回到首页 | 风软在线美剧 | 个人主页 | BT发布页 | FTP搜索 | FTP流量中心 | 虚拟足彩 | 勋章系统 | 赞助风软

‹‹ 上一主题 | 下一主题 ››
 36 123
发新话题
打印

[【分享】] Boston Legal：Closing结案陈词汇总帖（中英双语，更新第3季第5集，同步更新截图）

本主题由 爱死你 于 2008-11-24 23:03 打开
chuantiaoyu

灵儿

三星会员

Rank: 4

子非鱼焉知鱼之乐...

帖子
2553 
精华
3 
威望
11 点 
金钱
1071 FRB 
阅读权限
20 
注册时间
2007-10-5 
16# 大 中 小 发表于 2008-10-16 17:28  只看该作者
A Whiff and a Prayer
Season 2, Episode 4



案件1：为民除害

交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：Detective John Stephenson: The coroners report showed he’d been struck twice behind the head. The second blow being fatal.
D.A Valerie Murrow: And was there any sign of a struggle, Detective?
Detective John Stephenson: No.
D.A Valerie Murrow: Any evidence to suggest that the victim had made any threatening movement toward the defendant?
Detective John Stephenson: No.
D.A Valerie Murrow: And in the statement made to you by the defendant. Did she say the victim was threatening her?
Detective John Stephenson: But did not say that she was in any imminent danger at the time she hit him.
D.A Valerie Murrow: Thank you sir. Your witness.
Alan Shore: I have nothing. It appears your exhaustive testimony covered everything, you left nothing out. Is that correct detective?
Detective John Stephenson: Pretty much.
Alan Shore: Pretty much? Thank you Detective, for your fine commitment to detail.
Judge Harry Hingham: Okay. The witness may step down.
Alan Shore: Actually one thing you pretty much left out, no harm we can cover it now. Mr Ferrion had previously killed two people. He whacked both his mother and a neighbor?
Detective John Stephenson: Allegedly.
Alan Shore: Allegedly? Isn’t it pretty much the opinion of the Boston Police Department that he committed these murders?
Detective John Stephenson: Yes.
Alan Shore: Thank you. I’m sure you pretty much meant to include that in your testimony but forgot. Oh! Mrs Piper came to you a week before Mr Ferrion was killed. Didn’t she?
Detective John Stephenson: She did.
Alan Shore: Told you she feared Mr Ferrion would kill again.
Detective John Stephenson: Yes.
Alan Shore: Relayed to you Bernard’s comments about how the next time he’d be sure to leave little clues like the BTK killer. She tell you that, Detective?
Detective John Stephenson: Yes.
Alan Shore: And after she told you all this, you did what Detective?
Detective John Stephenson: I told her there wasn’t enough to make an arrest.
Alan Shore: You sent her away? Tell me Detective, have you considered if you’d heeded Catherine Piper’s warnings Bernard Ferrion might still be alive?
D.A Valerie Murrow: Objection!
Alan Shore: Withdrawn. Moving forward a bit to Bernard Ferrion’s demise. So? You found him dead? Conducted a Sherlock Holmesian investigation which lead, at last, to Catherine Piper’s doorstep.
Detective John Stephenson: No. She came to us.
Alan Shore: Oh! She came to you?
Detective John Stephenson: Yes.
Alan Shore: Well you certainly left that out, didn’t you?
Detective John Stephenson: She didn’t come forth for a full week!
Alan Shore: Maybe Catherine hesitated because she feared being arrested. Yet her conscience and sense of morality eventually overcame her fear which of course the jury would know if you’d lived up to your oath to tell the whole truth.
D.A Valerie Murrow: Objection!
Judge Harry Hingham: Mr Shore!
Alan Shore: What! What did I say?

译文：警探John Stephenson: Coroner的报告显示，他曾两次被击中头部，第二击是致命的
检察官Valerie Murrow: 有挣扎的痕迹吗，警探先生？
警探John Stephenson: 没有
检察官Valerie Murrow: 有证据显示被害者曾对被告者有威胁性举动吗？
警探John Stephenson: 没有       
检察官Valerie Murrow: 在被告对您做的陈词中，她有说过受害者在威胁她吗？
警探John Stephenson: 她没有说当她攻击他时曾面临任何迫在眉睫的危险
检察官Valerie Murrow: 谢谢你，先生。轮到你了
Alan Shore: 我没话说。看起来你详尽的证词已经包含一切了，你没任何遗漏，这是正确的吗，警探先生？
警探John Stephenson: 非常正确
Alan Shore: 谢谢你，侦探先生，谢谢你对细节的美好承诺
法官Harry Hingham: 好的，证人可以下台了
Alan Shore: 事实上，有一件事情遗漏了，没关系，我们可以现在弥补。Ferrion先生曾经杀害过两个人，他杀了他妈妈和一个邻居？
警探John Stephenson: 涉嫌谋杀
Alan Shore: 涉嫌谋杀？他犯下了那些谋杀案，那不正是Boston警察局的观点吗？
警探John Stephenson: 是的
Alan Shore: 谢谢您，我确信你很想将这些纳入你的证词，但是，忘了吧？Piper太太在Ferrion先生被杀一周前曾找过你，不是吗？
警探John Stephenson: 她的确来过
Alan Shore: 她告诉你她害怕Ferrion先生会再次杀人
警探John Stephenson: 是的
Alan Shore: 向您报告了Bernard关于下次杀人的评论，他肯定会留下一些小线索，就像B.T.K杀手一样，她告诉了你这些，警探先生？
警探John Stephenson: 是的
Alan Shore: 在她告诉你这些后，你做了什么呢，警探先生？
警探John Stephenson: 我告诉她这不足以逮捕他
Alan Shore: 你把她送走了？告诉我，警探先生，你想过如果你留意了CatherinePiper的警告，BernardFerrion可能还会活在世上吗？
检察官Valerie Murrow: 反对!
Alan Shore: 撤回。再往前走，Bernard Ferrion的死亡，你发现他死后，开始了 Sherlock Holmesian式的调查，最终追查到了Catherine Piper的门口。
警探John Stephenson: 没有，她来找我们的
Alan Shore: 噢！她来找了你们？
警探John Stephenson: 是的
Alan Shore: 你确是遗漏了这个，不是吗？
警探John Stephenson: 她一个星期后才过来
Alan Shore: 也许Catherine犹豫了，因为她害怕会被逮捕，但是她的良知和道德感，最终战胜了她的恐惧。当然，陪审团会明白这种恐惧的，只要你能履行你，讲实话的誓言
检察官Valerie Murrow: 反对!
法官Harry Hingham: Shore先生！
Alan Shore: 什么？我说了什么？

证人2原文：

Catherine Piper: I first met him as a recovering murderer. He’d killed his mother and neighbor.
Alan Shore: Had he admitted these crimes to you?
Catherine Piper: Oh, yes. Many times.
Alan Shore: Catherine, may I ask? Why would you seek to befriend this man?
Catherine Piper: Well I felt at his core he wasn’t evil. I also thought I could help him by introducing him to Jesus Christ, our Savior.
Alan Shore: Was he open to that?
Catherine Piper: Not terribly. He thought it would make him look like a bad Jew.
Alan Shore: So? What happened?
Catherine Piper: Well. We were in the kitchen, watching the telecast about the Kelly Nolan trial. He was talking about leaving hints the next time. Saying how he enjoyed the taste of killing. My mind started swirling. I was thinking, I’d gone to the police, they said they couldn’t help, there was no place for me to turn. If I ran away that was a betrayal he said he couldn’t tolerate. I looked down at my hands, saw I was holding the skillet, the weapon he’d used to commit murder, and I suddenly thought, this was my only way out. So I just swung. Twice, and he dropped.
Alan Shore: Catherine, you took a human life.
Catherine Piper: Killing his mother was strike one, killing his neighbor was strike two. And the way he talked? Bernie had a third strike coming.
D.A Valerie Murrow: The skillet was in your hand? Could you hold it please?
Alan Shore: Objection!
D.A Valerie Murrow: I would like her to demonstrate how she struck Mr Ferrion.
Alan Shore: Your Honor, this meant to inflame the jury. There is simply no reason…
D.A Valerie Murrow: She already described it.
Alan Shore: The potential value of a demonstration in a case like this…
D.A Valerie Murrow: She has taken this witness chair and exposed her actions.
Alan Shore: The prosecution is petrified that my client comes off as sympathetic. She wants her to reenact the crime to negate that sympathy. It has no probative value. It’s a stunt and a cheap one.
Judge Harry Hingham: I’m going to allow it.
Alan Shore: What?
Judge Harry Hingham: The jury can see how it happened.
Alan Shore: She testified as to how it happened!
Judge Harry Hingham: I have made my ruling. Step back. Step back counsel!
D.A Valerie Murrow: Would you show us your movements, Mrs Piper?
Alan Shore: I…
Catherine Piper: I was at the sink, facing this way, and he was going on about the taste of killing! That’s when my mind started to swirl at the thought, “My God! He’ll kill again. He might kill me!” I looked at the skillet and suddenly, this could be my way out! And I wheeled…

译文：
Catherine Piper: 我起先遇见他时，他是一个正在康复的谋杀犯，他杀了他的妈妈和邻居
Alan Shore: 他向你承认了这些罪行吗？
Catherine Piper: 是的，说了很多次
Alan Shore: Catherine，请问你为何会和这种人交朋友呢？
Catherine Piper: 我以为他本质上不坏，我同样以为，将他向上帝，我们的救星指引能够帮助他
Alan Shore: 他皈依了吗？
Catherine Piper: 不完全，他觉得那会让他看起来像个坏犹太人
Alan Shore: 发生什么了？
Catherine Piper: 我们在厨房里，看电视上KellyNolan的审判，他说下次会留下线索，说他享受谋杀的感觉，我脑子开始眩晕了，我在想，我已经报警了，他们说他们帮不了，我没有地方可以投诉，如果我跑了，他会说这是他不能忍受的背叛，我低头看了看我的手，我握着那个长柄锅，这是他曾用来犯罪的武器，我突然觉得这是我唯一的出路，所以我挥舞了它，两次，他倒下了。
Alan Shore: Catherine，你夺去了一个人的生命
Catherine Piper: 杀死他的妈妈是挥击一，杀死他的邻居是挥击二，按照他说的说法，Bernie还要挥击第三次
检察官Valerie Murrow: 长柄锅在你手里，你能握住它吗？
Alan Shore: 反对
检察官Valerie Murrow: 我想让她示范她是如何攻击Ferrion先生的
Alan Shore: 法官大人，这会煽动陪审团，毫无道理…
检察官Valerie Murrow: 她已经描述过了
Alan Shore: 示范的偏见性评价，在一个像这样的案件里，控方被石化了，我的委托人是有同情心的，她想让她再演一次犯罪的过程，来打消别人的同情心，没说服力廉价的噱头
法官Harry Hingham: 我允许
Alan Shore: 什么？
法官Harry Hingham: 陪审团可以看到是怎么发生的
Alan Shore: 她将证明是如何发生的
法官Harry Hingham: 我已决定，退下。退下，辩护律师
检察官Valerie Murrow: 能给我们展示一下你的动作吗，Piper太太？
Alan Shore: 我…
Catherine Piper: 我当时在洗碗池，面朝这边，他在说一些关于谋杀的事，想到这个，我的脑袋开始眩晕了，我的上帝，他又要杀人了，他可能会杀了我，我看看长柄锅，突然想到这是我唯一的出路，我舞动了…

结案陈词：
原文：
D.A Valerie Murrow: There was no self-defense, or defense of others here. I’m not going to waste time telling you something you already know. The defendant simply made a decision, a reflective one, that Bernard Ferrion should no longer be among the living. Two whacks to the back of the head. Whether Catherine Piper was playing at executioner or God, she committed murder. Law and Order isn’t simply something found on television four nights a week. Our integrity as a people is inextricably bound up with the idea that we are a nation of laws. You as jurors took an oath to uphold the law. In a time when we as Americans are increasingly labeled as a ‘Might makes right’ society, I sincerely hope for our legacy as a moral society you choose to honor that oath.
Alan Shore: In 2003 we had 16,500 murders in this country. 6200 went unsolved. On another 4000 we made arrests! The defendants eventually went free. We don’t catch killers in this country. Since 1960 200,000 murders have gone unsolved. Forget about the ones where we just failed to convict! For 200,000 we were baffled! Ask me, we could use a few more vigilantes. Now! You swing that skillet at your own risk, I grant you. Kill an innocent person? Off to prison you should go. But Catherine Piper didn’t do that. Catherine Piper tried law and order. She was scared for her life. She did fear for the safety of others. And in the heat of that fear she swung that skillet! Accomplishing in the process something the police couldn’t. She got the bad guy. Now, I certainly don’t want a society where people start arbitrarily taking the law into their own hands. I know you don’t. But society certainly isn’t safeguarded, nor is it remotely benefited by putting Catherine Piper in prison. Unlike the District Attorney, I don’t think we’re a country inextricably bound up with law and order or some National integrity. I like to think we’re a people. Mostly about humanity. And humanity isn’t about the right to trumpet moral superiority. Humanity is about compassion, even forgiveness. Catherine Piper in all her fear reacted in a very human way. She’s here now asking you to do the same.

译文：
检察官Valerie Murrow: 这里没有正当防卫或别种性质的防卫，我不会浪费时间告诉你们那些已知的事情。被告只是觉得，自我觉得Bernard Ferrion不应该再存活，两记敲在脑袋上的重击，不管Catherine Piper是在做刽子手还是伸张正义，她都杀了人。法律并不只是你一周四天在电视上看到的东西，我们作为人的正直品质，我们是一个有法之邦这个理念紧密相连。你们，陪审员发誓要维护法律，在这样的一个时代，我们美国人日益被标注为权利之上的社会，我真诚的希望我们道德社会的遗产，你们选择遵循那一誓言。
Alan Shore: 在2003年，这个国家发生了16500起谋杀案，6200件没有侦破，另外的4000件我们逮捕了一些人，被告最终都无罪释放，这个国家抓不到杀手。自从1960年以来，2000000件谋杀案没被侦破，忘了那些我们没能定罪的案件，有200000起我们束手无策。我们可以启用更多些义务警员，当你挥动那个长柄锅时，得由自己负责，我向你保证。杀死一个无辜的人，你应该进监狱，但是Catherine Piper不是。Catherine Piper试图维护法律和秩序，她吓得要命，她为其他人的生命安全不安，在这种恐惧下，她挥动了那个长柄锅，完成了警察没能做到的一些职责，她了结了那个坏蛋。我当然不希望人们肆意玩弄法律，我知道你也不希望，但是送CatherinePiper入狱，这个社会显然不会更安全，甚至一点好处都得不到。不像公诉人，我并不觉得我们这样的一个国家，不可避免的把法律与纪律和民族正直性连在一块，我更愿意觉得我们是一个民族更多的关心人性，而人性并不具有吹嘘道德优越的权利。人性，是热情，甚至是宽恕，Catherine Piper尽管很害怕，但还是做出了非常人性的举动，她现在此，恳求你们也做出同样的举动。

宣判：
原文：

Jury foreman: In the matter of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus Catherine Piper on the charge of murder in the first degree. We the jury find the defendant not guilty.

译文：
陪审团: Massachusetts州对于Catherine Piper一级谋杀案的指控，我们陪审团认为被告罪名不成立。

案件2：枪支

交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：

Alex Naughton: I pain two thousand dollars to his campaign personally. And I contributed another two million to the Democratic National Party. On the assumption that this congressman, if reelected, would support gun control.
Atty. Christopher Palmer: Certainly Mr Naughton you realize that you cannot buy votes on Capital Hill?
Denny Crane: He gawfs. Please.
Alex Naughton: There was never any quip pro quo on any specific vote.
Atty. Christopher Palmer: But sir, in your complaint you site his failure to support the ban on assault weapons.
Alex Naughton: The fraud was perpetrated on me during his reelection campaign. The two of us got together for dinner, we shook hands, he looked me in the eye, and he told that he would champion, not support, but champion the renewal of the ban against assault weapons! Then, he goes off to Washington and the ban just lapses. Doesn’t even get brought up for a vote.
Atty. Christopher Palmer: And sir, the fact that this ban was not renewed. How has it hurt you, personally?
Alex Naughton: On January second my nephew was buying milk in a convenience store; two men came in to rob store bearing AK47’s. Gunfire ensued. My nephew was killed.
Denise Bauer: I am very sorry for your loss, sir. Are you suggesting that because you contributed money to this congressman that you bought his vote?
Alex Naughton: There was no vote! Instead, Congress just let the ban lapse without so much as a discussion.
Denise Bauer: Didn’t it lapse in part because the legislators I favor of the ban realized the votes just weren’t there?
Alex Naughton: When you secure a contribution based on a policy you have no intension of honoring, that’s flat out fraud.
Denise Bauer: My point is Congressman Jacobs couldn’t have gotten the ban renewed. Tom DeLay had dismissed as just a piece of feel-good legislation that had no chance of passing.
Alex Naughton: I didn’t get a commitment from Tom DeLay. I did from him.

译文：Alex Naughton: 我个人支付了2000美元支持他的竞选，我还捐赠了200万美元给民主党，以为那个国会议员如果再次当选，会支持枪支控制
律师Christopher Palmer: 当然，Naughton先生你认识到你不能够在国会山买选票
Denny Crane: 拜托
Alex Naughton: 任何一张选票里从来就没有公平交易
律师Christopher Palmer: 但是先生，在你的诉讼里你把他的失败归咎于支持对攻击性武器下禁令
Alex Naughton: 在他的竞选连任时，他给我下了个套，我俩聚在一起吃饭，我们握手，他看着我的眼睛说，他会拥护，不仅是支持，但是拥护关于攻击性武器禁令的续订，然后他去了华盛顿，禁令刚好过期了，甚至都没被提议投票
律师Christopher Palmer: 先生，禁令没能续订，这怎么伤害您个人啦？
Alex Naughton: 在1月2日，我的侄子在一家便利店买牛奶，两个带着AK-47s的男人过来抢劫铺子，发生了枪击，我的侄子被杀害了
Denise Bauer: 我很为您的损失感到难过先生。你在暗示如果你捐钱给了这个国会议员就可以买他的选票吗？
Alex Naughton: 没有选票。相反议员让禁令没经什么讨论就自动过期了
Denise Bauer: 让它自动过期不是因为支持这一禁令的立法者认识到没什么人支持吗？
Alex Naughton: 当你做出一个募捐是因为一项你不打算执行的政策，那就是赤裸裸的欺骗
Denise Bauer: 我的论点是Jacobs议员，不能让禁令重续，TomDelay废除了它只是因为它是一个感觉良好，但是没有机会通过的法令
Alex Naughton: 我没有取得TomDelay的承诺，我取得了他的

证人2原文：
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: Look if I had the power to move the bill for a vote I would have.
Shirley Schmidt: In fairness, did you try to move the bill for a vote?
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: No.
Shirley Schmidt: Okay. Why not?
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: Quite honestly because I was up for reelection. If I’d been active about renewing the ban on assault weapons the NRA would have opposed me. Run smear campaigns against me and I’d be sitting here as an ex-congressman.
Shirley Schmidt: You caved?
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: I cannot serve my constituents if I’m not in office. Well, like any elected official, I have to pick my battles. And political survival has to be a consideration.
Atty. Christopher Palmer: You told my client you’d support the ban.
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: At the time I fully planned to. Then in September, three lobbyists from the NRA walked in my office, informed me they’d contribute heavily to my opponent’s campaign, informed me they’d finance negative ads against me. My advisors told me they’d be successful. So I would have lost my seat supporting a bill that had no chance of passing. Does that seem practical to you?
Atty. Christopher Palmer: Sticking to ones principals always struck me as being practical.
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: Look. The ban on assault weapons, the Democrats are for it, the Republicans are for it, the police are for it, eighty percent of the public is for it, and we don’t have it. That should tell you how powerful the gun lobby is.
Atty. Christopher Palmer: So you ran scared?

译文：议员Raymond Jacobs: 看，如果我有能力提议对这个草案进行表决，我会的
Shirley Schmidt: 公平地说，你曾经努力提议对草案进行表决吗？
议员Raymond Jacobs: 没有
Shirley Schmidt: 为何不呢？
议员Raymond Jacobs: 坦白说，因为我在寻求连任，如果我很活跃的寻求攻击性武器禁令的延续，N.R.A会反对我的，会发动诽谤活动反对我，我就会以一个前国会议员的身份坐在这儿
Shirley Schmidt: 你投降了
议员Raymond Jacobs: 如果我不在位的话我无权行使选举权，就像任何一位被选举的公务员，我得选择我的战役，政治上的存活也需要被纳入考虑
律师Christopher Palmer: 你告诉我的委托人你支持那个禁令
议员Raymond Jacobs: 现在，我正在付以全力。九月里，三位来自N.R.A的说客来到了我的办公室，告诉我他们将非常支持我对手的竞选活动，告诉我他们将出钱拍我的负面广告，我的顾问们说他们会得逞的，那样我就会丢掉我的席位，支持那个议案也没机会成功，这对你实用吗？
律师Christopher Palmer: 坚持一个人的原则，在我看来一直都是实用的
议员Raymond Jacobs: 对于攻击性武器的禁令，民主党人支持它，共和党人支持它，警察支持它，80%的公众支持它，我们不得势，这可以说明枪支说客有多强大
律师Christopher Palmer: 所以你胆怯地逃跑了？

结案陈词：
原文：
Atty. Christopher Palmer: Like Congressman Jacobs says, “Everybody wants the ban on assault weapons.” The Democrats. The Republicans. The police. Seventy-eight percent of the public? And yet, we don’t have it. Why? The Senate majority leader has said, and I quote, “The will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire.” Is that consistent with your will? With yours? What the hell is going on here? The NRA has them all terrified! How powerful is this lobby? Senator Kerry, in his bid to get elected President, was advised that he had to go out and shoot an animal and to be photographed doing so. He’s a wind-surfer for God’s sake! Well, enough is enough. It is time to hold Congress accountable. 30,000 deaths by firearms every year in this country. And we can’t ban assault weapons? People need them for personal protection? To hunt? And now we actually have legislation pending in Washington that will literally shield the gun manufacturers from being sued. Even for negligence. We an sue doctors, big tobacco, asbestos but the gun industry gets its own special legislation granting them immunity. What the hell is going on? Where are our elected officials? This one vowed to fight the gun industry. Took campaign contributions on the promise that he would. And what did Alex Naughton get in return? His sixteenyear- old nephew, while buying a quart of milk, was mowed down by two AK47’s.
Denny Crane: Denny Crane.
Judge Gordon Kolodny: Mr Crane we do not allow firearms in the courtroom!
Denny Crane: Oh. It’s just a prop Judge. It’s not…loaded. Apologies. It was a shot heard around the world. Remember? Not the punch. Not the stabbing. It was a shot. To rally the minutemen to defeat the Red Coats at Lexington. This nation began with a gun. Will go down with a gun. Or maybe, if we have them, won’t go down at all. Let me tell you about assault weapons. The FBI now reports that terrorists are coming to America to get them because it’s easier to procure them here. Now I ask you, how can we supply terrorists with AK47’s and not give them to our own people? That may sound crazy but part of being an American in the Wild West was we came armed! It’s in the bill of sale for God’s sake. In our National Anthem we’ve got bombs bursting in air for God’s sake. We drive around with our shotguns on the outside of our pickup so the neighbors will see ‘em. And! No one talks about this out loud of course, but things might have turned out differently for the nephew of the plaintiff if he had had his own automatic weapon. First sound of Democracy came from a gun like this one. And that’s why the ban on assault weapons has been allowed to lapse. It’s all about our basic civil rights. It’s about Democracy. It’s about freedom! Denny Crane.

译文：
律师Christopher Palmer: 像Jacobs议员说过的，每个人都想对攻击性武器设禁令，民主党人，共和党人，警察，78%的民众，但是，我们还没有这样做，为何呢？参议院多数曾说过，我在此引用：美国人意向一致在于让它过期，这和你的意愿一致吗？和你的吗？到底怎么回事？N.R.A把他们吓住了，说客有多强大，Kerry参议员在他竞选总统时被建议出去打一只野兽，并拍下照片，他是一个帆板运动员，看在上帝的份上！够了，让国会负责的时候到了。每年这个国家有三千人因枪支致死，我们还不禁止攻击性武器的使用，人们需要它们来自我保护吗？去狩猎，现在我们事实上，在Washington有未决的法案最终会庇护枪支生产商免予诉讼，就算有过失也是，我们能够诉讼医生，大型烟草商，石棉商，但是枪支工业却有着特别的法案来保护他们免责，这到底是怎么回事？我们选举的公务员在哪里？那个宣誓会奋战枪支工业的人呢？那个承诺会发起相关活动的人呢？Alex Naughton得到了什么回报？他16岁的侄子在买一夸特牛奶时被两支AK-47s夺去了生命。
Denny Crane: Denny Crane.
法官Gordon Kolodny: Crane先生，我们不允许带枪火进法庭
Denny Crane: 这只是个道具，法官…居然上弹药了…抱歉。这是全球都听见过的枪声，记得吗？不是拳击伤人，不是持刀伤人，这是重振旗鼓的枪声。在Lexington击败英国军人的枪声，这个国家由一支枪开始，我们将固守弹药，或者如果我们拥有它们我们就不会衰败。我来说说一些攻击性武器的事，FBI现在报道，恐怖分子到美国买枪，因为在这里更容易到手。现在我问你，如果我们给恐怖分子装备了AK-47，却不给我们自己的同胞拥有它们的权利，是很疯狂的事情！某种意义上说，我们是荷枪实弹的来到美国西部开荒的，这融入了我们的销售法案，看在上帝的份上。权利和自由法案中在我们的国歌里，我们头顶炸弹，看在上帝的份上。我们带着散弹猎枪在外面出游，那样邻居们就会看到它们，没人会说出来，但是事情可能会有所不同。原告的侄子，如果他有自己的自动武器的话，民主政治的第一声发自一支这样的枪，这就是为何对于攻击性武器的禁令会被允许失效。这事关我们基本的民权，这事关民主，这事关自由。Denny Crane。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:27 编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录
  • 爱死你 金钱 +300 子非鱼焉知鱼之乐... 2008-10-16 22:02

TOP

chuantiaoyu

灵儿

三星会员

Rank: 4

子非鱼焉知鱼之乐...

帖子
2553 
精华
3 
威望
11 点 
金钱
1071 FRB 
阅读权限
20 
注册时间
2007-10-5 
17# 大 中 小 发表于 2008-10-20 19:17  只看该作者
Men to Boys
Season 2, Episode 5



开案陈词：
原文：
Denise Bauer: Good morning. My name is Denise Bauer. I along with Sara Holt will be representing the plaintiff, Hose Pitino, who’s wife Elena died in a fire that started in their garage when their pickup truck, manufactured and sold by the defendant, suddenly burst into flames. The truck was not running at the time. In fact, it had not been driven all night. Let me begin by saying that a terrible human tragedy has occurred here. And of course nothing that happens in this courtroom will bring Elena Pitino back. Lawsuits you see are ultimately about money. Putting a dollar figure on suffering. Admittedly there is some question as to how much Elena even suffered in the fire. Also admittedly Elena was in the final stages of ovarian cancer. She had come home from the hospital, in fact that very day, basically to die. You may ask yourselves, “What damages did she really endure?” Well, you will hear from Hose Pitino and what you will hear is that she had a day, and another day coming after that, and another one after that. She had in fact six or seven days to be at home with her family. She didn’t get those days. She never got that last opportunity to sit with her grandchildren. Hose was never able his wife of thirty-seven years in his arms. Hold her in his arms and uhm… If any of you have spent the final days with a loved one dying of cancer or another disease you know those moments are the most precious. Hose and Elena Pitino had those days coming. They didn’t get them. You can’t bring Elena Pitino back. But you are in a position to help save others. Because lawsuits, in addition to money, are about allocating burden. Who is best able to prevent this tragedy from happening again? Well you might be inclined to think, “This is just a freak accident.” But in fact this is a much bigger problem. This is a very popular sports truck made by a major manufacturer of sport trucks. And they’re catching fire! The defendant has recently recalled almost a million of their vehicles because of this malfunction. So you see? This is potentially your problem. How do you motivate a corporate conglomerate to fix a defect? You make it too expensive for them not to. At the conclusion of this trial, when it finally comes down to a dollar amount I’ll be asking you to be legislators and come back with a number that says to the defendant and all car manufacturers, “Make your vehicles safe.” For your sake. For your daughters. For your grandsons. And I’ll ask you to be human beings. The conscience of a passionate society and return with a verdict that somehow reflects everything that was taken from Elena Pitino, her family and most of all her high school sweetheart.

译文：
Denise Bauer: 早上好，我的名字是Denise Bauer，我和Sara Holt是原告Jose Pitino的代表律师。原告的妻子Elena死于一场源自他们车库的火灾，造成这场火灾的原因是因为被告所生产并销售的皮卡无故自燃，而这辆皮卡当时并没有发动，事实上，那辆车整晚都没有被使用过。这个可怕的悲剧就发生在我们身边，当然，我们在这个法庭里所做的一切都不能挽救回Elena Pitino 的生命。如你们所知，官司的最终目的其实就是用金钱来试图弥补当事人受到的伤害。必须要肯定，问题之一，就是Elena到底在这场大火中受到多少伤害？我们也必须承认，Elena已经处于子宫癌晚期，事实上，她当天从医院返回家，就是要在家里等候死亡来临。你们可能会问自己“她到底承受了多大的痛苦?”这些你们都可以从Jose Pitino处了解到，而且你们会了解到她所拥有的是她生命当中的最后的几天，事实上，她只剩下六或七天时间可以和家人团聚了，可是她没能享受到这最后的时光，她根本就没有机会，再次坐在她的孙子旁，Jose，也再也没有机会可以抱着陪伴他度过了37年光阴的妻子，亲手抱着她…如果你们其中任何一位曾经有过挚爱不幸死于癌症或其他绝症，你们就能体会得到那短短地几天，会有多么的弥足珍贵。Jose和Elena Pitino本来可以有这个机会，但是他们却没有得到，你们虽然不能拯救Elena Pitino 的生命，但是也许你们可以拯救其他人的，因为这些诉讼，除了金钱赔偿外，也能够警醒世人。有谁最能够阻止这些悲剧的再度发生呢?当然，你们也许不禁会想说，这只是一场意外，但是事实上，这不仅仅是一场意外。这是由一家大型卡车制造商生产的十分畅销的一种皮卡，而它们居然会无故自燃，而且被告最近召回了数以百万计他们所生产的车辆，正是由于这些车辆出现了这个故障。你们看，这也许就是你们明天所要面临的情境。那么你们要怎么做才能使这些事情不再发生?你要让他们付出沉重的代价。当这场审判的结果最终变为一个具体的金额数字时，我恳求你们，作为裁定者，给我们一个数字，让它可以警醒所有汽车制造商们，对他们说，“务必使你们的车更加安全”为了你们自己，为了你们的子女，为了你们的孙辈，我恳求你们，作为一个人，作为这个社会的良心，为Elena Pitino所失去的一切，带来一份合理的判决，带给她的家庭，更重要的是，她的中学爱人。

最终汽车公司私下支付原告170万美元的赔偿金。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:28 编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录
  • 爱死你 金钱 +100 文不对题 2008-10-21 21:26

TOP

chuantiaoyu

灵儿

三星会员

Rank: 4

子非鱼焉知鱼之乐...

帖子
2553 
精华
3 
威望
11 点 
金钱
1071 FRB 
阅读权限
20 
注册时间
2007-10-5 
18# 大 中 小 发表于 2008-10-23 21:35  只看该作者
Witches of Mass Destruction
Season 2, Episode 6



案件1：万圣节女巫
交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：
Shirley Schmidt: Mr Mathias, is this an accurate depiction of principal Berleth’s behavior during Halloween pageant?
Bob Mathias: Yes. Except she does sort of a swoop?
Shirley Schmidt: Could we see the swoop please?
Attorney Morrison: Your Honor. Your Honor. Your Honor, the defense stipulates, “She’s scary as all get out.”
Judge Paul Resnick: Mrs Burleth, you may be seated. The court thanks you for the riveting demonstration.
Shirley Schmidt: Why is Mrs Burleth’s performance so harmful to your children? I mean it’s just Halloween.
Bob Mathias: And that’s what we hear daily. It’s just a movie. It’s just a video game. It’s just the Super Bowl halftime show.
Shirley Schmidt: But she’s not just a witch to you, is she?
Bod Mathias: No, and I should be able to protect my children from things I deem harmful. Trying to raise my kids to have strong Christian values in today’s world is hard enough without the head of the school dressing up like a servant of Satan. It’s bad enough my seven-year-old knows all about bitches, pimps and hoes from Grand Theft Auto. Michael Jackson and his child molestation are now words in his vernacular. My six-grade daughter has classmates, excuse me, who will perform oral sex for a dollar. Now all of this is learned at school. This is why we’re so livid. This is why so many of us are home-schooling. But I don’t wanna have to do that. Public school is just that, it’s our school too. And Satan shouldn’t be there.

译文：
Shirley Schmidt: Mathias先生，刚才Berleth校长所做的示范是否就和她在万圣节上所做的表演相符?
Bob Mathias: 是的，除此之外还有些张牙舞爪的动作
Shirley Schmidt: 我们能看看那些动作吗?
律师Morrison: 呃，法官阁下…法官阁下…法官阁下，被告稍微增加了点戏剧效果
法官Paul Resnick: Berleth女士，你可以坐下了，谢谢你生动的演示
Shirley Schmidt: 为什么你认为Berleth女士的表演会让你的孩子受到伤害? 我是说，这只是万圣节的游戏而已
Bob Mathias: 我们在日常生活中也会说，“只是电影而已” “只是电视游戏而已”“只是超级碗的半场表演而已”
Shirley Schmidt: 但是你来说，她不仅只是一个女巫?
Bod Mathias: 不。因此我必须保护我的孩子受到从中伤害，我从小就尝试把我的孩子培养成虔诚的基督教信徒，就算一校之长没有打扮成一个魔鬼的仆人，这在当今社会风气的影响下也已经够难的了，我7岁的儿子老是把游戏中的妓女，皮条客，种马这种词汇挂在嘴边，麦克尔-杰克逊的狎童案让他们津津乐道，我还在上6年级的女儿在学校中的同学会为了1美元而提供口交服务，这些都是他们在学校里学到的，所以我们才那么的愤怒，正因此我们当中的许多人才让孩子在家自学，但是我不想这么做，公立学校，顾名思义，就是大家的学校，撒旦不应该出现在这里。

证人2：
原文：

Evelyn Sawtelle: Wicca is a way to reconnect. In our modern mechanized world people have lost touch with nature, and Wicca teaches us that God is in all living things.
Denise Bauer: What about magic?
Evelyn Sawtelle: The only spells we cast are positive ones. We believe in the law of three. Whatever energy you put out in the world will return to you threefold. So, we promote good will. Not hexes.
Denise Bauer: Tell us why you want Ms Berleth to end her witch act.
Evelyn Sawtelle: The stereotype. The wicked witch. My daughter comes home at least once a week crying because the kids in school torment her and say she worships the devil.
Denise Bauer: You don’t worship Satan, do you Evelyn?
Evelyn Sawtelle: Wicca has no concept of Satan. The devil, fire and brimstone, hell. That stuff was dreamed up by Christians.
Bob Mathias: Dreamed up.
Attorney Morrison: Now you said Wicca is an ancient belief.
Evelyn Sawtelle: Yes.
Attorney Morrison: But I’m confused. Wasn’t Wicca made up in England the 1950’s?
Evelyn Sawtelle: It wasn’t made up. It came about after England finally repealed the last of its witchcraft laws in 1951. But, it’s simply a modern version of an old belief system.
Attorney Morrison: Witchcraft laws?
Evelyn Sawtelle: Laws created in England and Europe during what are called the burning times. It started in about 1480 and went on for hundreds of years. Tens of thousands of innocent people were burned at the stake because of these laws.
Attorney Morrison: Burned by whom?
Evelyn Sawtelle: Well, the Christians.

译文：
Evelyn Sawtelle: 巫术是一种自我治疗的方式，在我们这个高度现代化的社会，人类与自然越行越远，而巫术告诉我们神存在于万物之中
Denise Bauer: 那所谓的魔法呢?
Evelyn Sawtelle: 我们只会释放带有正面效果的魔法，我们遵循“三倍法则”，你对他人所做所为，不论好坏，最后都会以三倍相同的效果还施到你自己身上，所以我们提倡行善嫉恶
Denise Bauer: 告诉我们你为什么要Berleth女士停止扮演女巫
Evelyn Sawtelle: 因为她扮演的是一个刻板邪恶的女巫形象，我的女儿每个星期至少有一天是哭着回家的，因为学校里的孩子嘲笑她，说她是魔鬼的仆从
Denise Bauer: 你们并不信奉撒旦?
Evelyn Sawtelle: 巫术中根本就没有撒旦的概念，也没有魔鬼，劫火，硫磺，地狱，这些东西都是基督徒凭空幻想出来的
Bob Mathias: “凭空幻想”?
律师Morrison: 你说巫术是一种古老的信仰
Evelyn Sawtelle: 是的
律师Morrison: 但是我有些困惑，巫术不是于19世纪50年代在英格兰制造出来的么?
Evelyn Sawtelle: 它并不是制造出来的，它出现在1951年，在英国废除了最后一部巫术法案之后，但它可是看作是一种古老信仰的现代版本
律师Morrison: 巫术法案?
Evelyn Sawtelle: 巫术法案源于英国和欧洲地区，在火刑时期产生(一个大规模用火烧死女巫的时期)始于1480年前后，持续了数百年，数以万计的无辜民众被烧死在火刑架上，基于这些法案
律师Morrison: 被什么人烧死?
Evelyn Sawtelle: 基督教徒

结案陈词：
原文：

Attorney Morrison: Halloween is a secular holiday and as you can see a fun one. Now the witch at the center of this case, played with gusto by Mrs Berleft, is not a symbol of Satanism and in no way defames the religion of the Wiccans. The whole pageant, indeed all of Halloween everywhere is just make-believe. And to claim that this somehow rises to the level of persecution is not only laughable but offensive. Persecution is an issue which, to be perfectly frank, neither of these suburban parents, nor their high-priced attorneys know anything about. And it’s insulting to groups who have been persecuted to raise that issue at this time in this case.
Shirley Schmidt: The first amendment says we shouldn’t discriminate against any group on the basis of religion. It’s a nice theory. But the truth is the law is rarely applied to protect the Christian faith because being in the majority; well I guess we feel they can take it. And if the religion is too far out there, Christian Scientists sure, Scientologists maybe. Wiccans? Well. At what point does a religion become silly enough that it’s okay to make fun of them? And who decides? What this case is really about is tolerance. Whether it’s Hindus attacking Jews, or Muslims against Catholics, Christians fighting with Wiccans. The aim of the law is tolerance. And I could be wrong but I don’t think we ever ratified persecution under the heading of fun. Let me read you something by Martin Nummular a German pastor who opposed the Nazis. In Germany they came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionist and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak up.

译文：
律师Morrison: 万圣节是一个传统节日，而且如你所见，亦是一个有趣的节日。这个案子的被告，由Berleth女士饰演的女巫并不是魔鬼的象征，也没有损害到巫师的宗教形象，整个万圣节庆典。事实上，万圣节的所有东西都是虚构的，因此，说这是所谓的对信仰的冒犯，不仅可笑而且令人愤怒，我们的主题就是关于谁才是受害者。坦白的说，这些偏激的家长和他们的高价律师都没有意识到这点，因此，在万圣节这个时候，用这个案子一而再地对实际上被冒犯的人提出控诉，实在是很无礼的事。
Shirley Schmidt: 宪法第一修正案指出“每种群体的信仰都应该受到保护”，我认为说得很对，但是事实上，法律并没有很好的保护基督教徒的权力，也许由于他们处于强势，所以我猜我们都认为他们能够很好地保护自己。反过来一些很偏门的信仰，例如信奉基督教的科学家? 当然受到保护。基督教科学派? 可能吧。巫师? 这里我不禁要问，是不是当人们认为一种信仰很荒谬的时候，就可以随意对其进行取笑?而由谁来决定其是否荒谬?这个案子事实上是在探讨宽容，无论是印度教在攻击犹太教，或是穆斯林在反对基督教，又或者基督教徒批驳巫师，法律的出发点都是宽容，也许我是错的，但是我不认为我们可以 冠“娱乐”之名，而行亵渎之事。让我在这里引述Martin Niemoeller，一位德国反对纳粹的新教牧师的话，“在德国，起初他们追杀共产党人，我没有说话，因为我不是共产党。接着他们追杀犹太人，我没有说话，因为我不是犹太人。然后他们追杀商会会员，我没有说话，因为我不是商会会员。，后来他们追杀基督教徒，我还是没有说话，因为我是新教徒。最后他们直奔我而来，而这时候，已经没有人能够为我说话了。”

法官陈述：
原文：
Judge Paul Resnick: We’re dealing here with a pageant in a public school. A public school can’t promote the exercise of any religion and it can’t denigrate followers of any religion. No one should take that lightly. And indeed, Christians, witches and other groups have been persecuted over the years. And no one should take persecution lightly. But we should take Halloween lightly. As the defense pointed out Halloween is secular holiday. More importantly it’s a silly holiday. Children don’t see a witch as a symbol of any sort. A witch is just something to enjoy being afraid of. Motion by the plaintiffs is denied. The Halloween Pageant will go on as it always has. And I advise both parties to lighten up and remember what Halloween really is all about: the candy! Court adjourned.

译文：
法官Paul Resnick: 我们在这里讨论的是公立学校里的万圣节庆典。作为公立学校，不能够宣扬任何宗教信仰，但是它也不能够诋毁任何信仰的信徒，没有人可以不把这当回事，而确实，基督教徒，巫师和其他团体近些年来都受到压迫，而这应该引起我们的重视，但是…我们不应该把万圣节看得太严肃。正如被告律师所说，万圣节是一个传统节日，而且重要的是，它是仅仅是一个节日，孩子们并不会把里面的女巫当作是某种象征。女巫只是一个能令他们尽情尖叫的角色，原告的控诉被驳回，万圣节庆典可以继续进行。同时我建议大家都放轻松点，别忘了万圣节的真正意义，是糖果。休庭。


案件2：伊拉克大兵
交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：
Cassie Elliot: The National Guard said they’d pay his tuition for college. He was also told that he’d be safe.
Alan Shore: Safe?
Cassie Elliot: He was gonna be cannon-loader. Not one of the guys on the streets. They promised. Then he was reassigned doing the job of an MP, guarding a convoy truck. He made a joke that he should have just joined the Boston PD if he was gonna travel halfway around the world to become a cop.
Alan Shore: Cassie, what happened on September second of this year?
Cassie Elliot: Jeff’s convoy was pulling through a town called Iscondaria, they nearly ran over an IED. It’s an improvised explosive device.
Alan Shore: A bomb.
Cassie Elliot: They had to disarm it before the convoy could go on. Jeff didn’t have any training in disarming homemade bombs. But it had to be done, and no one else had a clue! He was always like that. You know if you… Always the one you could count on. He just never should have been there!
Alan Shore: Okay, but Cassie, he did enlist. You sign up for the military you have to assume the risk of going to war.
Cassie Elliot: His tour of duty was up. Plus he died doing something he was never trained for! He didn’t assume that risk!
Alan Shore: Nothing further.
Judge Clark Brown: Mr Randolf.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: I have nothing for Ms Elliot except to thank her family for the sacrifice that they’ve made during this difficult struggle for freedom.

译文：Cassie Elliot: 国民警卫队告诉他，他们会为他提供上大学的奖学金，同时也说他会很安全
Alan Shore: 安全?
Cassie Elliot: 他本来是负责装载炮弹的，不是在街上巡逻警戒，他们曾保证，如果他留下来继续服役，他们会安排他到宪兵队，负责看守押运车。他曾说过一个笑话，如果他想要当个警察，直接加入波士顿警局就可以了，何必在地球上兜一个大圈
Alan Shore: Cassie，在今年的九月二日发生了什么事？
Cassie Elliot: Jeff看管的押运车正经过一个叫Iskandariyah的小镇，他们差点碾过一个IED，那是一个简易爆炸装置
Alan Shore: 一个炸弹
Cassie Elliot: T要继续前进的话他们必须要拆除它，Jeff没有受过任何拆弹训练，但是炸弹必须被拆除，而没有人知道该怎么做，他总是一个，你明白，他是…他总是一个能够信任的人，他只是根本不应该在那儿!
Alan Shore: 谢谢。但是Cassie，他正在服役，既然你同意他应征入伍，你就应该知道战争总是存在风险
Cassie Elliot: 他已经尽到了他的职责，但是他从来没有接受过拆弹训练，他根本预料过这种风险
Alan Shore: 我问完了
法官Clark Brown: Randolph先生?
律师Chris Randolf: 我没有什么要问的了，我只是想对Elliot小姐和她的家庭为我们这场坚苦卓越的战争所做出的贡献表示崇高的敬意

证人2：
原文：
Corporal Brian Webb: On the ground there’s separate rules for National Guards and active duty soldiers.
Alan Shore: How do you mean?
Corporal Brian Webb: Well, guardsmen have to write home for essential supplies, little things like flashlights, batteries, to major stuff like body armor.
Alan Shore: You weren’t give proper body armor?
Corporal Brian Webb: None of us were.
Alan Shore: Now. You were trained as a medic?
Corporal Brian Webb: Yes sir. And when I got there they had me doing MP duty because there was no one left to do it. Before I knew it I was guarding convoys.
Alan Shore: With Private Elliot?
Corporal Brian Webb: It happened to a lot of us. There just aren’t enough guys over there.
Alan Shore: Corporal. Based on what your recruiter told you is this what you expected when you signed up for the National Guard?
Corporal Brian Webb: No sir. No. I wanted to go into the medical field. My recruiter told me that the government would pay for my medical school and that in Iraq? I’d be a medic. Never see combat.
Alan Shore: Why are you home now?
Corporal Brian Webb: I was shot.
Alan Shore: Thank you Corporal.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: You were a soldier in war!
Corporal Brian Webb: I was told I would never see combat.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: Is it your testimony that you were never trained in combat?
Corporal Brian Webb: That’s not my testimony.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: And corporal, before you joined the National Guard you were roughly six thousand dollars in debt?
Corporal Brian Webb: Yes.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: And the government gave you a hefty signing bonus which you used to pay off that debt?
Corporal Brian Webb: Yes sir.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: And now that you’re back at home, going to college at night tuition free and have a good job both of which the government facilitated based on your training in the National Guard?
Corporal Brian Webb: Yes sir.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: And your testimony is that the government didn’t keep its promises to you?
Corporal Brian Webb: That is not my testimony.

译文：
下士Brian Webb: 在战地上，警卫队和当值士兵有着不同的职责
Alan Shore: 你指的是什么?
下士Brian Webb: 警卫队的职责是向总部申请物质支援，包括从手电筒，电池，到防弹衣的一切物质支援
Alan Shore: 你们没有装备防弹衣?
下士Brian Webb: 我们都没有
Alan Shore: 你所接受的是医护培训？
下士Brian Webb: 是的，但是当我到了那里，他们要求我做属于宪兵队的工作，因为他们缺乏人手，在我了解到发生什么事之前，我正在看守押运车
Alan Shore: 和二等兵Elliot一起?
下士Brian Webb: 这种事时有发生，因为那儿总是不够人手
Alan Shore: 下士，当你应征加入国民警卫队时，征兵处工作人员对你说的，和你在战场上遇到的情况一致吗?
下士Brian Webb: 不一致，我本来要去的是战地医院，工作人员对我说，政府会支付我上医学院的费用，而我在伊拉克是作为一名医护人员，不用参与战斗
Alan Shore: 为什么你退伍了?
下士Brian Webb: 我中枪了
Alan Shore: 谢谢你，下士
律师Chris Randolf: 你是战场上的一名士兵
下士Brian Webb: 我被告知我不用参与战斗
律师Chris Randolf: 你的证词说你从来没有受过战斗训练?
下士Brian Webb: 我没有那么说
律师Chris Randolf: 那么下士，在你加入国民警卫队之前，你欠下了6千美元的债务？
下士Brian Webb: 是的
律师Chris Randolf: 而政府给了你一大笔奖金使你可以偿还那笔债务？
下士Brian Webb: 是的，长官
律师Chris Randolf: 现在你回国了，免费读书并且找到一份好工作，这都是政府根据你在国民警卫队中受过的训练提供给你的？
下士Brian Webb: 是的，长官
律师Chris Randolf: 而你在证词中说，政府没有兑现对你的承诺？
下士Brian Webb: 我没有这样说

证人3：
原文：
Sergeant Jason Hendler: I told Private Elliot exactly what he’d be getting into when he signed up. I answered all of his questions.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: Did you ever lie or mislead Private Elliot when he came into your recruitment office?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: No sir. We went over his service contract together and I explained each provision completely. I may have emphasized the positive but I never lied to him.
Alan Shore: You told Private Elliot that he’d be doing things other than canon loading?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Of course. I explained all the contingencies to him. I told him the same thing I tell all recruits.
Alan Shore: Really. This man, Mr Dewey, seated in the second row went to your recruiting office yesterday at our direction. Do you remember speaking with him sir?
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: Objection!
Judge Clark Brown: Mr Shore? What are you doing here?
Alan Shore: Impeachment Your Honor. Sergeant Hendler articulated that he tells the same thing to all recruits. Mr Dewey is one of those all.
Judge Clark Brown: I will allow it. But I have my eye on you.
Alan Shore: Again. Sergeant. Do you remember having a conversation with this young man?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Vaguely.
Alan Shore: Vaguely? You told him the National Guard could train him in sound-mixing.
Sergeant Jason Hendler: We offer a wide spectrum of training possibilities.
Alan Shore: Isn’t it a fact that you never told Mr Dewey he’d have to do anything else? You also told him he’d probably never see combat.
Sergeant Jason Hendler: I believe my words were hopefully he’d never see combat.
Alan Shore: And if Mr Dewey says he never heard the word ‘hopefully’ would he be lying or mistaken because he’s willing to take a polygraph.
U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: Objection!
Judge Clark Brown: Sustained.
Alan Shore: You also mentioned to him something about a Try One program. What’s that?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Try One is a one year trial program. If you sign up and you aren’t happy a the end of your one year contract then you can leave. Without officially enlisting in the National Guard.
Alan Shore: And that’s what Private Elliot signed up for. Correct?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Yes sir.
Alan Shore: See this is what confuses me. Private Elliot served out his year, fulfilled his contract and clearly wasn’t happy. Why didn’t he just come home?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Private Elliot was kept in Iraq under the Stop Loss program. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re at war.
Alan Shore: Tell me Sergeant. Under this Stop Loss program how much longer had the military planned to keep Private Elliot in the service?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: Private Elliot’s obligation was extended to 2031.
Alan Shore: Twenty-six years. Did you tell either Mr Elliot or Mr Dewey about these contingencies?
Sergeant Jason Hendler: We’re at war Mr Shore. We need soldiers.
Alan Shore: Yes. According to our generals and military advisors we need a lot more than the 140,000 currently over there. Why are we not sending more? Are we trying to win this war or not Sergeant?

译文：
中士Jason Hendler: 在二等兵Elliot应征当天我清楚地告诉过他，他会面临的各种情况，我回答了他提出的所有问题
律师Chris Randolf: 当他走进你的征兵办公室后，你是否曾经欺骗或是误导过他?
中士Jason Hendler: 没有先生，我们一起审阅了合同，而且把合同上的条款逐条的解释给他听，我也许强调过参军的好处，但是绝对没有半句谎言
Alan Shore: 你是否曾告知二等兵Elliot，除了装载炮弹外，他可能会做另外的一些工作?
中士Jason Hendler: 当然，我向他解释了可能会发生的各种情况，我对他说了对每个来应征的人都说的同样的话
Alan Shore: 真的吗?这位坐在第二行的Dewey先生，昨天在我们的指导下去了你的征兵办公室，你记得和他说过话吗?
律师Chris Randolf: 反对!
法官Clark Brown: Shore先生? 你在干什么？
Alan Shore: 提出疑问，法官阁下，Hendler军士，很明确地说，他对每个来应征的人都说同样的话，Dewey先生是其中之一
法官Clark Brown: 反对无效，但是别玩什么花样
Alan Shore: 那么军士，我再问一遍，你记得和他说过话吗?
中士Jason Hendler: 有点印象
Alan Shore: 有点印象?你告诉他国民警卫队将会为他提供关于混音的培训
中士Jason Hendler: 我们提供很多技能培训课程
Alan Shore: 事实上，你并没有告诉Dewey先生，他需要做其他工作，你同时也告知他，他将不会参与战斗
中士Jason Hendler: 我想我的话应该是“希望他将不会参与战斗”
Alan Shore: 那么如果Dewey先生说，他从来没有听见“希望”这个词会是他在撒谎或者弄错了吗?他愿意接受说谎测试
律师Chris Randolf: 反对
法官Clark Brown: 反对有效
Alan Shore: 你同时也想他提到了一项“体验一年”计划，那是什么?
中士Jason Hendler: 那是指一年为期的体验项目，如果你参与这个项目，而在你一年役期结束后，你并不满意，你可以随时离开，不再列入国防警卫队的编制当中
Alan Shore: 而二等兵Elliot参加了这个项目，对吗?
中士Jason Hendler: 是的
Alan Shore: 看，这就是我不明白的地方，二等兵Elliot服完了他的役期，履行了他的合同义务，而且很明显他不满意，为什么他不能回家了事?
中士Jason Hendler: 根据“停止减员”程序，他被留在伊拉克，我不得不提醒你，我们正处于战争时期
Alan Shore: 是的。告诉我军士，根据这个“停止减员”程序，二等兵Elliot还需要再服多长时间的兵役?
中士Jason Hendler: 二等兵Elliot的役期延长到2031年
Alan Shore: 共26年。你是否告知Elliot先生或者Dewey先生会发生这种情况?
中士Jason Hendler: 我们现在处于战争当中，Shore先生，我们需要士兵
Alan Shore: 没错，根据我们的军事顾问的资料，我们还需要在那儿投放超过14万的士兵，为什么我们不继续派兵呢?我们到底想不想要打赢这场战争，军士?

结案陈词：原文：

U.S. Attorney Chris Randolf: In war, any war, there are casualties. For the family of a victim to sue the army for such a casualty is not only patently ridiculous it’s an insult. First it offends the memory of the soldier who gave his life to defend his country. Worst, it’s an attack on patriotism and the US Army itself. He enlisted. He was trained in combat. He assumed the risks of combat. This lawsuit merely represents a flamboyant attempt to showcase anti-war sentiment. It is wrong, it is baseless and it’s an affront to every soldier, to every veteran who has put himself on the line to defend the United States of America. Especially, primarily the ones who have given their lives to do so.
Alan Shore: First. This is hardly about anti-war sentiments. Private Elliot was for the war. Personally I was against it, then I was for it then I was against it again, but that’s just me, I’m a flip flopper. But whether one is for or against the occupation and let’s assume judging from your tie one is, that does not exempt the military from a duty to be honest with its soldiers. Private Elliot was told he’d serve a year. He was told he wouldn’t see combat! Okay! Unexpected stuff happens he did see combat. Fine! But, he was sent into combat with insufficient backup, he was sent in to perform duties for which he was never ever trained! He wasn’t given the most basic of equipment. And then after his tour of duty was finally up they wouldn’t let him leave. He never assumed those risks by enlisting. Over extended, under equipped, non-trained. He never signed up for that. And now he’s dead. An aside from his sister, nobody seems to care. We talk about honoring the troops. How about we honor them by giving a damn when they’re killed! Our kids are dying over there! In this country, the people, the media, we all just chug along like nothing is wrong. We’ll spend a month obsessing about Terri Shivo. But dare we show the body of a fallen soldier? The most watched cable news station will spend an hour a night on a missing girl in Aruba, but God forbid we pay any attention when kids like Private Elliot, killed in action…
Judge Clark Brown: You’re off the point.
Alan Shore: I’m not off the point. We’ve had two thousand American trees fall in that forest over there and we don’t even know it. Not really. But, maybe we don’t wanna know about our children dying. So lucky for us this war isn’t really being televised. We’re not seeing images of soldiers dying in the arms of their comrades, being blown apart on the streets of Bagdad. But they are! By the thousands! And all the American public wants to concern itself with is whether Brad and Angelina really are a couple.
At least with Vietnam we all watched and we all got angry!
Judge Clark Brown: What does this have to do with the death of Private Elliot?
Alan Shore: Private Elliot is dead in part because we have a people and a government in denial. We currently have no strategy to fight this war. We have no timetable for getting out. Some of these troops could be extended twenty plus years! Their mothers and fathers have to spring for body armor because the army doesn’t. And they’re getting killed! And we as a nation in denial are letting them. We simply don’t seem to care. Well she does. She’s in this courtroom honoring one dead soldier. That’s a start.

译文：
律师Chris Randolf: 在战争中，任何战争，都避免不了有伤亡。对于一个烈士的家属来说，因此而控诉军队，不仅是十分可笑的，而且是一种侮辱。首先，它破坏了为国捐躯的士兵的荣誉感，更有甚者，这是对爱国主义和军队本身的攻击。他应征入伍，他受过战斗训练，他清楚战争的风险，这场官司仅仅是试图公然宣扬反战情绪，它不分是非，它没有根据，这是对每一个为了保卫祖国而开赴前线，特别是对那些因此牺牲的士兵和退伍军人的公然侮辱。
Alan Shore: 首先，这不是反战情绪。二等兵Elliot是支持战争的，而我个人，我曾反对它，然后支持它，然后又反对它，但是这只是我个人行为而已，我是墙头草。但是无论支不支持这场战斗，根据你的领带，让我们假设支持好了，都不能因此而默许军方，向他们的士兵们撒谎。二等兵Elliot被告知他只需服一年兵役，他被告知他不会参加战斗。好吧，尽管由于不可预期的因素，他参与了战斗，没有关系，但是他在战争中得不到有效的支援，他被派往从事一项他没有接受过培训的工作，他得不到最基本的补给，而他尽了自己的义务后，他们不让他离开，他并不知道要承担这种风险，过度延长役期，得不到良好的装备，没有接受过训练，这些都超出了他的预期，而他现在牺牲了，除了他的姐姐，没有人在意。我们常说要向我们的士兵表示敬意，难道这就是对我们牺牲的士兵表示敬意的方式?我们的孩子在那里牺牲了，而他们的祖国，他们的同胞，还有媒体，我们就像什么都没有发生过一样，我们可以花上一个月的功夫来讨论谢维讼案(关于是否该让一个植物人安乐死的案子)，可是我们却不敢放出士兵的遗体的画面?最多人收看的有线电视台可以每晚花上一个小时时间来关注一个阿鲁巴岛上失踪女童，但是我们却从来不关心像二等兵Elliot这样的孩子在战争中被杀害…
法官Clark Brown: 你离题了
Alan Shore: 我没离题。我们有2,000 幼苗在那里的战火中倒下，而我们甚至都不知道，不一定知道，也许我们根本就不想知道我们的孩子牺牲了，所以我们应该庆幸这场战争并没有被搬到荧幕上，我们看不到士兵们死在他们队友怀里的画面，在巴格达的街头被炸飞，这样的事情有上千起，而所有的美国民众却在关心，布拉德彼特和安吉丽娜茱丽是否结婚了。至少在越南战争的时候，我们都会关心，都会感到愤怒。
法官Clark Brown: 这到底和二等兵Elliot的死有什么关系?
Alan Shore: 二等兵Elliot的死，部分是由于我们民众和政府的漠视，我们没有为这场战争制定任何策略，我们也没有撤军时间表，某些士兵可能要在那里呆上二十几年，他们的父母必须要给他们送去防弹衣，因为军队不提供，然后他们被杀害了!而我们，我们的国家就像旁观者，任由其为之，我们根本就不在意。当然，除了她。她现在就在这个法庭里面，缅怀着一位死去的士兵。这只是个开始。

法官陈述：
原文：

Judge Clark Brown: This war is a disaster. It has been sold to America under false premise. The government has been repeatedly told by its most senior military advisors that it needs far more troops. The advisors have been ignored or, in some cases, even fired. And now we have what very much looks like the beginning of another Vietnam. Except as Mr Shore points out, without the necessary outrage. That said, like it or not, we are at war. And the one thing that keeps the military functioning in war is its hierarchy. Orders are given, orders followed. That’s why Congress has granted the military immunity in lawsuits like this. Ms Elliot, I have the deepest sympathy for you and for your brother. However I rule in favor of the government. The motion to dismiss is granted.

译文：
法官Clark Brown: 战争是一场灾难，美国在错误的预期下发起了它。政府不断地被高级军事顾问告知，那儿需要更多的部队，这些顾问被忽视了，甚至有些被解雇了，因此就形成了我们现在的局面。就像另一场越南战争的开端，除了，像Shore先生所指出的，并没有引起很大的关注。无论如何，我们都处于战争之中，而其中一样让军队在战时能够正常运作的就是它所拥有的权威，令行禁止，这也就是国会赋予军队诉讼豁免权的原因。Elliot小姐，我为你和你的弟弟感到深切的同情，但是…我站在政府这一边，此案撤销。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:29 编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录
  • 爱死你 金钱 +300 违规内容 2008-10-24 00:02

TOP

chuantiaoyu

灵儿

三星会员

Rank: 4

子非鱼焉知鱼之乐...

帖子
2553 
精华
3 
威望
11 点 
金钱
1071 FRB 
阅读权限
20 
注册时间
2007-10-5 
19# 大 中 小 发表于 2008-10-30 15:52  只看该作者
Truly Madly, Deeply
Season 2, Episode 7



小丑
交叉询问：
证人1：
原文：Zozo the Clown: Mr Rogers, Sesame Street, Thomas the Tank Engine, The Magic School Bus, oh, you name it; all the top children’s entertainers are educators.
Atty. Michael Roper: But Mr Berrin? Why global warming?
Zozo the Clown: Mainly because it’s possibly the number one threat to this planet and our country is doing almost nothing.
Atty. Michael Roper: Even so. None of this seems funny. And, ha, you’re a clown.
Zozo the Clown: Global warming could result in a rising sea level that could make a huge part of the world uninhabitable. We as Americans have a responsibility, the US makes up four percent of the world’s population, but we produce twenty-five percent of the carbon dioxide pollution. The most of any country. The United States is the leading cause of global warming. We need to take a leading role in finding the solution.

译文：
小丑Zozo: 罗杰斯先生，芝麻街，托马斯火车头，神奇校车，噢，这些耳熟能详的名字，最好的儿童娱乐节目都是带有教育性的
律师Michael Roper: 但是Berrin先生，为什么要提到全球变暖?
小丑Zozo: 主要是由于这可能是对我们地球最大的威胁，而我们的国家却对其无所作为
律师Michael Roper: 呃，尽管如此，可是这不好笑，而你是个负责搞笑的小丑
小丑Zozo: 全球气候变暖可能导致海平面上升，这会导致地球的大部分地方都不适合人类居住，作为美国人，我们必须承担义务。美国拥有着世界4%的人口，但是我们制造了世界上25%的二氧化碳，美国已经成为导致全球变暖的主要因素，因此我们必须承担起解决这个问题的领导责任

证人2：
原文：
Marshal Stepcoe: It’s a children’s show for Gods’ sake. He’s a clown and he’s waxing on about the end of the world.
Brad Chase: Did you talk to him?
Marshal Stepcoe: Over and over and over. He said he had a social responsibility. My God! We had viewers clicking over to Aaron Brown for a laugh. Our show became preachy, unfunny, ratings started to reflect it and we simply had to get a new clown.
Atty. Michael Roper: Zozo talked about 9-11?
Marshal Stepcoe: Yes. To help children cope.
Atty. Michael Roper: The Columbine shooting?
Marshal Stepcoe: Many times he discussed tragic current events…
Atty. Michael Roper: So you’re firing him for discussing serious subject matter when he’s done so in the past with your approval?
Marshal Stepcoe: There’s a line. Telling our viewers the planet is about to become extinct crosses it.
Atty. Michael Roper: After he told the kids to ask their parents about hybrid cars, that’s when he got fired! Wasn’t it?
Marshal Stepcoe: This has nothing to do with hybrid…
Atty. Michael Roper: WKMW is owned by an oil and gas company.
Marshal Stepcoe: … Nothing to do with our parent company. He wasn’t funny. We needed a funny clown.

译文：
Marshal Stepcoe: 他只是一个小丑，但是他不停地提及世界末日
Brad Chase: 你和他谈过吗?
Marshal Stepcoe: 一而再，再而三。他说他是个有着社会责任感的人，我的天，简直就像我们的观众期待着Aaron Brown能够逗他们发笑一样(Aaron Brown，CNN的著名新闻主持人)，我们的表演变得不好笑了，像说教一样，我们的收视率节节下滑，因此我们必须找个新的小丑
律师Michael Roper: Zozo曾经谈及911事件?
Marshal Stepcoe: 是的，帮助孩子们克服恐惧
律师Michael Roper: 哥伦比亚大学枪杀案?
Marshal Stepcoe: 他曾多次提及目前发生的各种惨案
律师Michael Roper: 你因他不理会你的反对坚持谈论严肃话题而要解雇他?
Marshal Stepcoe: 凡事都有底线。告诉我们的观众地球就要毁灭这种话题越过了这条线
律师Michael Roper: 因为他要求孩子们向他们的父母推荐混合动力车，然后他就被解雇了，是吗?
Marshal Stepcoe: 这和混合动力车没有关系...
律师Michael Roper: WKNW电视台为一家石油天然气公司所拥有
Marshal Stepcoe: …这和我们的母公司没有关系，他只是不够好笑，而我们需要一个好笑的小丑

结案陈词：
原文：Atty. Michael Roper: He had incorporated many serious subjects into his programs. All with the stations approval. But when he moved on to global warming, carbon dioxide pollution, he suddenly had to be stopped? Because he was suddenly less funny? No. Because the station was owned by Globaco Oil. This discharge was wrongful, it was in bad faith. My client has built this company’s fortunes for thirteen years being Zozo. It is his livelihood. He’s perhaps the most popular clown in this country! And this court should issue a TRO to stop this outrageous travesty of justice.
Alan Shore: I could be wrong but a clown’s main job is to be funny. Global warming is not. Your Honor, the Artic polar icecap is declining at the rate of nine percent per decade. We’re talking about a rising sea level that could wipe out huge pieces of the world’s land mass. More importantly, us! Massachusetts, California, our coast lines. That simply isn’t funny! Unless of course you live in Nevada. Don’t get me wrong; millions of Americans go to sleep at night praying that the nation’s number one clown will finally start caring about global warming. But this is a children’s entertainment show! And let me ask you, “If our own government is allowed to edit and alter scientific findings, if it can control the information flow on this subject? Why then shouldn’t a private television station get to enjoy that same freedom?” You’re a clown. Be funny. Global warming is not.

译文：
律师Michael Roper: 他过去多次在他的节目中加入严肃的主题，而电视台都同意他这么做，但是当他谈论到全球变暖，二氧化碳污染，他就突然间被禁止了?因为他突然间不好笑了?不是的。因为这间电视台属于Globoco 石油公司所有，这次解雇是不正当的，是不守信的。我的委托人为这间公司扮演Zozo，在13年里为他们创造了大量的财富，这已经变成了他的生命，他可能是这个国家里最受欢迎的小丑。因此法院应该颁布临时限制令来停止这场藐视公平的闹剧。
Alan Shore: 我也许错了，但是，小丑的主要任务就是使人发笑，而全球变暖不好笑。法官阁下，北极冰川面积正以每10年9%的速度递减，我们正在谈论的是海平面逐年升高，正在逐步的侵蚀地球的陆地，而且与我们密切相关，麻省，加州，我们的海岸线，这一点都不好笑。当然，除非您住在内华达州，打个不恰当地比喻，就好像数以百万计的美国人在每天睡觉前都要祈祷我们国家最好的搞笑小丑也开始担心全球变暖的问题。但是这是一个儿童娱乐节目，我想问，如果我们的政府被允许对科学发现进行编辑和修改以控制这些信息的蔓延而引起民众的恐慌，为什么一家私营电视台不能够拥有同样的权力?你是一个小丑，你的任务是搞笑，全球变暖不好笑。

法官陈述：
原文：Judge Jamie Atkinson: And while I find that the petitioner may very well have a legitimate cause of action, I don’t find such a substantial likelihood of victory that would allow me to issue a TRO. Accordingly I find for the defendant. I wish you all good luck and a satisfactory resolution. Adjourned.
译文：
法官Jamie Atkinson: 我认为原告的请求非常合理，但是我找不到充分的根据，让我批准临时限制令。因此，我判被告胜诉，同时我希望你们双方好运，而且找到满意的解决方式。休庭。

[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:29 编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录
  • 爱死你 金钱 +200 重复发帖 2008-10-30 23:34

TOP

chuantiaoyu

灵儿

三星会员

Rank: 4

子非鱼焉知鱼之乐...

帖子
2553 
精华
3 
威望
11 点 
金钱
1071 FRB 
阅读权限
20 
注册时间
2007-10-5 
20# 大 中 小 发表于 2008-11-3 21:08  只看该作者
Ass Fat Jungle
Season 2, Episode 8



目击证人
交叉询问：
证人1
原文:
James Nasland: I was out walking my dog when suddenly I heard this screech and then a thump. I turned around; I saw a white sedan speed off, ah with a body at the side of the road.
D. A. Chelios: Were you able to get a license-plate number?
James Nasland: Yes. ZXL34. Massachusetts plates.
D. A. Chelios: The record will reflect the parties stipulate that the license is registered to the defendant Jason Matheny. Thank you Mr Nasland.
Denny Crane: Don’t go rough. He just lost his grandfather for God’s sakes.
Shirley Schmidt: That wasn’t his grandfather who died, Denny. He’s just a witness who was walking his dog.
Denny Crane: Whatever.
Shirley Schmidt: Sir, were you able to see who was driving the car?
James Nasland: No.
Shirley Schmidt: Thank you. For the record the parties stipulate the car was reported stolen the night of the accident. Too rough?
译文：
James Nasland: 我当时在遛狗,然后突然我听到了急刹车的声音...呃,然后是撞击声，我转过身去，我看见一辆白色的私家轿车飞速驶离，呃,路的一边躺着一具尸体
检察官Chelios: 你还能记住车子的牌照号码吗?
James Nasland: 是的，ZXL3R，马塞诸塞州的车牌
检察官Chelios: 记录显示,当事人保证那个车牌是以被告Jason Matheny的名义注册的。谢谢你,Nasland先生
Denny Crane: 不要太无礼，老天啊，他刚刚失去了他的祖父
Shirley Schmidt: 那个死掉的不是他的祖父Denny，他只是在遛狗的一个目击证人
Denny Crane: 随便吧
Shirley Schmidt: 先生,你能看见是谁开的这辆车吗?
James Nasland: 不能
Shirley Schmidt: 谢谢。根据记录,当事人保证这辆车已经在事故发生那晚报告被窃了，很无礼吗?

证人2
原文：
Lydia Tuffalo: I saw Mr Bellows crossing the street and then this big white car came racing through the intersection and hit him. The car stopped for a moment and then sped away. People came running out screaming. Mr Bellows was just lying there.
D. A. Chelios: And did you get a good look at who was driving the white car?
Lydia Tuffalo: Yes I did. It was that boy over there. I saw him through the windshield. The streetlight was shining on his face.
D. A. Chelios: One final question. Have you been diagnosed with stage four Alzheimer’s?
Lydia Tuffalo: That’s what my doctors tell me. So I get a little distracted at times. But I know what I saw. That boy hit Mr Bellows and then drove away.
D. A. Chelios: Thank you Mrs Tuffalo.
Shirley Schmidt: The fact that she’s stage four could give us reasonable doubt right there, do we really wanna risk alienating the jury?
Paul Lewiston: Don’t be ridiculous. We cannot let that testimony stand.
Shirley Schmidt: Just a thought. Hello Mrs Tuffalo. I’m Shirley Schmidt, we met the other day.
Lydia Tuffalo: Yes dear. How are you today?
Shirley Schmidt: I’m fine. Thank you. You say you get a little distracted. I’m wondering how little is little?
Lydia Tuffalo: I know what I saw.
Shirley Schmidt: I’m sure you think you do. But it was dark and overcast the night of the accident, wasn’t it?
Lydia Tuffalo: It was dark, as for being overcast, it’s seldom sunny at night.
Shirley Schmidt: The driver never got out of the car, did he?
Lydia Tuffalo: I saw him through the windshield.
Shirley Schmidt: What’s my name Mrs Tuffalo? It’s Shirley Schmidt. Through the glare of a windshield, on a dark night, from a window well over a hundred feet away, you were able to see my client speed by?
Lydia Tuffalo: I have very good eyesight.
Shirley Schmidt: Don’t your nurses have to lay out your medication every night so that you don’t take the wrong pills?
Lydia Tuffalo: Those pills are so small.
Shirley Schmidt: They’re right in front of you, and you can’t tell them apart?
Lydia Tuffalo: I can tell them apart.
Shirley Schmidt: What are the names of the pills?
Lydia Tuffalo: Wha… I don’t know or care. I take what they tell me to take.
Shirley Schmidt: What’s my name?
Lydia Tuffalo: It’s Shirley.
Shirley Schmidt: Shirley what?
D. A. Chelios: Objection!
Shirley Schmidt: What time do you typically take your pills?
Lydia Tuffalo: Eight.
Shirley Schmidt: Eight? You take eight pills everyday?
Lydia Tuffalo: Yes
D. A. Chelios: Objection.
Shirley Schmidt: Who is the president of the United States?
D. A. Chelios: Objection, Your Honor!
Judge: Overruled.
Shirley Schmidt: What day is it today?
Lydia Tuffalo: I don’t know or care what day it is.
Shirley Schmidt: You don’t know what day it is? How did you get here today?
Lydia Tuffalo: Uh, uh. I took the bus!
Shirley Schmidt: You were driven by car. What’s my name?
Lydia Tuffalo: Stop asking me that! I saw that boy!
Shirley Schmidt: What’s that boy’s name?
Lydia Tuffalo: Shirley!
Shirley Schmidt: No, it’s my name. My first name. What’s my last name?
Lydia Tuffalo: I don’t know. I don’t know. Your last name is whatever it is. Dammit!!
Shirley Schmidt: It’s Schmidt.
译文：
Lydia Tuffalo: 我看见Bellows先生穿过街道，然后这辆大型白色的车飞快，驶过十字路口，撞上了他，车停了一会儿后就很快开走了。人们从四周跑过来大声尖叫，Bellows先生就躺在那里
检察官Chelios: 那你是否看清楚了是谁在驾驶这辆白色的车?
Lydia Tuffalo: 是的，就是在那里的那个男孩，我通过挡风玻璃看见了他，街灯正好照在他的脸上
检察官Chelios: 最后一个问题，你是否被诊断为四级阿尔茨海默氏病?
Lydia Tuffalo: 那是我的医生告诉我的，所以我时不时会觉得很心烦意乱，但我还是清楚我所看见的。那个男孩撞倒了Bellows先生，然后开车逃跑
检察官Chelios: 谢谢你，Tuffalo夫人
Shirley Schmidt: 她的四级病症可以给我们合理的怀疑，但我们真的想冒疏远陪审团的险吗?
Paul Lewiston: 别搞笑，我们不能让她的证词成立
Shirley Schmidt: 只是想想而已。你好Tuffalo夫人，我是Shirley Schmidt，我们那天见过的
Lydia Tuffalo: 是的，亲爱的。你今天怎么样?
Shirley Schmidt: 我很好，谢谢。你说你有些心烦意乱?我想知道有一点是多少点?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我清楚我所看见的
Shirley Schmidt: 我确信你觉得你很清楚。在车祸那天晚上天很黑，又是阴天，不是吗?
Lydia Tuffalo: 是很黑，因为是阴天，所以到晚上也不会有阳光
Shirley Schmidt: 驾车者一直没有走出过汽车,是不是?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我是通过挡风玻璃看见他的
Shirley Schmidt: 我叫什么，Tuffalo夫人?我叫Shirley Schmidt。在一个黑暗的夜晚，透过一百英里外的窗户，你通过反光的挡风玻璃，可以看见我的客户飞速驰过?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我的视力非常好
Shirley Schmidt: 你的护士是不是每晚必须把你的药片都分好，这样你就不会吃错?
Lydia Tuffalo: 那些药片实在太小了
Shirley Schmidt: 可它们就在你面前，你却不能把它们分开?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我可以把它们分开
Shirley Schmidt: 那些药片都叫啥?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我不知道，也不在乎。我吃所有她们让我吃的
Shirley Schmidt: 我叫什么?
Lydia Tuffalo: 叫Shirley
Shirley Schmidt: Shirley什么?
检察官Chelios: 反对
Shirley Schmidt: 你一般在什么时候吃药?
Lydia Tuffalo: 8点
Shirley Schmidt: 8片，你每天吃8片药片？
Lydia Tuffalo: 是的
检察官Chelios: 反对!
Shirley Schmidt: 美国总统是谁?
检察官Chelios: 反对,法官陛下
法官: 驳回
Shirley Schmidt: 今天是星期几?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我不知道,也不在乎今天是星期几
Shirley Schmidt: 你不知道今天是星期几?你今天是怎么来的?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我...我坐公车来的!
Shirley Schmidt: 你是被车送过来的。我叫什么?
Lydia Tuffalo: 不许再问我这个!我看见那个男孩了
Shirley Schmidt: 那个男孩叫什么?
Lydia Tuffalo: Shirley!
Shirley Schmidt: 不，这是我的名字，我的名。我姓什么?
Lydia Tuffalo: 我不知道，我不知道!随便你的姓是什么，该死的!
Shirley Schmidt: 是Schmidt

结案陈词：
原文：
D. A. Chelios: She had Alzheimer’s disease. She has trouble remembering a lot of things, including names. Little things. The catastrophic events, traumatic ones, those sink in. Which is why she remains steadfast that Jason Matheny was driving the car that night. And consider this, if Jason weren’t driving that night what a monumental coincidence then that Lydia picked him out of a police lineup! She just happened to pick the guy who owned the offending vehicle! Please! Lydia picked out the defendant because she saw him that night through the windshield. And that’s not changed by the fact she had trouble remembering Shirley Schmidt’s name.
Shirley Schmidt: I don’t doubt she remembered Jason’s face. The police picked him up as the owner of the car, plopped him in a lineup and brought Lydia in. Now we can’t know whether the police nudged or influenced Lydia to select the man they felt committed the crime but, it’s been known to happen. Especially with a witness who needs a little assistance. And that’s where Lydia’s Alzheimer’s comes in. Her brain plays tricks on her. She takes Jason’s face from the lineup and transfers it to the car. Stage four Alzheimer’s is a form of dementia. We have an eyewitness who not only couldn’t remember my name, she didn’t know what day of the week it was, thought she had come here by bus when she had been driven by car. She suffers from dementia. I know we all feel for her. How could we not? She’s adorable, seemingly trustworthy, and our hearts have to go out to anyone who has this insidious disease. One day we or someone we know will be her. More than 1.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s. By the year 2015 that number could increase to 14 million. This is not someone else’s disease. It has or will affect every single one of us. And of course our heart goes out to Lydia. But this trial is about proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. And that hasn’t happened here. All the prosecution has given you is a lone witness who suffers from terminal dementia. Beyond all reasonable doubt? You know better.
译文：
检察官Chelios: 她患有阿尔茨海默氏症，她很难记住很多事情，包括名字，还有其他小事，但悲惨的事件，人身伤害事件，那些都会深深记在脑海里。所以她才会坚持说，Jason Matheny就是当晚开车的人。考虑一下这个，如果Jason那晚没有开车，那也实在是太太凑巧了，Lydia能在警察排出的一组人当中选出他，她只是刚好把那个拥有这辆可怕的驾驶工具的家伙挑了出来，想想吧!Lydia选出了被告，因为那晚她通过挡风玻璃看见了他，这个事实不能被因为她记不住Shirley Schmidt这个名字而改变。
Shirley Schmidt: 我并不怀疑她记住了Jason的脸的事，警察因为他是车主所以把他选了出来，放进一组人中，然后把Lydia带进去。现在我们无从得知的是，是否是警察故意引起还是暗示了Lydia，说�