了，我已经听够了，我要宣判了
Alan Shore: 你还不能宣判
法官 Harry Hingham: 为什么不能?
Alan Shore: 我不知道，呃，要是说，有位大名人会走进来呢?
牧师 Al Sharpton: 抱歉我来晚了，法官，我会说得很快
法官 Harry Hingham: 你又是谁?
牧师 Al Sharpton: 圣诞老人的形象已经树立了几百个年头，我们已经在一个不同的时代了，给世界一个黑人圣诞老人，让一个非裔美国人从烟囱里下来带给人们欢乐和祝愿
Alan Shore: 同性恋，不是黑人
牧师 Al Sharpton: 对同性恋的偏见应该马上停止，我们都说自己维护同性恋的权力，我们都说我们接受同性恋，那么就给同性恋者一个拥抱，坐到他的膝盖上去…
法官 Harry Hingham: 这个人是谁?
牧师 Al Sharpton: 让宽容之钟在这个圣诞节中敲响，让人们放开自己的胸怀就像在圣诞树下打开礼物，我们需要你的胸怀，法官，就在今天，让同性恋者成为我的兄弟，成为你的手足，成为学校的老师，成为建筑工人，给世界一个同性恋的圣诞老人，全能的主啊，全能的主啊，全能的主啊，在这个平安夜里，把饼干和牛奶，留给一个圣洁的欢乐的同性恋吧，全能的主啊！

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:38 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Boston Legal
Hired Guns
Season 1, Episode 10

110.jpg (35.19 KB)

2008-12-27 02:39

开案陈词：
原文：
ADA John Shubert: She came home that evening at 9:30, catching an early flight to surprise her husband. But it was the defendant who was surprised. Susan May discovered her husband Ralph making love to a business associate, Marie Holcomb—and it was more than she could bear. The evidence will show that the defendant retrieved a handgun from the kitchen, returned to the bedroom and fired six shots—three into her husband, three into Marie Holcomb. This is the holiday season. You people should be home with your families right now. I apologize for that. Marie Holcomb’s mother and father fly here every December from the West Coast. This time, it’s to attend the trial of their daughter’s killer. Susan May destroyed a lot of happy plans with that gun.
Lori Colson: I, too, would like to apologize for taking you away from your families during this holiday season. That’s Susan’s family seated over there. They would dearly love to be home with her. She would dearly love to be home with them. Imagine, if you can as you prepare for your Christmas, having a loved one murdered. Add to that the horror that the police can’t figure out who did it. And then, if you can possibly fathom, imagine they decide to arrest you. That’s your defendant, ladies and gentlemen. A  law-abiding, loving, faithful advertising executive—an innocent woman whose whole life was just suddenly and wrongly destroyed. That’s your defendant, and that’s what the evidence will show.
译文：
检察官John Shubert: 那天晚上她9点半回到家，搭早班飞机来给她丈夫一个惊喜，但是得到“惊喜”却是被告本人，Susan May发现她的丈夫Ralph正和一个生意伙伴Marie Holcomb做爱。她一瞬间崩溃了，证据表明，被告从厨房里拿了一把手枪，回到卧室连开六枪，三枪击中她丈夫，三枪击中Marie Holcom。现在是节日时间，你们应该陪在家人身边，对此我深感抱歉，Marie Holcomb的父母每年12月从西海岸飞过来，这次，他们只能参加杀女凶手的审判，因为那把枪 Susan May破坏了太多。
Lori Colson: 我，也想道歉，在节日里让你们远离家人。Susan一家坐在那里，他们本该在家里相亲相爱地陪着她，她也本该在家里相亲相爱地陪着他们。如果可以，请想象一下，当你在准备圣诞节时，一个你深爱的人被谋杀了，加上因警察无法找出凶手的恐惧，紧接着，如果你能猜到，再想象，他们决定来逮捕你。那就是被告的处境，女士们先生们，一位守法 温柔 诚实的广告部经理，一位生活突遭横祸，被错误指控的无辜女士，那就是你们的被告，这也是证据将会表明的。

交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：
Detective Wayne Farley: Her story didn’t check out. It’s as simple as that.
ADA John Shubert: That story she gave you was?
Detective Wayne Farley: She came home, found them dead in bed.
ADA John Shubert: Was there evidence of anyone other than the victims or the defendant being in the house that night?
Detective Wayne Farley: None.
ADA John Shubert: And, Detective, describe for the jury if you can, the defendant’s demeanor when you arrived at the scene that night.
Detective Wayne Farley: She seemed pretty shook up. There was blood all over her. She claimed she got the blood on her when she went to her husband’s side to see if she could revive him.
ADA John Shubert: And you don’t believe that?
Lori Colson: I’m sorry. It seems the detective is more than willing to give testimony against my client. You don’t really need to lead him.
Judge Phillips Stevens: Sustained.
ADA John Shubert: Did you believe the defendant’s claim?
Detective Wayne Farley: No. It was determined that she was standing approximately 5 feet away when she fired the gun.
Lori Colson: I’m sorry. I hate to be a nuisance. But did I miss the point where you said she fired the gun?
Judge Phillip Stevens: Sustained.
ADA John Shubert: Detective, what, if anything led you to believe that the defendant fired the gun?
Detective Wayne Farley: We did a trace metal test, which revealed she held the gun and her fingerprints were on the gun.
ADA John Shubert: Hm. Anything else?
Detective Wayne Farley: We know her driver dropped her off at 9:30 pm. She called the police at 11:07. She told us she discovered the bodies soon after she entered the house. If so, why did she wait an hour and a half to call the police? As I said, her story just didn’t add up.
Brad Chase: Seems from your tone, Detective, you consider this, ah, kind of a no-brainer.
Detective Wayne Farley: We applied all our mental faculties just the same and concluded your client committed the crime.
Brad Chase: Oh, you concluded pretty quickly, I might add. You placed her under arrest the next day. By the way, was the spatter analysis done in a day?
Detective Wayne Farley: No. That came in later.
Brad Chase: I see. So when you placed Susan May under arrest, you were going on . . .
Detective Wayne Farley: Her fingerprints were on the gun, for starters.
Brad Chase: It was her gun, was it not?
Detective Wayne Farley: The fingerprints were fresh.
Brad Chase: Got there, perhaps, when she picked the gun up after?
Detective Wayne Farley: We also had motive, her evasive demeanor.
Brad Chase: She called the police, did she not?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes, but she wasn’t truthful.
Brad Chase: Wasn’t truthful when she said she didn’t shoot them?
Detective Wayne Farley: That，and she obviously wasn’t truthful about calling the police immediately after finding the bodies.
Brad Chase: You had her examined by a psychiatrist that night?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes.
Brad Chase: The psychiatrist said she was in shock?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes.
Brad Chase: Possible the shock of discovering her murdered husband caused the delay in calling the police?
Detective Wayne Farley: I doubt that’s what happened.
Brad Chase: This doubt is based on your psychiatric training.
Detective Wayne Farley: It’s based on 30 years of experience as a homicide detective.
Brad Chase: Thirty years as a homicide detective told you that the delay in calling the police could not have been caused by shock? Let’s turn back to the blood spatter evidence. This is the blouse my client was wearing that evening, is it not?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes.
Brad Chase: Lot of blood. That’s all spattering?
Detective Wayne Farley: Most of that blood came from handling the bodies.
Brad Chase: So where’s the spatter you spoke of, Detective?
Detective Wayne Farley: There are two elongated markings on the left shoulder.
Brad Chase: Right here? These tiny marks here?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes.
Brad Chase: She supposedly fired six shots. There’s only two tiny marks?
Detective Wayne Farley: The other marks are likely covered up with the blood from when she handled the bodies.
Brad Chase: Did you analyze these marks yourself, Detective?
Detective Wayne Farley: I did.
Brad Chase: Are you the person in the Boston Police Department who does this?
Detective Wayne Farley: Well, there are others, obviously, but I started in the lab, so I’m trained as well.
Brad Chase: Was there anyone else in the lab who analyzed this shirt?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes. We have a junior member . . .
Brad Chase: Junior member? It’s a high-profile case. It went to a junior member?
Detective Wayne Farley: As I said, I analyzed the clothes with my 30 years . . .
Brad Chase: Thirty years in the lab?
Detective Wayne Farley: No.
Brad Chase: How many years in the lab?
Detective Wayne Farley: Five.
Brad Chase: How ‘bout the junior member? How many years did he have?
Detective Wayne Farley: I’m not sure
Brad Chase: More than five?
Detective Wayne Farley: I believe so.
Brad Chase: Just out of curiosity, what was his finding?
Detective Wayne Farley: Inconclusive.
Brad Chase: He could not determine that my client fired a gun?
Detective Wayne Farley: Nor could he rule it out.
Brad Chase: He could not determine that my client fired a gun.
Detective Wayne Farley: Correct. But I determined she did.
Brad Chase: You trace-metalled my client. Did you test for powder residue on her hand?
Detective Wayne Farley: Yes. She tested negative.
Brad Chase: Gee, how could that be?
Detective Wayne Farley: We determined that she likely wore gloves when she fired the gun.
Brad Chase: So she was careful to wear gloves when she shot them, then afterwards, she took the gloves off and handled the gun?
Detective Wayne Farley: If she went into shock, as you say, she probably made a mistake. Murderers often do.
Brad Chase: So for the purpose of explaining the delay in calling the police, you don’t buy shock. but to explain why she picked up the murder weapon barehanded after firing with gloves, you do buy shock; in fact, you seem to be selling it.
ADA John Shubert: Objection.
Brad Chase: Withdrawn. Did you find the gloves?
Detective Wayne Farley: No.
Brad Chase: You searched the entire house? I’m asking. I don’t want to presume.
Detective Wayne Farley: We searched the house. We did not find the gloves.
Brad Chase: Any evidence of her leaving the house after she came home that night?
Detective Wayne Farley: No.
Brad Chase: Any unsolved burglaries in this neighborhood in the last year?
Detective Wayne Farley: A couple.
译文：
警探 Wayne Farley: 她的说法不合理，就这么简单
检察官 John Shubert: 她告诉你的说法是…
警探Wayne Farley: 她回到家，发现他们死在床上
检察官 John Shubert: 有任何证据表明那晚除了被害人和被告，还有其他人在那房子里吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 没有
检察官 John Shubert: 探员先生，可以的话请向陪审团详细描述，那晚当你抵达现场时被告的举动
警探Wayne Farley: 她看上去很震惊，全身都是血，她说是在她到丈夫身边，查看他是否还有救时沾上的
检察官 John Shubert: 而你并不相信这一点
Lori Colson: 抱歉，看起来探员先生已经不只是给我当事人做不利证言了，你不需要再误导他
法官 Phillips Stevens: 反对有效
检察官 John Shubert: 你相信被告的说法吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 不，证据显示当她开枪的时候，大约站在5英尺之外
Lori Colson: 很抱歉，我不想讨人厌，但我是不是漏听了你宣称被告开了枪？
法官Phillip Stevens: 反对有效
检察官 John Shubert: 探员先生，有什么东西，让你相信是被告开的枪吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 我们做过金属痕迹追踪显示她曾拿过枪，而且枪上也有她的指纹
检察官 John Shubert: 还有别的吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 我们知道司机大约在晚上9点30分让她下了车，11点07分她报了警，告诉我们说她发现了尸体，就在她刚进门不久，如果真是这样，为什么她要等上一个半小时才报警，就像我说的，她的故事根本说不通
Brad Chase: 照你所说，探员先生，这故事很没有头脑
警探Wayne Farley: 我们绞尽脑汁，结论还是一样，结论就是，你的当事人就是凶手
Brad Chase: 你们的结论也下得太快了点，第二天就将她拘捕，顺便一问，血液飞溅测试也是同一天进行的？
警探Wayne Farley: 不，那是之后了
Brad Chase: 了解，那么当你逮捕Susan May的时候，依据是…
警探Wayne Farley: 最开始是因为枪上有她的指纹
Brad Chase: 枪是她的，不是吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 枪上的指纹很新
Brad Chase: 也许是她之后拿枪时留下的？
警探Wayne Farley: 我们知道她的动机，还有她掩盖事实的举动
Brad Chase: 她报了警，不是吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 是的，但是她撒谎了
Brad Chase: 撒谎说她没有开枪？
警探Wayne Farley: 还有一发现尸体马上报警，这点她也明显没有说实话
Brad Chase: 你那晚让她接受精神科医生的检查了？
警探Wayne Farley: 是的
Brad Chase: 精神科医生说她受了惊吓？
警探Wayne Farley: 是的
Brad Chase: 有否可能，发现丈夫尸体的惊吓，使她没能及时报警？
警探Wayne Farley: 我表示怀疑
Brad Chase: 这种怀疑是基于你精神科的受训课程？
警探Wayne Farley: 是基于30年凶杀案探员的经验
Brad Chase: 30年凶杀案探员的经验告诉你，没及时报警不可能是惊吓造成的。那么我们回到血液飞溅实验证据，这是案发时我当事人所穿的衬衫吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 是的
Brad Chase: 好多血，全是溅开的？
警探Wayne Farley: 大部分是因为接触尸体
Brad Chase: 那么你说的“飞溅”在哪呢，探员先生？
警探Wayne Farley: 左肩有两处变长的血迹
Brad Chase: 这里，这些微小的血迹
警探Wayne Farley: 是的
Brad Chase: 连开六枪 只有2处小小的血迹？
警探Wayne Farley: 其它的痕迹也许是在她抱住丈夫时，被粘到的血迹覆盖了
Brad Chase: 是你自己做的痕迹分析吗，探员先生？
警探 Wayne Farley: 是我
Brad Chase: Boston警局负责这些的是你吗？
警探 Wayne Farley: 当然还有其他人，不过我是实验室出身，我也受训过
Brad Chase: 还有其他实验室人员检测过这件衬衫吗？
警探 Wayne Farley: 是的，还有一个初级检验员…
Brad Chase: 一个新手？这可是重案，让一个新手来操作？
警探 Wayne Farley: 正如我说 从我30年凶杀案探员的经验来检测…
Brad Chase: 30年的实验室经验？
警探Wayne Farley: 不
Brad Chase: 那在实验室的经验有多少年？
警探Wayne Farley: 五年
Brad Chase: 那个新手呢？他又有几年经验？
警探Wayne Farley: 我不确定
Brad Chase: 多于五年？
警探Wayne Farley: 我想是的
Brad Chase: 只是出于好奇 他发现了什么？
警探Wayne Farley: 没什么结论
Brad Chase: 他不能证实我当事人开枪？
警探Wayne Farley: 他也不能排除这个可能
Brad Chase: 他不能证实我的当事人开了枪
警探Wayne Farley: 是，但是我能证实
Brad Chase: 你对我当事人做过金属痕迹检测，是为了测试她手上的火药残余吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 是的，结果是否定的
Brad Chase: 哇，那怎么可能？
警探Wayne Farley: 我们推断她可能开枪时带着手套
Brad Chase: 所以开枪时，她非常小心的戴上手套，然后她脱下手套，再伸手拿枪
警探Wayne Farley: 如果她像你说的惊吓过度，那她也许犯了个错误，杀人犯常常这样
Brad Chase: 所以关于延误报警的解释，你不认为是惊吓所致，但在解释她戴着手套开枪之后，再用空手拿枪，你又认为是惊吓所致，事实上，你更像在推销这个解释
检察官 John Shubert: 反对
Brad Chase: 我收回，你找到手套了吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 没有
Brad Chase: 你彻底搜查过整幢房子了吗？我可不想擅自揣测
警探Wayne Farley: 搜查过，没有找到手套
Brad Chase: 有证据表明她当晚回到家后又离开了？
警探Wayne Farley: 没有
Brad Chase: 去年这社区有过未结的入室盗窃案吗？
警探Wayne Farley: 有一些

证人2：
原文：
Dr. Lee Chang: The fatal wounds for both victims were to the head. Death was instantaneous.
检察官 John Shubert: And, Doctor, were you able to determine the time of death?
Dr. Lee Chang: Between 9:30 and 9:45 p.m.
Lori Colson: Doctor, did you examine the stomach contents of the victims?
Dr. Lee Chang: Yes
Lori Colson: What did you find?
Dr. Lee Chang: They were both relatively full.
Lori Colson: After eating, how long does food stay in the stomach before emptying into the small intestine?
Dr. Lee Chang: Generally, one to two hours.
Lori Colson: So if the victims finished dining by 7:30 as reported those stomachs should have been empty.
Unless they were killed before 9:30, correct?
Dr. Lee Chang: Or unless they ate again after leaving the restaurant.
Lori Colson: Were there any signs, to your knowledge, that they’d eaten at home? Dirty dishes? Recent garbage?
Dr. Lee Chang: To my knowledge, there was no evidence of that.
Lori Colson: Thank you.
ADA John Shubert: But they could have stopped on their way home from the restaurant—had dessert or something?
Dr. Lee Chang: Well, not a medical question, but yes, possible.
译文：
医生. Lee Chang: 两个被害人的致命伤都在头部，当场死亡
检察官 John Shubert: 医生，你能给出死亡时间吗？
医生. Lee Chang: 晚上9点30到9点45之间
Lori Colson: 医生，你检查过被害人的胃容物吗？
医生. Lee Chang: 是的
Lori Colson: 你发现了什么？
医生. Lee Chang: 胃里几乎是满的
Lori Colson: 进食后，直到胃清空缩小，食物在胃里能呆多久？
医生. Lee Chang: 一般来说1到2小时
Lori Colson: 所以如果被害人如报告所说在7点30吃完晚饭，那时他们的胃应该已经空了，除非他们在9点30前就已经被害，对吗？
医生. Lee Chang: 或者，他们在离开餐馆后又吃了东西
Lori Colson: 有什么迹象让你觉得，他们在家吃过？没洗的盘子，新倒的垃圾？
医生. Lee Chang: 以我的判断，没有这些证据
Lori Colson: 谢谢
检察官 John Shubert: 但是他们可以在从餐馆回家的路上停留，吃些点心什么的
医生. Lee Chang: 哦，不是医学问题，不过，有可能

证人3：
原文：
Susan May: I was hurrying home because, well, I had been away for about a week and I was excited to see him.
Lori Colson: And when you got home?
Susan May: I pulled into the garage, went into the kitchen, called out his name. His car was there, so I was sure he was home. It was only about 9:30. I couldn’t imagine him being in bed. But . . . he was.
Lori Colson: And not alone.
Susan May: No.
Lori Colson: What happened, Susan?
Susan May: I started upstairs. I called out his name again. Still no response. Then I went to the bedroom, looked in, a—and I saw it.
Lori Colson: Saw what?
Susan May: At first, just blood. And then I saw one body, and then another.
Lori Colson: What did you do?
Susan May: I first screamed. I—I looked at my husband and . . . his eyes were open, and there was a hole in his temple. And I—I went to him to see if he was still breathing.
Lori Colson: Was he?
Susan May: No.
Lori Colson: What happened next?
Susan May: I don’t know.
Lori Colson: You don’t know?
Susan May: I remember talking to the police at some point. I remember—I—them taking Ralph away. But …
Lori Colson: Do you remember calling the police?
Susan May: No.
Lori Colson: Do you remember touching the gun?
Susan May: No.
Lori Colson: Seeing the gun?
Susan May: No.
ADA John Shubert: That’s a really convenient memory loss, don’t you think? You recall not doing it, finding the bodies dead. But as for your fingerprints on the murder weapon, why you gave the police false information after, delaying in calling the police . . . Gee . . . just can’t remember.
Lori Colson: Objection.
ADA John Shubert: What a perfect way to tell your story without really being subject to cross-examination. Was this amnesia your idea, or was it your attorneys’?
Lori Colson & Brad Chase: Objection.
Judge Phillip Stevens: Sustained.
ADA John Shubert: Nothing further.
译文：
Susan May: 我急着回家，因为，我离家快一周了，想到能见到他我就很兴奋
Lori Colson: 当你到家时？
Susan May: 我在车库下车，进了厨房，喊他的名字，他的车在，所以我确定他在家，那时才9点半，他肯定还没上床，但是…他在床上
Lori Colson: 而且不是一个人
Susan May: 不是
Lori Colson: 然后呢，Susan？
Susan May: 我上楼去,我又喊了他名字，还是没有回音，然后我来到卧室，往里一看，我看到
Lori Colson: 看到什么？
Susan May: 一开始，只是血，然后，我看到一具尸体，然后，另一具
Lori Colson: 你做了什么？
Susan May: 我先是尖叫,我…我看着我丈夫…他的眼睛还睁着,太阳穴上有个洞,然后我跑过去看他还有没有呼吸
Lori Colson: 有吗？
Susan May: 没有
Lori Colson: 接下来发生了什么？
Susan May: 我不知道
Lori Colson: 你不知道？
Susan May: 我只记得和警察的一点对话,我记得我…他们带着Ralph离开,但是…
Lori Colson: 你记得报警吗？
Susan May: 不
Lori Colson: 你记得摸过枪吗？
Susan May: 不
Lori Colson: 看到过枪？
Susan May: 不
检察官 John Shubert: 这种失忆还真是方便啊,你不觉得吗？你记得没杀人,发现了尸体,但是为什么凶器上留有你的指纹,为什么你在迟迟不报警后,又给了警察错误的信息,天,不记得了
Lori Colson: 反对
检察官 John Shubert: 真是讲故事的完美方法,也不会再被交叉询问了,失忆这主意是你的,还是你律师教的？
Lori Colson & Brad Chase: 反对！
法官 Phillip Stevens: 反对有效
检察官 John Shubert: 我说完了

证人4：
原文：
Dr. Herbert Waylon: It’s basically a form of post-traumatic amnesia. She saw her husband murdered, and it triggered a blackout.
Brad Chase: She blacked out for an hour.
Dr. Herbert Waylon: In terms of memory. She wasn’t unconscious. She could’ve been sitting in a catatonic state. She possibly even watched television.
Brad Chase: The prosecution thinks that her memory loss was . . . convenient.
Dr. Herbert Waylon: Well, I personally examined this woman the day after the murders. She was suffering from dissociative amnesia then, as I believe she is now.
Brad Chase: Thank you, Doctor. He’s your witness. I hope you’re right.
ADA John Shubert: You can’t state to a medical certainty that the defendant suffered from post-traumatic amnesia, can you?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: To a medical certainty, no.
ADA John Shubert: And you can’t medically rule out the possibility that the defendant pulled the trigger that night, can you, Doctor?
Lori Colson: Bingo.
Dr. Herbert Waylon: No, I cannot rule it out. In fact, while I happen to believe her version of the events, I make room for a completely different scenario.
ADA John Shubert: Which is?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: Well, it’s possible she looked into this bedroom, saw her husband making love to another woman, and that threw her into a dissociative state. And in that state, she shot them.
ADA John Shubert: I’m sorry, are . . . you’re now saying maybe she killed them?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: Well, I believe she found them dead as she says. But it’s possible that she saw them making love, went into a dissociative state—something we refer to medically as automatism—and in that state, she may have killed them. Then her brain creates a false memory of something less horrifying to her.
ADA John Shubert: I have nothing further.
Brad Chase: Her brain created a false memory?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: Yes. Sometimes, if a person’s actions are repugnant to them, they can actually create a false version that is more psychologically acceptable.
Brad Chase: And they believe this as the truth?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: Absolutely.
Brad Chase: So it’s possible that she committed the murders?
Dr. Herbert Waylon: No. Murder suggests an intent she would’ve been incapable of. If she did this—and I’m not saying that she did—she would’ve likely lost all conscious control. She would’ve acted outside herself. And as a defense, her brain would have manufactured this other memory, that she walked in and found them already dead.
译文：
医生. Herbert Waylon: 基本上这是一种外伤性健忘症，她看见丈夫被谋杀，诱发知觉丧失
Brad Chase: 她失去知觉一个小时
医生. Herbert Waylon: 根据她的表述，她并不是无意识的，她可能是处于一种太虚神游的状态，她甚至可以看电视
Brad Chase: 控方认为她的失忆是…很方便的
医生. Herbert Waylon: 我亲自在凶案次日对这位女士进行了检查，当时她正遭受外伤性健忘症的折磨，我相信她现在也一样
Brad Chase: 谢谢你，医生，他是你的证人了
检察官 John Shubert: 你无法做出确切的医学诊断，说明被告有外伤性健忘症，对吗？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 确切的医学诊断，不能
检察官 John Shubert: 你也无法从医学上排除，当晚被告开枪的可能性，是吗，医生？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 不，我不能排除，事实上，在我相信她说法时，我有另一个完全不同的想法
检察官 John Shubert: 是？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 很可能，她往卧室里看时，发现丈夫正和另一个女人做爱，让她陷入一种精神分裂的状态，在这种状态下，她开了枪
检察官 John Shubert: 抱歉，你现在说可能是她杀了人？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 我相信她说的，她发现了尸体，但是也可能，她看到做爱场面，而导致精神分裂，医学上我们把这视为机械性行为（无意识性的），而在这种情况下，她可能杀了他们，然后大脑产生一段虚假的记忆，让她不至于那么害怕
检察官 John Shubert: 我没别的问题了
Brad Chase: 她的大脑产生虚假记忆？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 是的，有时如果人对自己的行为极度厌恶，他们真的能产生一段精神上更容易接受的错误影象
Brad Chase: 然后他们相信那就是事实？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 深信不疑
Brad Chase: 所以很可能她犯了谋杀罪？
医生. Herbert Waylon: 不，谋杀是有企图的，而她不是，如果真是她开的枪，我并不是说她有开，当时她也可能完全神志不清，她就会像变了一个人，而出于自我保护，她大脑可能会产生另外一段记忆，让她认为当她走进卧室时，发现他们已经死了

结案陈词：
原文：
Brad Chase: The first forensic specialist to analyze the blood spatter pattern, said they were inconclusive. This is a police expert, by the way. He said the spatters could not prove that she fired a gun. He’s asking you to believe that she wore gloves to commit the crime to explain the lack of powder residue on her hands. Then she took the gloves off to handle the murder weapon. Is it possible there was a burglar? The prosecution certainly can’t eliminate the idea. And, yes, it’s possible that Susan May, seeing her husband making love with another woman, went into a dissociative state, acted outside of her conscious control. But it doesn’t really matter whether she pulled that trigger or not . . . Because she formed no legal mental intent to do so which is an element of the crime. Reasonable doubt as to whether or not she did it. No evidence of intent, even if she did. All leads to the same verdict. Not guilty.
ADA John Shubert: No evidence of anyone else being there but the defendant. Time of death: 9:45—fifteen minutes after she arrived home. And as to why the defendant waited a full hour and a half before calling the police . . . Oh, yes! The dissociative state. That’s handy. I wonder why they didn’t plead insanity. Because there was no powder residue on her hands? How to explain insanity, yet have presence of mind to wear gloves? That’s a tough one. These are very good lawyers.
译文：
Brad Chase: 第一位法庭专家分析血滴飞溅点时说，无法做出结论，顺便一提，这位警方专家，他说这些飞溅并不能证明是她开的枪，他希望你们相信，她带着手套实施犯罪，所以才检测不出火药残余，然后她再脱下手套拿起凶器，也可能是一个盗贼，检控方并不能排除这可能性，好吧，也可能就是Susan May，看到丈夫正和别的女人胡搞，陷入精神分裂的状态，做出了完全是无意识的举动，但她有没有扣动扳机并不重要，因为那种状态下她不具备法律意义上的意图犯罪，而这正是定罪的关键，关于她有否开枪的合理怀疑…就算是她开的枪 也没有证据显示她是有意而为，这些都将指向同一个判决——无罪。
检察官 John Shubert: 没有证据表明现场还有其他人，除了被告，死亡时间9点45，就在她到家的15分钟之后，为什么被告足足等了一个半小时才报警，哦对了，她精神分裂了，还真是容易，我在想为什么他们不做精神错乱的辩护，因为她手上没有火药残留？怎么解释精神错乱的人还能沉着冷静地带上手套？很难，他们是很棒的律师。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:39 编辑 ]

chuantiaoyu

Schmidt Happens
Season 1, Episode 11