返回列表 发帖

祝凯, 梁警官案件深度评析 (第一草稿)

梁警官案件深度评析 (第一草稿)


祝凱    02/14     49949   



4.2/34



梁警官案件深度评析(第一草稿)

祝凯,硅谷华人协会(SVCA)

[按:本人是一名加州律师,主要从事 patent litigation / patent monetization。本人既不是a member of the NY Bar,也从来不执业criminal law。这几天网上关于梁警官的各种消息评论非常多,但缺乏相对全面系统的分析讨论,而且似是而非的谬误不少。本人曾很希望,也曾呼吁NYC里庞大的 Chinese Bar 有人来lead现在的局面,至少准确全面地提供科普性信息。很遗憾两天过去了,没有看到。另,这个案子本身绝不是一起简单的刑事案,政治的成分非常多,涉及到的问题,也不完全是简单的法律问题,而包含赤裸裸的政治问题。本人恰巧最近两年在北加州学习了一些政治,所以愿意把一些个人对政治的理解,结合法律问题,来对现阶段的梁案做一个综述。

关于本人对梁案中的 facts的了解,完全基于网上,主要来自检方的Memo和这个网站:

http://gothamist.com/tags/peterliang

关于本人对纽约州刑法的具体了解,完全基于这两天的research

抛砖引玉,谬误之处,恳请各位专家包容并指正。]

(一)梁案中的法律问题

(二)梁案中的政治及其它非法律问题

(一)梁案中的法律问题

关于梁案在高层面的一些事实,大家都非常了解,虽说可能还是和真正事实有些偏差,这里不再重叙,而直接进入主题。


相关纽约州刑法背景

211日陪审团最重要的一项verdictmanslaughter in the second degree。这到底是什么意思呢?要一般人搞清这个问题,恐怕还得从美国刑法的最基本讲起。美国联邦宪法不仅保证了联邦政府的三权分立(各州宪法也比照性地在州政府保证三权分立),也让联邦和各州政府共享政府权力,虽然这二者之间的权力争夺两百多年来一直在持续。刑法总的来说是各州采用自己的法律标准,而除了路易斯安那州因为法国殖民地legacy原因是civil law系统,各州都是采用英国的common law系统。近代联邦enact各种criminal statutes建立了很多联邦级的罪行,比如最近在华人社区沸沸扬扬的一些所谓“经济间谍案”,就是基于一部The Economic  Espionage Act of 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996)。这是一部联邦的criminal law statute,但其中经常被动用的条款是联邦的商业秘密法(刑法),和“间谍”(espionage)并没有关系,而传统的各州的商业秘密法都是民法,犯了也只有民事经济责任。

最早年各州的刑法基本完全是采用common law的案例法,也就说一个具体的刑事案例要比照先前一样的案例来判决。但世界上没有人两次踏入同一条河流,两个一模一样的案例几乎不存在,所以法官就会基于最基本的法理,对二个案子之间不同的,新的法律问题来进行裁决,结果就是创造了新的案例法,可以供以后的案例借鉴。整个common law的案例法系统(包括各种民法)就这样不停的循环递归,以致the “book” 越来越庞大。很多律师喜欢把自己的profile照片里的背景设成一排大书架,上面几大排看上去几乎一模一样的书,那些书其实就是(某一个领域)各年的案例。等这个“book”到了一定规模,绝大多少案子的法律问题都可以在以前的案例中找到,即使没有完全类似的案例,具体的法律问题点也可以在不同的案例找到那个具体的法律问题点来进行裁定。另一方面,这个世界由人组成,复杂无比,再庞大的”book”,也不可能包罗万象,囊括芸芸众生一切可能出现的行为模式和时间地点,所以新的,具体狭窄的法律问题还是不断源源出现,让”book”不停修订成长。

完全依赖案例法显然一效率不高,二少可预见性。所以近代各州都通过立法来直接制定什么行为是犯罪。这种立法不仅在州级政府有,地方政府也有。州级的一般叫statute,地方的一般叫ordinance,但“code”是一个比较普遍的统称。这种条文法就和civil law的大陆法系有些类似了。但条文法的最大问题是,文字是死的,static的,人和世界都是活的,dynamic的。一句法律文字总体上怎么解读,在一个复杂案情的context下又怎么解读,是一个巨大的问题。法律文字本身不可能像Wikipedia一样来对其中的文字意义来做详细阐述,所以即使有了code,其解释和运用最终还是要通过案例法来进一步实现,具体化。Common law 相比 civil law的一个巨大优势就是有案例法来产生 predictability。一个法律条文在一个具体案例情况下是什么意思,该怎么判决,律师通过对case law legal research,可以得出相对专业可靠的判断。反过来,civil law有很大的 unpredictability。同样的一个案情,理论上湖北的法院和湖南的法院可能得到不同的结果,两个不同的湖北地方法院也可能得到不同的结果,同一个湖北地方法院在不同时间也可能得到不同的结果,因为不同法官对法律条文解读可能不一样,没有binding precedent可以遵循。但common law获得这种可预见性和相对稳定性的社会成本非常高,不仅产生每一个新的案例消耗大量社会资源,律师在做legal research的时候,要navigate浩如烟海的case law,每小时几百美金,当然不便宜。

各州纷纷通过立法来制定刑法
(penal code) 后,长期就慢慢形成了各州之间刑法标准的严重不一致。同样的一个行为,比如成年人和未成年人有双方自愿性的性行为,可能在有的州是重罪,有的是轻罪,有的无罪。虽然美国高度尊重各州的 sovereignty,这种分裂和不一致对整个美国社会产生严重的 social cost,所以全美刑法专家在1962年制定了 Model  Penal Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code),算是一部刑法的参考法典,对各种犯罪的定义提供了一个标准。这之后,不少州慢慢修订自己的penal code,向
MPC靠拢,使得各州的刑法有一个baseline,不至于差别得太大。但各州人民的 demographicdifferences,使得各州的政治,宗教,和价值观点还是差别不小,而这种差别,最终还是在各州的 penal code,特别是案例法中体现并保持下来,造成各州的刑法有不小实际差别。

为什么我们谈梁案,拉拉扯扯这么多?因为不这样很难理解他到底获得了什么罪名,和如何想办法抗辩。纽约州的 manslaughter in the second degree 是一个 codified C级的 felony charge,在纽约州的Penal Code Section 125.15 (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.15):

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.  A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:  1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or  2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision threeof section 125.05; or  3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.  Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

上面唯一适用于梁警官的,就是 “recklessly causes the death of another person” 这么简单的一句话。所以罪成与否,完全取决于 “reckless”这个词梁的行为,有没有reckless?

但对这个词的运用和裁定,恰恰是整个刑法里面的核心。至少在common law里面,刑法和民法的一个本质区别就是犯罪行为必须有一个犯罪意图 (拉丁文 mens rea)。简单的说,任何一个犯罪,都要有客观上的犯罪行为 (actus reus) 和主观上的犯罪意图 (mens rea)。比如你手里稳稳地拿了一个小铅球上80层楼,79层地上莫名其妙一滩油,你不小心滑了一跤,铅球脱手一直滚到一楼砸死了一个人。这个是绝无criminal law定罪的可能性的。这个最多只能有 civil lawsuit,没有“杀人偿命”的可能,因为没有mens rea

这个例子说明,那些不支持梁警官的人觉得“一个无辜黑人白白丢了一条命,所以梁警官肯定应该有命案”的说法是荒谬的,是不懂刑事责任和民事责任之间区别的表现。具体说来,这个CAAAVCathy Dang http://www.bohnettfoundation.org/dbf-fellow/cathy-dang; http://caaav.org/about-us/staff)就是这样一个bitch (“All of our members agree that what officer Liang did was wrong. He took a life and he needs to be held accountable. From older Asian immigrants, to youth, to staff, they’re all in agreement”, http://gothamist.com/2016/01/28/akai_gurley_liang_trial.php)

Common law 的各种罪行里面,怎么裁定 mens rea的存在,是非常复杂混乱的,因为各种罪行的轻重无法直接比较,而同一罪行在不同的案情情况下也很难互相比较,所以对mens rea存在,无法准确要求。这个给jury judge都带来了极大的困扰,因为这个概念非常主观模糊,很难精确描述,使得judge在各个具体案子中,无法保证 jury instructions的正确和一致性。

Model Penal Code 最最重要的部分,就是对 mens rea做了一个供参考性的分级 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code; http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/basicElements/ModelPenalCodeMensRea.asp)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Purposely

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Knowingly

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Recklessly

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Negligently

这里面具体的定义上面的网站都有。可以看到,recklessness是比较低的 mens rea的要求,比negligence高,但比purposeknowledge都低。

纽约州的penal code,包括上面的 manslaughter of the second degree的定义,直接定义了 recklessly (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article15.htm#p15.05):

3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result orto a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he isaware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable riskthat such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The riskmust be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes agross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable personwould observe in the situation.  A person who creates such a risk but isunaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also actsrecklessly with respect thereto.

可以看到,这个就是照抄MPC的定义。马上可以看到的是,很多地方误传的梁警官被裁定“二级谋杀罪”的说法是荒谬的,是把manslaughter 翻译成谋杀的错误。纽约州的 murder in the second degree 定义于Code Section 125.25 (http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.25),是一个 A-1级的 felony charge。这里面各种情况对mens rea的要求,都高于简单的 recklessly

为什么我们非要分析这个recklessly?因为有了大致理解后,即使我们不research NY case law,也可以判断出梁案庭审中的揭露的一些问题,和许多目前网上评论的偏差。

目前网上讨论中存在的一个问题是,几乎所有人都只在讨论辩解开枪是故意还是无意,和如果无意是否应该获manslaughter in the second degree的罪。这个并不全面。检方的控诉重点和庭审表明,虽然在早期控诉时警方可能更侧重于梁警官没有遵照训练过的规则而开枪走火,到庭审时问题的焦点已不仅仅是为什么开枪(当然这个问题也非常重要),而更侧重于梁警官为什么没有在开枪后及时,尽全力施救Gurley。简单的说,recklessly 并不一定是在开枪的那一刻直接被满足的(当然没有被检方排除,但看起来非检方唯一重点,甚至不是第一重点),而是为什么在梁警官受过相关训练后,面对重伤的Gurley,没有及时,尽全力施救这个如果成立而无其他原因可辩解,也可以满足recklessly,因为梁警官显然有责任对自己直接造成的重枪伤者竭力施救。当然,检方更希望二者(开枪,不及时施救)都满足 recklessly,二者一项满足即可成罪。

而这其中的审判,就涉及到很多非常 nuanced的细节。其中既有逻辑上的问题,更有证人(梁警官的警察伙伴Landau) 翻供的严重问题。而美国的初审法庭,陪审团的重要任务是 find facts,确定了facts后,才在法官的jury instructions下,现炒现卖,apply刚刚学来的 law to the facts

查明这些问题,对上诉很关键。因为如果上诉法庭认为jury即使把facts查清楚了,但apply law的时候错得太多,是可以 remand回去重审甚至直接reverse的。

检方2015429日的Memo

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2110003/people-v-liang-memorandum.pdf (检方的2015429Memo)

检方2015429日的Memo中,声称了以下事实
(Gothamist 网站于2015624日有报导,见http://gothamist.com/2015/06/24/akai_gurley_nypd_liang.php)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->梁警官大致于 11:00 pm + several minutes后走火(Gothamist 错误地报导说大约11:00 pm 走火;但检方Memo说根据Gurley 女朋友Butler的证词,
approximately 11:00 pm “Mr. Gurley walked to the elevator”,然后“waited for several minutes”等电梯后,才走入楼道并遭遇走火,故走火应该在11:00 pm + several minutes后,这个时间应该和后来的邻居证词和911时间更一致,因为从中枪到接通911不应该花了14分多钟。同理,Gothamist 6/24/2015文章的题目,“Cop Who Shot Akai Gurley Allegedly Waited Nearly 20 Minutes To Radio For Help”,是完全错误的,因为没有20分钟那么长。这样provocative但又错误的媒体报道,显然对梁警官不利)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->走火后梁警官回到第八层楼楼道外面。Landau “What the F happened?” 梁回答说 “It went off by accident” and repeatedly said that he would be fired

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Landau一边安慰梁警官不会被fired,一边要梁警官按要求给上级报告走火事件。梁警官和Landau争执了约两分多钟该谁报告的问题双方都要求对方报告(按:梁警官这个行为不可理解,对他应该非常不利,因为表现他是个不敢面对现实甚至不敢承担责任的人对控方和陪审团来说,这个表现他characterfact和后来的施救不力问题可以联系起来),其中还包括争夺Landau手机的问题
(因为梁问Landau上级的电话号码,Laudau用自己手机上存储的号码给梁显示。按:这个多半可以解释成梁中途还是决定给上级报告,不过看到Landau手机后激动地想抢过来直接打,而这个行动应该可以推理证明在当时一片混乱的短暂时间内,梁没有预谋骗Landau的手机打电话报告,因为说到底即使抢过手机也是梁自己准备拨号打。所以这个fact可以多少negate前面他要求Landau报告的懦弱问题)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Defendant. and Officer Landau did not call Sergeant Martinez and did not report defendant's discharge of his weapon at that time (Landau: 287~88, 325).

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Gurley Butler 听到枪响都从中枪地点七楼往下跑,跑到五楼Gurley跌倒才发现他胸部中枪

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->一现场四楼居民应Butler要求在11:14:46 pm 打通911报警,之前Butler回到五楼Gurley身旁

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->打通911后,911 operator听到中枪的报告后把电话转给了紧急的EMS operator。邻居和EMS operator 对话后被指导回四楼拿毛巾,并把毛巾交给Butler让她给Gurley按压止血。然后邻居跑回四楼。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->另一方面,梁警官在和Landau争执完后
(如前所叙,根据Landau,二人都没有报告走火),决定回到楼道里查看子弹。Landau跟随在后

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Landau听到楼下有声音后,和梁一起跑到五楼,发现中枪的Gurley

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->已经跑到四楼的邻居看到两位警官站在五楼,并看见梁手里有部手机。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->此时Butler惊叫Gurley没有在呼吸。EMS operator从邻居手里的电话听到后要求做CPR。邻居把这个指令转给了Butler。尽管Butler不会做CPR,也还是开始做。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->梁和Landau都是 certified CPRLandau证词说他知道在这种情形下他应该给GurleyCPR(按:检方Memo里并没有说Landau证词说梁也知道这个规定,他仅仅证词自己知道;梁是否知道这个规定,从Memo里不得而知)。Landau和梁都没有给GurleyCPR,而且没有呼叫救护车。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->接下来,(似乎另一)邻居证人进入第四层楼楼道,看见两位警官在第四层楼(按:不知为何他们从第五楼到了第四楼),并听见他们正准备报告(Landau慌张催梁报告,梁慌张问该楼地址)。该邻居告诉了梁地址

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]--> 11:19:46 pm,梁的 radio call 被收到到,梁报告说“Pink House, post one”,并于11:19:57 pm 11:20:24 pm再次报告。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->同时,一位叫
Zelekov的警官大约于11:15 pm 通过911系统收到有人中枪的报告并得到准确地点,并立即驱车前往(按:911 call11:14:46 pm接通,不得不赞一下)Zelekov赶到时,一些别的警官也同时赶到。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->这些警官从同一楼道冲上四楼,看见梁警官站在四楼,就问发生了何事。梁回答说 “I shot him accidentally” 并指向五楼。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Zelekov 赶到五楼,发现 Butler在做CPR,就命令另一名警官结过来做CPR,并自己于11:21:07 pm 呼叫救护车 (“rush the bus”),并于11:21:10 pm 11:21:19 pm再次呼叫。

检方2015429日的Memo中,同时强调以下关于梁警官接受过的和扳机安全和急救的相关训练:

[两张图无法加入 - to call 谢谢]

2016年庭审

根据
Gothamist 网站和其他网站,梁案庭审中披露的细节大致是:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->检方对梁警官为什么没有尽力抢救Gurley比为什么违反操作程序而走火更着力
(http://gothamist.com/2016/01/26/akai_gurley_trial_liang.php)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->The prosecution argued that he “violated his training” and “showed indifference to Gurley as he lay dying.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“Instead of doing all he could, Liang didn't call for help, he stood there whining and moaning”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->The several minutes that Gurley lay dying with a bullet wound to his chest in the NYCHA stairwell, Liang never alerted other officers that a shooting had taken place.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“When [his partner] urged him to call in the shooting, Liang cared only about himself”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Zelekov警官证明梁警官心理素质很差,当场惊慌得不知所措(“Frozen”(http://gothamist.com/2016/01/29/akai_gurley_liang_trial.php)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“He was frozen when I first encountered him before I took his firearm,” Zelokov testified.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“I took the officer out of the stairwell and into the hallway. He was shaken up, he was pale, he became unable to stand on his feet and I had to sit him down.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->Asked if Liang was capable of doing police work, Zelokov said "no."

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->Asked more specifically if Liang might have been faking this demeanor, Zelekov again said “no.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Landau 庭审中证词他和梁在八楼争执了四分多钟(http://gothamist.com/2016/02/03/akai_gurley_trial_liang_partner.php; 而在检方2005Memo中,Landau说是两分多钟,“The officers argued back and forth for about two minutes about who should :report the shooting to their superior officers”)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->201624日的cross examination中,Landau出现严重不一致证词(http://gothamist.com/2016/02/05/liang_trial_gurley_shooting.php)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“Do you remember telling ADA Fliedner and ADA Alexis that it took 30-40 seconds back in that hallway?” defense attorney Robert Brown asked Landau. “I do not recall,” Landau answered. When asked to review the transcript of his statement, Landau agreed that he had said there had only been 30-40 seconds in the hallway.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“You heard Officer Liang say on the radio that a police officer had been involved in a shooting,” defense attorney Robert Brown told Landau, referring to a transcript from an NYPD interrogation done only days after the shooting.  “Yes,” Landau admitted, contradicting his earlier testimony, when he claimed Liang never alerted their superiors.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->201624日的cross examination中,Landau也像Zelekov警官证明梁警官心理素质很差,当场惊慌得不知所措(“Landau also testified that as both officers were driven in an ambulance to Jamaica Hospital, Officer Liang was distraught and that his mental condition deteriorated rapidly after finding out that Gurley had been shot.”)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->201628日庭审最后一天,检方指控里梁后来跑进楼道找子弹casing是为了”cover up”,同时做了一个很奇怪的closing argument (http://gothamist.com/2016/02/09/liang_trial_gurley_closing.php)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“‘He went to the stairwell to find the shell casing, to keep this quiet. But when they found Akai Gurley on the fifth floor landing, they realized that they couldn’t anymore,’ Alexis told the jury.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“‘Peter Liang fired a shot right where Akai Gurley stood,’ said Assistant District Attorney Joe Alexis during his closing argument.  ‘He fired a shot because he heard a sound. Akai Gurley is dead because officer Liang heard a sound… a sound [Liang] can’t even describe.’”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->第二天,201629日,梁警官的律师就检方的closing argument向法官递交了一个动议,要求裁定因为这个closing argument 中的不当指控和语言造成了 mistrial。法官驳回了这个动议(http://www.wsj.com/articles/mistrial-motion-rejected-in-officers-manslaughter-case-1455132466)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“Ms. Koshetz said Mr. Alexis had ‘accused Officer Liang of what amounted to intentional crimes, of deliberately pointing the gun at Akai Gurley with the intent to shoot, which is not the charge.’”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“On several occasions in his closing arguments, Mr. Alexis said Officer Liang ‘had to know’ that the sound that startled him in the pitch-black stairwell was a person, and that the officer had pointed his gun at the sound and fired. It was the first time in the trial that the prosecutors had suggested that Officer Liang pointed a gun at what he believed to be a person.”

陪审员的裁定

虽然陪审团达成一个一致结果,但他们达成这个结果的具体原因并不一致。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->有的陪审员说 11.5磅力的扳机并不难扣动,有的却说很难

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“We knew his testimony wasn’t completely true,” juror Carlton Screen told the Post, noted that it was very difficult to pull the trigger. (http://gothamist.com/2016/02/13/nypd_fires_partner_of_officer_who_k.php) (按:Carlton Screen是陪审团中唯一一名黑人,并已经69。很难想象,各个年龄不同的男男女女,包括69岁的老头,来主观感受并评判11.5磅力的扳机是否很重是不是合理,而这个关键问题的不合理性如果不合理性成立是否造成了mistrial的可能。当时只要有一名junor的结果改变,本案就应该已经流审)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->Juror No. 9 said he’s fired guns plenty of times before, and it wasn’t hard for him to pull the trigger.  “Even with the extra pounds, it’s not that hard to pull,” he said — but he didn’t believe there was anyway the gun could have gone off accidentally. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/peter-liang-finger-shouldn-trigger-jurors-article-1.2529788)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->对陪审团达成罪成的结论,梁警官的错误到底是因为把手指违反规定放在trigger上,还是如检方在closing argument里面所说,听到声音,主动/有意朝声音开枪?这两者有着本质的区别,因为 mens rea不一样。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“The shot, that was the most important part of this case,” juror No. 10, Carlton Screen, told the Daily News.  “From the experts, through their testimony, a shot cannot be discharged unless your finger is on the trigger,” said Screen, 69. “If the shot never occurred, we wouldn’t be talking now. (按:听上去Carlton Screen只是认为梁的错误不该违反规则把手指放在扳机上)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“I believe that it was a mistake he made, putting his finger on the trigger,” said juror No. 9, who asked that his name not be used.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->陪审团有没有正确运用相关的法律标准?如果梁的错误是不该违反规则把手指放在扳机上,那么受到惊吓开枪,mens rea应该达不到“consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk”这个标准,特别作为一个新手在一个顶级危险地方黑暗中巡逻

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->He said all the jurors knew Liang did not mean to hurt Akai Gurley, but at the end of the day, an innocent man was dead. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/peter-liang-finger-shouldn-trigger-jurors-article-1.2529788) (按:这个听起来和Cathy Dang这个bitch的逻辑一样,因为梁警官造成了一条人命,所以无论如何都要负责。如果陪审团里大多数人逻辑是这样,他们明显错误运用法律,因为manslaughterrecklesslymens rea的标准比negligent高,这种逻辑本身没有检验mens rearequirement)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->“I really pray for Liang. I didn’t want to convict him, but he needed to be held accountable,” the juror said.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o
<!--[endif]-->While Liang didn’t mean to hurt anybody, “Did his bullet take Gurley’s life? Yes.”

梁案法律问题总结

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->检方明显同时寻求“开枪”和“不救援”两项可能满足
“recklessly”的标准,也就是 “aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.  ”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->陪审团好像基本都是就开枪这个问题找到 “recklessly”而给梁警官定罪。但这些都是 off the record,上诉时候,检方一般还会对“不救援”这一项继续争取罪成。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->检方就“不救援”这项的指控有明显逻辑错误,因为梁警官一开始跑出八楼楼道并和Landau争论的时候,虽然Gurley已经中枪并躺倒在五楼,梁警官和landau都不知有人中枪,这个时候延误的时间,和
“recklessly”没有任何关系。梁警官应该只是为走火本身违反规则而惊慌失措。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->梁警官的各种惊慌失措表现
(八楼的表现,Zelekov警官的“frozen”证词,和后来Landau“distraught and that his mental condition deteriorated rapidly”证词),足以证明他的心理素质很差,遇到重大事件无法集中精力像正常人一样来救援 Gurley,而不是有意见死不救。这个应该是很强的证据来 negate 他有 recklessnessmens rea。同时,他的这种心理素质,可以解释他为什么违反规定把手指放在扳机上,因为很有可能作为一个新手在一个顶级危险地方黑暗中巡逻,心里十分害怕(按:不知辩方在庭审中有没有就梁的心理问题提供专家证词)。这种解释,可以negate他的mens rea

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->检方最后的closing argument,突然改变策略,提出一个一直都没有提出过的理论(梁警官有意朝声音开枪),而庭审中间没有提供任何证据来支持这个理论,且最后陪审团中显然可能有人bought这个理论
(“We knew his testimony wasn’t completely true,” juror Carlton Screen told the Post, noted that it was very difficult to pull the trigger. “I don’t think we hit it like that, that he was an intentional liar. But we all agreed he wasn’t being truthful.”) 。虽然Chun法官拒绝了辩方翌日的motion,这个问题有非常强的可上诉性。

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
Landau的证词有几处不一致。不知为何不 impeach

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->无论如何,jury manslaughter in the second degree的法律标准,具体说来
“recklessly” 的标准的运用,比较可疑,肯定要全力上诉。

(二)梁案中的政治和其它非法律问题
TBD








Support ......"................
EXCLUSIVE: Officer Peter Liang's lawyers may gamble on jury trial in Akai Gurley shooting
(梁警官的律师想用陪审团来一赌Akai Gurley枪击案)
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-officer-liang-lawyers-opt-jury-trial-article-1.2457127
文章里写到The judge was "shocked" when Brown and Koshetz said they wanted to have jury selection and not a bench trial, the source said.
可能新律师本意是好的,想赌一下不会有12名陪审员会一致定罪。
返回列表