Author: Zhou Anning Huai'an Municipal People's Procuratorate
Source: WeChat public account twitter
"Twelve Angry Men" is an old American movie and an almost must-see movie for legal people. The story tells the story of a midnight murder case in which a boy is suspected of killing his father, charged with first-degree murder, and eventually acquitted by a jury.
The 12 jurors come from a variety of professions, including architects, watchmakers, securities brokers, advertising agency managers, and salesmen selling orange sauce.
The jury's collegial rule is that if there is reasonable doubt about the defendant's crime, a verdict of innocence must be made, and if there is no reasonable doubt, the defendant must also be found guilty. It can be discussed first, or it can be decided by direct voting without discussion; it can be voted by show of hands or in secret. But regardless of whether innocent or guilty, either way, jury members must reach a unanimous conclusion, rather than a minority obeying the majority.
Most of the jurors did not take the case seriously at first, some felt lucky, encountered a murder case, novelty, and some even wanted to "go through the motions" as soon as possible, so as to rush back to watch the game. In addition, they had participated in the trial for six days before, and they already knew the process of the case, and the members of the jury unanimously agreed not to discuss it first, but to vote directly, and if the conclusion was unanimous, they could immediately end the collegial discussion.
The results of the vote came out quickly. Of the 12 jury members, 11 found the defendants guilty, and only one juror named Davis ultimately objected. He stated that he was guilty of the accused and that he did not know whether he believed it or not. But because it is a matter of human life, how can a decision be made in 5 minutes? Sending a child to the death row chair without discussion is difficult to do! What if we're wrong!
It was this "key minority" that pushed the case upside down.
Unable to reach a unanimous conclusion, the jury agreed to discuss the facts of the case, and each juror began to state his or her reasons.
"Such a person is easy to commit crimes", because the boy was born, grew up in the slums, and has a bad record of fighting and other bad deeds, some jurors showed prejudice against the boy in their speeches; some said "I just think he is guilty, no one proves his innocence"; some can not say at all, saying that the defendant was found guilty at the beginning of the trial, and now it is just looking for his motive for the crime.
In fact, the above-mentioned reasons for finding the boy guilty are not sufficient. On the contrary, the occurrence of many wrongful cases is caused by the preconceived prejudice of judicial personnel, or the presumption of guilt, imposing the burden of proof of innocence on the defendant, or not being tried before trial, first deciding and then trying, "from person to witness" rather than "from evidence to person".
Of course, some jurors were "righteous" and believed that the defendant had purchased the murder weapon in advance - a very special-looking spring knife, and the same spring knife was seized at the scene, and two witnesses unanimously proved that the defendant was the murderer.
Since everyone found the defendant guilty, some jurors were even emotional, accusing Davis of wasting everyone's time. Under pressure, Davis compromised. He proposed a second round of voting, which would be held in secret, and if there was still unanimous conviction of the accused, he would obey everyone's opinion. But as long as a juror also finds the defendant innocent, he will retain his views and the case will still have to be discussed.
The jurors presiding over the collegial deliberation read out the results of the vote one by one, and just when everyone thought that the overall situation had been decided and the defendant would be found guilty, another "not guilty" vote appeared.
Who is "mischief"? An elderly juror said he voted against it. He said it was not easy for Mr. Davis to stand up to everyone's opposition and ridicule alone, "He desperately tried to win support, and I supported him." "I also accept that this boy may be guilty, but I want to hear more testimony!"
The case once again entered the discussion session, and more details were discovered and debated.
At a cursory level, it seems that the evidence proving the guilt of the accused has a great advantage, and there are two main aspects.
On the one hand, two witnesses proved the guilt of the accused.
The first witness was an elderly man living downstairs from the defendant. He testified that he heard the defendant shouting "I'm going to kill you", then heard the defendant's father fall to the ground, and then he saw the defendant escape.
The second witness was a woman living opposite the defendant building. She said that through the window of the elevated train that happened to pass by at the time, she saw the defendant stabbing her father with a knife, and she was frightened and called the police.
But after in-depth discussions, the testimony of both witnesses was problematic.
If, as the second witness claimed, the defendant had killed his father when an elevated train had passed, because there would have been a great noise as the train passed, the first witness would have been less likely to have heard the defendant's cries of "I'm going to kill you";
The jurors then found that the second female neighbor, a myopic patient, was sleepless in bed and without glasses at night when the lights were dim, and she was sleepless (based on life experience, jurors basically agreed that it was unlikely that anyone would wear glasses while sleeping) and that it was unlikely that the boy would be seen murder through the window of the train that happened to be passing by.
On the other hand, the defendant seems to have difficulty justifying himself (although the defendant is legally not required to prove his innocence, his ability to give a reasonable explanation for his actions directly affects the inner conviction of the jurors). The defendant claimed to have bought a switchblade, which may have slipped out of his pocket while watching a movie, and that it was the same switchblade that killed his father at the crime scene. The defendant claimed that he had gone to see the movie at night, but he could not tell what the name of the movie was and who the protagonist was during the first interrogation.
However, it is not invulnerable. Juror Davis showed the scene a switchblade he had bought in the attachment to the defendant's home, exactly like the murder weapon, indicating that the knife was "not special." The defendant is still a child, the father is suddenly killed, he is arrested as a criminal suspect, and in the case of extreme fear and panic, it is possible that he cannot remember the name and protagonist of the movie he watched for a while.
In fact, through in-depth analysis, we found that there are many other doubts in the case.
The boy was caught returning home at three o'clock in the night, and if it was his murder, why didn't he run away, but instead returned to throw himself into the net? Since you have thrown yourself into the net, why don't you confess guilt?
If you want to remove the spring knife, but after examination, the knife does not have the boy's fingerprints. If the murderer is him, carefully wiping off his fingerprints after the crime shows that he is very calm. Since the fingerprints have been erased and the evidence has been eliminated, why did you come back to get the knife? If you want to take the knife, why don't you just run away with the knife at that time?
Taking a step back, if the boy thought it was late at night, there was a chance that he would come back without being spotted, but the female neighbor claimed to have screamed. Since the witness heard the boy claiming to kill his father, it should be believed that the boy might have heard the screams, and the boy should know that the crime had been discovered, and since he was calm, why should he return to the scene of the crime?
The chain of proof of the boy's guilt was crumbling, and the jurors' inner conviction was shaken. During the discussion, several more rounds of voting were held, and only one juror remained satisfied that the boy was guilty. But the juror abruptly gave up, agreeing to the boy's innocence because he found himself projecting his anger at his son, who also had a very unsympathetic son.
At 12:0, the jury unanimously acquitted the boy.
Some people may ask, from the beginning everyone almost all convicted the boy, and then only because of one person's opposition, gradually changed the outcome of the case, was everyone wrong at the beginning, was the boy really innocent?
In fact, the collegial result does not mean that the boy is innocent. He cannot be found guilty only because there is reasonable doubt. No one can penetrate time and space to return to the scene of the crime, and the magistrate does not have a God perspective. Although facts can be found, pasted and constructed through evidence, in reality, the lack of evidence is a norm. Determining whether a party is guilty or not is actually gambling on a probability. Maybe the bet is right, maybe the bet is wrong. But as long as there is reasonable doubt, it should be left alone. This is actually a simple arithmetic problem. To spare a real criminal is to do a wrong question. But if you mistakenly grasp the wrong judgment, you are doing two wrong things, because you have wronged a good person and spared a bad person.
One might ask, is the jury collegial rule reasonable? Why the consensus? In the eyes of a thousand people, there are a thousand Hamlets. It is normal for different people to have different views on the same case, and wouldn't it be more reasonable for a minority to obey the majority?
Respecting minority opinions and seeking consensus on this basis may be the biggest inspiration of this case. My understanding is that under this rule, everyone, whether guilty or not guilty, convinces not only himself, but also others. This prompts everyone to have a deep understanding of the case, strengthen the exchange of views, collisions, and "the more the truth is argued, the clearer it is", which is conducive to maximizing the "approximation" of the facts of the case.
The ultimate application of the above rules is that without objection, unanimous agreement cannot be adopted.
Alfred Sloan, the legendary CEO of GM, asked at an executive meeting: "Gentlemen, we have reached a unified opinion on this decision, right?" Everyone nodded in agreement.
Surprisingly, Sloane went on to say, "Okay! In that connection, I suggest that we postpone the follow-up discussion on this issue to the next meeting. Let's have more time to come up with different perspectives, and maybe you can learn more about the decision. ”
Sloan was keenly aware that unanimous agreement was probably not a good thing.
In order to ensure that both listening and making decision-making more scientific, some institutions, including some large companies, will set up some opposition roles, just like the devil's spokesman system in the Catholic Church. The devil's spokesman is responsible for investigating and questioning the church's canonization candidates, thus forming a more rigorous examination.
I wonder if the role of lawyers in the design of the state's system for prosecuting crimes is not like that of the opposition? Lawyers do not speak for the so-called "bad guys", but to let the judiciary "listen and be clear". Isn't the compulsory defense of crimes such as the death penalty also the principle of "without objection, unanimous opinion cannot be adopted"?! Therefore, respecting and protecting the rights and interests of lawyers is exactly the proper meaning of judicial fairness and judicial civilization.
Submissions are reproduced for illustration
Submission email: [email protected]