浮沉录

《波士顿法律》结案陈词：第1季.第4集 ——力挽狂澜
《Boston Legal》 Closing : Season 1, Episode 4—Change of Course

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”

相关链接：
1.《波士顿法律》第1季第4集 英文剧本下载： DOWNLOAD (Script S1E4)
2.《波士顿法律》第1季第4集 在线收看地址：
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/13859450-1232904111.html

本文部分内容转载自：http://www.1000fr.com/thread-221948-1-1.html

Boston Legal Closing：Season 1, Episode 3 –Catch and Release
《波士顿法律》结案陈词：第1季.第3集 ——性骚扰

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。

部分内容转载自：http://www.1000fr.com/thread-221948-1-1.html

下面一些图是我截自 CNN专访陈冠希谈艳照门的视频：
视频地址在YOUKU上可以看到，地址：http://www.youku.com/playlist_show/id_3402868.html
　

抿住下嘴唇表示羞愧。



用手遮掩都是掩饰实情的表现。 

撇嘴是一个典型的面部表情，表明对自己所言全无信心。

更多LIE TO ME 的表情说明，请看下面：
不说谎的身体—lie to me笔记 来自: 慕颜为君
 http://www.douban.com/group/topic/5994036/

=============转载的分割线================

事实依据——观看明星接受采访的视频，通过观察明星的“微表情”，进行测谎分析。啥叫“微表情”？顾名思义，可以理解为“微细表情”，Lightman说了，这是一种下意识的表情。再善于压抑情绪，这种微表情也会持续1/5秒。

 特别说明——所有分析仅能够表明有说谎嫌疑。真要是办案，光靠分析微表情当然不够，还得靠证据说话。人家Lightman也是这样的，通过观察微表情找到线索，然后顺藤摸瓜去办案。咱这次也不是正经办案，往大了说是给您揭穿明星的谎言，往小了说也就是图个乐呵，大家看着开心就好，不必太较真儿。

阿娇、陈冠希说谎示意图

“普通人在谈话中每十分钟就会撒三次谎。”在最新当红的美剧《LIE TO ME》(中译名为《千谎百计》)里面，男主角Lightman说。这部以表情识谎为题材的美剧也席卷了大洋彼岸的中国，引发了LIE TO ME风云——大家开始热衷为别人测谎，通过观察他的脸、他说的话、他的一举一动…..。现在，每一个你身边的人都成了潜伏的撒谎者。

 完全可以拿这句话向娱乐明星致敬。我们心知肚明：明星如果不活在谎言中，就没有收视率、没有人缘、没有红利…..。然而观众需要完美的偶像来照亮人生黯淡的路，所以我们明明清楚，却任由他们撒谎而不愿追究；明星的谎言恰恰也造就了他们自身，让他们的人生变得扑朔迷离、富有故事。就像最近，我们看到艳照门众人纷纷复出，闹离婚的伊能静贾静雯对公众掏心掏肺，乍一看去，他们无一不真诚、恳切，令人动容。事实是否如此？用Lightman在电视剧中教我们的方法去辨别，你会发现，这其中也是真假交杂虚实并生。这一次，我们就来试着揭发他们的谎言。 

说谎爱摸鼻子

正式测谎之前先给您提个醒 

爱撒谎的匹诺曹后来长了个长鼻子，本来挺帅一小伙儿，全破相了。可见说谎是个大罪过，因此给人测谎绝对是个技术活儿，不能冤枉了人不是？我们当然也不能跟您信口开河，得有理有据啊。 明星选择——当然是最近有新闻的明星了，我们选了十个，但并不意味着只有他们撒谎，而别的明星诚实； 

理论依据——我们运用的都是Lightman教的方法，如果您觉得不对，找他去。

以上文字转自《南都周刊》

Boston Legal Closing：Season 1, Episode 1 –Head Cases
《波士顿法律》结案陈词：第1季.第1集 ——种族问题

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.

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。

相关链接：
1.《波士顿法律》第1季第1集 英文剧本下载： DOWNLOAD

2.《波士顿法律》第1季第1集 在线收看地址：
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/13826030-1232904111.html

部分内容转载自：http://www.1000fr.com/thread-221948-1-1.html