韩式半永久培训治疗癫痫病要多少钱/天游娱乐博狗/博狗手机版/bet365澳门新葡京/澳门新葡京/188金宝博188金宝博/葡京
澳门威尼斯人/冒险岛私服澳门威尼斯人/bwin百家乐/太阳城/百家乐伟德/婷婷五月俺去也人妻bwin/bet365
侯卫东官场笔记BT种子/慧聪网bwin秋霞电影网/Bt种子百家乐/足球比分
百家乐/百家乐澳门新葡京/uedbet/bet365百家乐以太坊/牙齿矫正费用 
返回列表 发帖

[【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)

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


此帖严禁灌水,如对某些案例有自己的看法,请另发讨论帖欢迎讨论。

严禁灌水,也请不要回复“LZ辛苦了”之类的话,谢谢广大BL的爱好者

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

第1季第2,6,7和第9集无结案陈词

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

第2季第3,9,11,18,20,22和第26集无结案陈词

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


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2009-1-6 20:24 编辑 ]
!qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_title!: !qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_qzone!!qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_qzone! !qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_weibo!!qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_weibo! !qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_pengyou!!qqconnect:connect_viewthread_share_to_pengyou!

Boston Legal
Head Cases
Season 1,Episode 1


101.jpg
2008-12-27 02:04


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

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

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


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



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


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

TOP

Boston Legal
Catch and Release
Season 1, Episode 3


103.jpg
2008-12-27 02:06


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

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


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


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

TOP

Boston Legal
Change of Course
Season 1, Episode 4


104.jpg
2008-12-27 02:06


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

交叉询问:
原文:
Dr. Karp: They told me that he was religious. That maybe if he thought he was about to die his conscience would get the better of him.
ADA William Preston: So you told Mr. Litch he was dying?
Dr. Karp: Yeah. I’m not proud of it. But I probably should’ve—
ADA William Preston: And doctor, did you also hear Mr. Litch confess to killing Officer Devereaux?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
ADA William Preston: You’re sure?
Dr. Karp: I’m very positive.
ADA William Preston: Thank you, doctor.
Edwin Poole: In fact you told him he had less than an hour to live?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
Edwin Poole: You lied to your own patient?
Dr. Karp: They told me that he had murdered a police officer, and –
Edwin Poole: As a result of this despicable conduct, were you disciplined by the hospital?
Dr. Karp: My privileges were suspended for three months.
Edwin Poole: And you’re back in the E.R. now?
Dr. Karp: No. No. I’ve started my residence in the neurology department.
Edwin Poole: Your specialty is the brain?
Dr. Karp: Yes.
Edwin Poole: Doctor, as a neurologist, how does trauma and extensive blood loss affect the brain?
Dr. Karp: Uh, sometimes it can compromise mental functioning.
Edwin Poole: Can it cause a person to become delusional?
Dr. Karp: I don’t believe he was delusional that night?
Edwin Poole: Did he suffer trauma and extensive blood loss?
Dr. Karp: Yes. Yes, he did, but –
Edwin Poole: Can you state to a medical certainty that he was not delusional?
Dr. Karp: No.
Edwin Poole: One last question, and this one I ask you as a layperson, a human being. Is it conceivable to you that if you had a loved one who had panicked and committed a horrible crime, say murder, somebody you cared deeply for—perhaps a brother, a best friend, maybe your son had done this horrible thing—and you lay in a hospital bed dying, is it conceivable that knowing you were dying, you might take the blame for something you didn’t do just to spare your loved one a life sentence?
ADA William Preston: Objection!
Edwin Poole: Sustained! Did it ever occur to you that night, doctor, Warren Litch said he committed the crime simply to protect somebody else?
Dr. Karp: No. No, it didn’t.
Edwin Poole: I bet it never occurred to the police, either. Nothing further.

译文:
医生 Karp: 他们告诉我他是信教的,当他意识到自己快死的时候也许…他的良心会让他作出正确选择
检察官 William Preston: 所以你告诉Litch先生他快死了
医生 Karp: 是的,我并不以此为荣,但是我也许应该…
检察官William Preston: 医生 你听到Litch先生承认…是他杀了Deveraux警官吗?
医生 Karp: 是的
检察官 William Preston: 你确定?
医生 Karp: 非常肯定
检察官 William Preston: 谢谢你,医生
Edwin Poole: 他骗你你还能活多久…事实上,你告诉他活不过一个小时
医生 Karp: 是的
Edwin Poole: 你对你自己的病人撒谎?
医生 Karp: 他们告诉我他谋杀了一位警官…
Edwin Poole: 作为这种卑鄙行为的后果,你受到医院的处罚了吗?
医生 Karp: 我的执照被暂停了3个月
Edwin Poole: 而你现在已经回到急诊室了
医生 Karp: 不,不,我只是开始在神经科做住院医生
Edwin Poole: 你的专长是脑科?
医生 Karp: 是的
Edwin Poole: 医生,作为一名神经科专家,外伤和大量失血会对大脑产生什么影响?
医生 Karp: 呃,有时会损害精神官能
Edwin Poole: 会让人产生错觉吗?
医生 Karp: 我不认为那天晚上他是产生错觉
Edwin Poole: 他的确是受了外伤还有大量失血吗?
医生 Karp: 是的,是的,他的确如此,但是我…
Edwin Poole: 你能作出确切的医学诊断来证明他没有产生错觉吗?
医生 Karp: 不能
Edwin Poole: 最后一个问题,请你作为一个医学外行一个普通人来考虑,是否有可能,你所爱的惊慌失措犯下了一桩可怕的罪案,比如谋杀,而他是你所深爱的人,你的兄弟,你最好的朋友,也许你的儿子,做了这么可怕的事情,而你躺在医院的病床上,奄奄一息。是否有可能,你知道自己将不久于人世,会认下自己从没做过的事情,就只为了帮你所爱的人免去一生的牢狱之灾?
检察官 William Preston: 反对!
Edwin Poole: 反对有效,医生,那天晚上是否听到Warren Litch说他认罪只是为了保护其他人?
医生 Karp: 不,没有这回事
Edwin Poole: 我打赌警察也不会注意。我问完了。


结案陈词:
原文:
ADA William Preston: You heard from witness Frank Simmons who saw an S.U.V. speed by him a mile from the scene around the time of the murder. With a license plate beginning with 3-L-6. Mr. Litch’s S.U.V. has a license plate beginning with 3-L-6. And when the police entered the defendant’s apartment, what did he do? He didn’t ask “What’s this about?” He didn’t say, “Hey, what’s going on?” He knew exactly why they were there, and he immediately began his escape. And then in the hospital, he confessed. It wasn’t a delusional confession. He described a fact pattern that was completely consistent with the crime. The defendant admitted that he was afraid of yet another drug conviction that would land him a life sentence. He panicked, pulled out a gun, and fired. Now, his lawyers suggest he was, perhaps, delusional when he confessed or that he simply lied to protect the real killer. A friend or a loved one. Desperate suggestions for a desperate client. It’s insulting to this court, to you, and especially to that woman and her two children. Warren Litch murdered her husband. Warren Litch killed their father. He admitted to the police that he did so. Let’s not waste any more time.
Lori Colson: I don’t know about you, but if I hear that someone confessed to a crime, then I just assume he’s guilty. But if I hear the confession is coerced, then---. For example, you could have a man bleeding out with a stomach wound, put him in a room with police and clergy who keep insisting to him that he did something and he might actually come to believe it. And gee, what if it was a friend or a loved one who was driving Warren’s car that night? That would explain why Warren was trying to flee, wouldn’t it? He likely knew the police were coming to mistakenly arrest him. Did the police investigate any of this? My God, we all assume Warren Litch is guilty. But what if he isn’t? Now, let’s turn to the other evidence. Wait. There is no other evidence. No gun, no witnesses, no fibers, no forensics. All they have is that coerced confession. Now, you might think he did it. And if you’re determined, you can even still assume it, I suppose. But if you’re to uphold the law and demand proof beyond all reasonable doubt, and if we don’t demand that, do we really want to send a message to the police? “Hey, forget the evidence. Just bring us that confession.”

译文:
检察官 William Preston: 你们已经听过Frank Simmons的证词了,大约就在凶案发生时,他在离案发现场一英里处,看见一辆SUV飞快地驶离…车牌是以“3L6”开头的,Litch先生的SUV牌照也是以“3L6”开头,而当警察闯入被告的公寓时,他是什么反应?他没有问“这是怎么回事?”没有问“嘿,你们要干吗?”他很清楚为什么警察会出现,然后他决定马上逃跑。接下来,在医院里,他认罪了,不是因为错觉才招供,他详细描述了他所犯下的罪行,被告承认了他当时是因为害怕…再次被定贩毒罪,从而被判终生监禁,他慌了,掏出枪,开火。而现在他的辩护律师说,也许他在供认时,产生了错觉,或者他只是想保护一个朋友,一个爱人而撒谎顶罪,绝望之人的垂死狡辩,这侮辱了法庭,还有你们,尤其是侮辱了那位女士和她的2个孩子。Warren Litch谋杀了她的丈夫,Warren Litch杀害了他们的父亲,他已经向警察供认了罪行,没必要再浪费时间了。
Lori Colson: 我不知道你们怎么看,但是如果我听说某人承认犯罪了,我会认为他是真的有罪,但是如果我知道他是被迫的,那么比如说…一个腹部伤口流血不止的人,被一屋子的警察和牧师,坚持指认他做了某件事,也许他就会信以为真,如果他的好友或亲人,刚好那天晚上开了Warren的车,那就能解释为什么Warren会想要逃了,不是吗?他能预感地到警察会错误地逮捕他,警察调查过这些吗?上帝,我们全都认为Warren litch有罪,但是如果他没有呢?现在我们再来看看其他证据,等等…没有其他证据,没有枪,没有目击证人,没有纤维,没有法医鉴定,有的只是一份被迫做出的供词。你们可能认为是他做的,甚至认为这是理所当然的,但是如果你相信法律,要求用证据以排除所有合理疑点,当我们放弃这种要求时,我们真的希望对警察说…“嘿,去它的证据,只要口供就好”


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

TOP

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


105.jpg
2008-12-27 02:12


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

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


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



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

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


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

TOP

Boston Legal
Loose Lips
Season 1, Episode 8


108.jpg
2008-12-27 02:38


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

交叉询问:
原文:
Gil Furnald: I’ve been sitting in that chair as Santa for eight years, and I’ve been an exemplary Santa. People will tell you, even if they don’t shop at Gordon’s, they come to see me.
Alan Shore: For how many of those eight years have you been dressing as a woman?
Gil Furnald: All of them.
Alan Shore: And in all this time, had your cross-dressing ever been an issue at work?
Gil Furnald: No. I was always in the Santa costume. People never even knew. It was always my intention to keep my worlds separate. So, it’s been my secret.
Alan Shore: But your secret got out.
Gil Furnald: Last week, I had a boy in my lap—eight years old. I asked him what he wanted for Christmas. He said, “Santa, please make me normal.” He was starting to cry as he said it.
Alan Shore: He said, “Make me normal”?
Gil Furnald: Yes. He said, um—He said he was sick. He said that he liked to wear girls’ clothes, and he was sure he’d go to hell. And I said, “Son, you’re not alone, and you’re not sick.” And I told him about me.
Alan Shore: Thank you, sir.
Atty. Phillips: So, while on the job, you told an eight-year-old boy that Santa is a cross-dresser?
Gil Furnald: Yes.

译文:
Gil Furnald: 我坐在那儿扮圣诞老人八年了,而且我扮的圣诞老人堪称典范,会有人告诉你,即使他们不在Gordon购物,他们也会专程过来看我
Alan Shore: 这八年中你穿女人衣服有多久了?
Gil Furnald: 所有这八年
Alan Shore: 那么在这八年里,你的异装癖有没有影响到工作?
Gil Furnald: 没有,我一直都穿着圣诞老人的衣服,人们不会知道,我小心的让这两个世界没有交集,所以,这一直都是我的秘密
Alan Shore: 但你的秘密泄露了
Gil Furnald: 上周我让一个小男孩坐在膝盖上,8岁,我问他圣诞节想要什么礼物,他说 “圣诞老人,请把我变正常” 他开始边哭边说
Alan Shore: 他说 “让我变正常”
Gil Furnald: 是的,他说,嗯,他说他病了,他说他喜欢穿女孩的衣服,还坚信自己会下地狱,然后我就说,“孩子,你不是唯一的”“而且你也没病”,然后我说了自己的秘密
Alan Shore: 谢谢你,先生
Atty. Phillips: 这么说,你在工作的时候,告诉一个8岁大的孩子圣诞老人是个异装癖?
Gil Furnald: 是的


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


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:38 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Boston Legal
Hired Guns
Season 1, Episode 10


110.jpg
2008-12-27 02:39


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

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

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

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

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

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


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:39 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Schmidt Happens
Season 1, Episode 11


111.jpg
2008-12-27 02:41


基于发生在苏丹的种族清洗,有委托人状告美国政府袖手旁观,Shirley Schmidt为委托人辩护       

开案陈词:
原文:
U.S. Attorney Joyner: They’re seeking damages for acts committed by a foreign government against a foreign citizenry. There’s no jurisdiction here; no standing. And even if there were, any such lawsuit would be barred by sovereign immunity, which prohibits the U.S. government or its officials from being sued for foreign policy decisions.
Judge Linda O’Keefe: Miss Colson, I have to agree. How do I not toss this on its face?
Lori Colson: First, the United States government, through Congress, ratified the U.N. Convention against genocide. The government’s current failure to stop the genocide in Sudan violates both U.S. law and policy.
U.S. Attorney Joyner: We have not failed. We have expended . . .
Lori Colson: You’re arguing the merits, which I’m happy to do, but it means a trial. If a government begins a rescue operation which, in effect, stops other countries from pursuing that rescue, that government can be held liable for failing to complete that rescue.
U.S. Attorney Joyner: Never. Never has the United States government attempted any rescue mission in Sudan.
Shirley Schmidt: Your Honor, may I? We know this lawsuit is a bit of a stretch.
Judge Linda O’Keefe: Hmm. You understate it.
Shirley Schmidt: But the truth is, our country puts it out there. “We will root out terrorism wherever it thrives.” We elect our presidents on that theme. We go to war over it. Wherever oppression abounds, we get involved. It’s almost become a motto. No one here denies an ethnic genocide is taking place in Sudan. Arab militia are wiping out the black population of Darfur. Am I boring you?
Judge Linda O’Keefe: Miss Schmidt. The court recognizes the atrocity. Why should the United States be held liable?
Shirley Schmidt: Well, if we’re not going to do anything about it, maybe we should just say so. Lord knows, the world will understand. We’ve certainly got our hands full. But when our leaders do their bipartisan puffing, saying the genocide must end, other countries think we’re going to do something. They then stay out of it, and, in the end, nothing gets done, while millions of people are being persecuted. Maybe as a compromise, we could just get the U.S. government to declare for the record, “Hey, not our problem.” That way, the world would be on notice—somebody else should play hero. I could try to sell that to my client.
Judge Linda O’Keefe: Mr. Joyner?
U.S. Attorney Joyner: The United States’ response to an ethnic genocide is certainly not going to be, “Hey, not our problem.”
Shirley Schmidt: See? This is how other countries get confused.


译文:
U.S. Attorney Joyner: 他们企图追究的是他国政府对他国国民的行为,没有司法权,也没有立场。即使有任何这样的起诉,都将因主权豁免被撤销,从而避免美国政府及其官员,因对外决策而被起诉
法官Linda O’Keefe: Ms. Colson,我必须同意这点,如此明显我怎能不裁决呢?
Lori Colson: 首先,美国政府已通过国会认可了联合国反种族屠杀公约。政府对苏丹种族屠杀的这种不作为违背了美国的法律及政策…
U.S. Attorney Joyner: 我们没有不作为,我们已经花费了…
Lori Colson: 如果你想辩论,我很乐意,但那要在庭审中。如果政府已经展开援助,从而造成其他国家不再施以援手,这个政府就应为自己未完成援助而负责。
U.S. Attorney Joyner: 没有!美国政府从未在苏丹境内进行任何援助行动。
Shirley Schmidt: 法官大人,我可以说两句吗?我们知道这个案子有点勉强
法官Linda O’Keefe: 你也知道
Shirley Schmidt: 但事实上,是我们的国家这样宣称 “我们将铲除任何地方所盛行的恐怖主义” 。我们也正以此选举着自己的总统,我们更因此投入战争,只要有压迫,我们都不会袖手旁观,这几乎成为座右铭。这里没人否认苏丹正遭受着种族清洗,阿拉伯军队正在扫除,Darfur的黑色人种,这些让你感到无聊了?
法官O’Keefe: Ms. Schmidt,法庭承认暴行的存在,但美国政府为何要对此负责?
Shirley Schmidt: 如果我们不打算做些什么,或许我们该直说,上帝知道世界会理解的,我们已经自顾不暇。但当我们的领导人吹嘘着两党的共同决定,其他国家会认为我们准备采取行动,所以他们都不插手,于是最后,什么也没发生,任由数百万的人遭受迫害。可以算是妥协方案,我们只要美国政府正式声明“嘿 不关我们的事”,这样世界会知道,需要其他国家伸张正义,我可以说服委托人接受。
法官Linda O’Keefe: Mr. Joiner?
U.S. Attorney Joyner: 美国政府对种族屠杀的回应当然不会是“嘿 不关我们的事”
Shirley Schmidt: 瞧,其他国家就这样给搞糊涂的


法官陈述:
原文:
Judge Linda O’Keefe: To be honest, I might have a hard time finding Sudan on a map. I certainly know they’ve got big problems. Innocent people murdered every day, systemic rape, many of them children. It’s the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
Shirley Schmidt: Please don’t say “but.”
Judge Linda O’Keefe: But, why does every crisis automatically fall to the United States to solve? We’ve got Iraq, Iran, North Korea—and these are people who might murder us. We’re supposed to tend to a bunch of Africans killing each other? Why? Because we’re Americans? The answer is . . . yes. Because we’re Americans. Because we’re a nation—perhaps the nation—that’s supposed to give a damn. What’s going on is an organized extermination of an entire race of people. We’re the country that’s supposed to give a damn. Miss Schmidt, Miss Colson, your claim here most likely won’t survive summary judgment. And maybe the American people don’t care about what’s happening over there, but for today, here, now—at least one federal court judge does. Defendant’s motion to dismiss—denied.

译文:
法官Linda O’Keefe: 说实话,要在地图上找苏丹不容易。我当然也知道他们的艰难境况,无辜生命每天惨遭杀害,大规模的强奸,许多还是孩子,这是世界上最严重的人道主义灾难。
Shirley Schmidt: 千万别说“但是”
法官Linda O’Keefe: 但是...为什么每个灾难都等着美国去解决?我们有伊拉克问题,伊朗问题,北朝鲜问题,还有人想要杀害我们,我们还要去掺和非洲人的互相厮杀吗?为什么?就因为我们是美国人?回答是...是的。因为我们是美国人。因为我们是一个,或许也该那个会给予谴责的国家。现在所发生的是有组织的灭绝全人类的种族,我们就该是插手的国家。Ms. Schmidt,Ms. Colson,你们的诉求可能很难通过二审,美国人也许不在乎那里发生了什么,但是,今天,这里,此刻,至少一个联邦法官在乎。被告不予受理的请求…驳回。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:41 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

From Whence We Came
Season 1, Episode 12


112.jpg
2008-12-27 02:42


地区教育董事会投票决定在八年级的科学课上同时教授神创论和达尔文进化论,教师们拒绝,校长解雇了他们,于是教师们起诉校长。Shirley Schmidt和Lori Colson为校长辩护

交叉询问:

证人1:
原文:
Walter Fife: We actually call it Intelligent Design. Basically the idea is, life is so complex, a Greater Power has to be at play.
Lori Colson: The Greater Power being God?
Walter Fife: We’re by no means...shutting down Darwinism or suggesting that evolution is inaccurate.
Lori Colson: Do you believe in evolution, Mr Fife?
Walter Fife: I happen to believe in both God and evolution. I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive.
Lori Colson: So, why not simply offer the Intelligent Design theory in religion courses? Why Science?
Walter Fife: Well, we thought long and hard about that. But the simple truth is, more and more scientists, scientists, not theologians have said that when you examine the intricacies of the human cell, the mathematical equations of DNA, you simply cannot conclude that it’s all explained by natural selection. Another Power has to be at work.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: God?
Walter Fife: Well again, we never mention Him by name.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: You’re aware of the separation of Church and State?
Walter Fife: I’m aware.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: And you’re also aware that the Supreme Court has banned the teaching of Creationism.
Walter Fife: Well. As I said, technically we’re not calling it Creationism.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: But you admitted that’s what’s going on. And Creationism holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago in 6 days?
Walter Fife: That’s not my view.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: But it’s a view you’re insisting your teachers explain in the Science class?
Walter Fife: As a theory.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: A theory with no Scientific bases other than to say… “Gee, evolution can’t account for it all.”


译文:
Walter Fife: 实际上我们称之为智能设计论,基本上说,生命是如此复杂,更高一级的力量必定参与其中,更高一级的力量是上帝,我们绝没有否认达尔文理论,或者指出那是错误的
Lori Colson: 你相信进化论吗,Fife先生?
Walter Fife: 我同时相信进化论和上帝,我不认为这两者之间相互排斥
Lori Colson: 为什么不直接在宗教课上教授智能设计论?为什么要在科学课上?
Walter Fife: 我们深思熟虑过,但是,事实上越来越多的科学家,科学家,而不是神学家宣称,当你探究细胞的内部结构DNA的方程式,你无法简单的用自然选择学说来解释另一种力量应该在发挥作用
律师 Daniel Gellman: 上帝?
Walter Fife: 再说一次,我们没有提到他的名字
律师 Daniel Gellman: 你知道政教分离吗?
Walter Fife: 知道
律师 Daniel Gellman: 你也知道Fife先生,最高法院禁止教授神创论
Walter Fife: 我说过,实际上,我们没称之为神创论
律师 Daniel Gellman: 但是你承认了事实如此,神创论认为6000年前上帝在6天之内创造了世界
Walter Fife: 那不是我的观点
律师 Daniel Gellman: 但是你坚持要老师在科学课上教授这种观点
Walter Fife: 是作为一种理论
律师 Daniel Gellman: 一种完全没有科学依据除了说“嘿,进化论不能解释一切”的理论

证人2:
原文:
Roberta Turner: At the beginning of the school year we got the word at our teacher’s assembly, that moral values would be one of our educational objectives. Which was fine. But to have Evolution bumped for Creationism.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: Well! To be fair, Evolution isn’t being displaced. Creationism is just being included.
Roberta Turner: Evolution is a tough subject matter. We cannot cut into what little class time we have to service a political agenda. To teach…
Lori Colson: Objection! This is non-responsive.
Judge William Howe: Please limit your answers to the questions, ma’m.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: Why can’t you view Intelligent Design as a Science, Ms Turner?
Roberta Turner: Because! There is simply no scientific data to support it. How are we to maintain any credibility as Science teachers if we say, “Gee! Despite all this data, there’s also another possibility.” Intelligent Design makes a mockery of Science. If you wanna teach it as religion course? Fine! But as a Science? It’s simply preposterous.

译文:
Roberta Turner: 本学年刚开始,我们在教师会议上得知道德价值将会做为教学目标之一,这没什么。但是进化论给神创论让路…
律师 Daniel Gellman: 公平的来说,进化论并没有被取代,只是加入了神创论
Roberta Turner: 进化论是个很难教的知识点,我们不能因为政策原因再削减本来就少的课时…
Lori Colson: 反对,与本案无关
法官 William Howe: 请简要回答问题,女士
律师 Daniel Gellman: 为什么你不认为智能设计论是科学,Turner夫人?
Roberta Turner: 因为没有任何科学证据支持它,我们怎么去维护科学课老师的可信度?如果我们说“嘿,尽管没有证据,另一种可能也是存在的?”智能设计论是对科学的践踏。如果你把它当作宗教课程,可以,但是当作科学课,这是非常荒谬的。

结案陈词:
原文:
Attorney Daniel Gellman: These are bad times for Science your Honor. Especially at the hands of moral values. The government has systematically distorted or worse, suppressed findings by the FDA and EPA when it comes to contraception, stem cell research. AIDS, global warming, pollution…
Judge William Howe: Let’s just stick to the case, Counsel, and leave politics out of it.
Attorney Daniel Gellman: This case is all about politics. It’s about getting religion back into schools. Creationism is religious doctrine; it is not supported by scientific data. I’m a Christian. My wife is a Jew. We have wonderful debates. And this country, as a whole should be more theologically literate, but it’s not Science! What’s happening here today is an attack on evolution. It’s clever. Let’s call it Intelligent Design. Let’s not mention God. But, come on! The Supreme Court banned the teaching of Creationism in the public schools. They were right then, they remain right today, and my client’s discharge was unlawful, as well in violation of our time honored tradition of separating Church and State. Of course we have a legitimate Cause of Action.
Shirley Schmidt: That was almost Evangelical. The Establishment Clause prohibits the endorsement of, or discrimination against any particular religion. But it was never meant to extinguish the notion of a Higher Power. I certainly believe in evolution. Who here among us, while watching the presidential debates could deny that we all come from monkeys. But, what’s so wrong with suggesting, as a possible theory, that a Higher Power might
have also played a part? As for Church and State, we go to war over God-given rights to Democracy. Let’s face it. God is big here. We love God, and we as a nation have an overwhelming belief He had something to do with the creation of human-kind. But, teach that in a Science class? Perish the thought. Nobody here is trying to squash evolution, and I would agree with Mr Gellman, it isn’t good Science to suppress information. But, I would ask the court, who here today is trying to do the squashing?

译文:
律师 Daniel Gellman: 科学面临很多困境,法官大人,尤其是面对道德价值观。政府一直有组织的扭曲科学食品及药物管理局和环保署打压新的科学发现,当遇到避孕,肝细胞研究,艾滋病,全球气候变暖环境污染…
法官 William Howe: 请回到这个案子上来,律师,不要掺入政治问题
律师 Daniel Gellman: 这个案子就是政治问题,它想让宗教重回学校,神创论是宗教学说,没有科学依据支持。我是基督教徒,我妻子是犹太人,我们为此激烈争辩。这个国家,总体来说,应该更加普及神学知识,但那不是科学。今天在这里发生的一切是对进化论的抨击,这样做很聪明,姑且称之为智能进化论,不提到上帝,但是,最高法院禁止在公立学校教授神创论,当时他们是正确的,现在依然如此。我的客户被解雇是毫无法律依据的,并且也违背了我们悠久的传统,那就是政教分离。我们当然有合法的起诉缘由。
Shirley Schmidt: 说的简直就像福音书。 “建立条款”禁止政府对某个特定宗教做出支持或者歧视,但是它从来没有意图抹去“更高力量”的概念。我当然相信进化论,我们中的任何一人看到现有证据,都不会否认我们是从猴子进化而来。但是将“更高力量”也参与其中,作为一种可能的理论,又有什么错呢?对于教会和国家来说,我们以上帝赐予民主之权利进行战争,让我们面对这个事实,上帝在这里更加强大,我们热爱上帝。我们,作为一个民族,拥有一个坚定的信念,上帝在人类起源中发挥了作用,但是在科学课堂上教授它?想都不能想。这里没有人试图挤压进化论,我也同意Gellman先生,压制思想的科学不是好科学。但是我想要问问庭上,今天在这里,是谁在搞挤压?


法官陈述:
原文:
Judge William Howe: Nobody, is more frightened than I am of the Religious Right getting a strangle hold on our values. It seems as long as you do it in the name of the Almighty, one is free to abandon not only common sense and Science, but also the facts. But I am also concerned about a secular society squeezing faith out of our lives. We’ve all witnessed the ridiculous lawsuits to stop Nativity scenes at Christmas, to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. God has always been a part of who and what we are as a nation. On our currency it reads, ‘In God we trust.’ The Declaration of Independence speaks of God. How we are created, endowed by our creator it references our Supreme Judge of the world and Divine Providence, God. And I’m sorry, anybody who has ever held a new born child in his hands must make room for the chance that a Higher Power exists. And it shouldn’t offend you west Scientists to say, “Hey! We just don’t know.” I find the decision to include Intelligent Design along with evolution into the Science curriculum does not violate the establishment
cause of the First Amendment. I’m ruling in favor of the defendant. This lawsuit is dismissed. He pounds his gavel.

译文:
法官 William Howe: 没有人象我这样震惊,因为宗教自由权渐渐变成我们价值观的阻碍。好像只要以全能之主的名义做事,不止放弃了一般常识和科学,还放弃了事实真相。但我同样也考虑到世俗社会,也将信仰挤出了我们的生活,我们都看到过那些荒唐的法律案件,试图阻止圣诞节上演基督降生的舞台剧,试图将上帝在效忠誓言中去掉,上帝一直都是我们民族定义的一部分,在我们的货币上 写着“我们相信上帝”,《独立宣言》也提到了上帝。我们从何而来?造物主之恩赐还提到“世间至高无上的法官”“神圣的上帝”上帝。我很遗憾,任何一个曾经手抱婴儿的人都会相信“更高力量”的存在。做为一个科学家,说出这句话不是耻辱,“嗨,我们就是不知道”我做出判决:将智能创造论纳入科学范围并没有违反第一修正案之确立条款。我裁定被告胜诉,案子结束。


花絮:
Denny Crane在从事法律事业的45年中从没输过一起案件,他的记录是:6043比0(当然他的记录还随着剧情的发展在不断延续…)
随之也产生了一句经典名言:Denny Crane. Never Lost, never will.


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:42 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Boston Legal
It Girls and Beyond
Season 1, Episode 13


113.jpg
2008-12-27 02:43


案件一:
交叉询问:
证人1:原文:
Stephanie Rogers: We met at an AIDs fundraiser about two years ago. We were both publicists so we had a lot in common.
Attorney Morrison: And at some point, Ms Rogers, you and the defendant became lovers?
Stephanie Rogers: Yes. She moved into my home, ultimately we became business partners and formed Rogers and Green, which became one of the top PR firms in Boston.
Attorney Morrison: And what happened?
Stephanie Rogers: Well, quite simply, after she gained access to my files and my clients she stole them.
Brad Chase: Objection!
Judge William Connolly: Sustained.
Stephanie Rogers: I since learned that she’s not even gay, that she basically pretended to be so that she could gain access to my client roster.
Attorney Morrison: Now Ms Rogers, when you allege that the defendant pretended to be gay…
Stephanie Rogers: She had boyfriends before me and one after, perhaps that makes her bisexual, it doesn’t make any difference, because I specifically asked her that at the beginning of our relationship.
Attorney Morrison: Whether she was bisexual?
Stephanie Rogers: Yes. I’d been hurt before by heterosexual women experimenting, and I didn’t wanna go down that road again. She told me she was gay. That was a lie, one that cost me valuable clients.
Brad Chase: Just let me understand this. The bases of your claim is that my client faked her sexual orientation for the sole purpose of getting you to fall in love with her so that she could move into your home… and business and steal your clients?
Stephanie Rogers: Yes!
Brad Chase: When in fact it wasn’t only your business. You built it up together over the two years.
Stephanie Rogers: I founded the company, and most of the clients that she left with were mine.
Brad Chase: Now Ms Rogers, as business partners, as a couple, you two were quite prominent. Isn’t that right? Your photos were constantly in the Globe or Boston magazine being called the new IT Girls. You two got more publicity than your clients.
Stephanie Rogers: It works to the client’s benefit as well, so I don’t see your point.
Brad Chase: My point is you two got a lot of publicity together, as a couple, business just went through the roof. Even if you were defrauded, it wasn’t exactly to your financial detriment.
Stephanie Rogers: It was certainly to my detriment, when she left.
Brad Chase: Well, but even so. You make more money now than you did before even meeting Tracy, so how could you have been hurt?
Stephanie Rogers: How have I been hurt? She caused me to fall in love with her! That…
Brad Chase: That’s what this really about. Isn’t it Ms Rogers? This isn’t a business dispute. This is a domestic one. Did she break your heart?
Attorney Morrison: Objection!
Judge William Connolly: I’ll allow it.
Brad Chase: Did she break your heart?
Stephanie Rogers: Yes.
Brad Chase: You were in love with her? Now Ms Rogers, during the two years that you were together with my client, do you feel that she was in love with you?
Stephanie Rogers: Yes.

译文:
Stephanie Rogers: 两年前我们在爱滋病基金的募捐活动上认识,我们都是做广告的,有许多共同语言
律师 Morrison: 也就是说,Ms. Rogers,你和被告成了情侣?
Stephanie Rogers: 是的,她搬进了我家,最终我们成了生意伙伴,并且成立了Rogers and Green--波士顿顶尖公关公司之一
律师Morrison: 后来呢?
Stephanie Rogers: 很简单,当她能接触到我的客户档案,就偷了它们
Brad Chase: 反对
法官 William Connolly: 反对有效
Stephanie Rogers: 后来我才知道她不是同性恋,她是装的,这样就能得到我的客户了
律师Morrison: Ms. Rogers,当你宣称被告假装成同志…
Stephanie Rogers: 之前她有男朋友,之后又有一个,或许她是双性恋,但这不能成为理由。因为我们确立关系前我明确的问过她
律师Morrison: 是不是双性恋?
Stephanie Rogers: 是的,我曾被正常女人的同性恋试验伤害过,我不想重蹈覆辙,她说她是同性恋,这是谎言,让我失去了宝贵的客户
Brad Chase: 如你所说,你认为我的当事人在性取向上骗了你,目的仅仅是为了让你爱上她,这样就能进入你的家,你的事业,偷走你的客户?
Stephanie Rogers: 是的
Brad Chase: 事实上,这不只是你的事业,是你们两年中共同建立的
Stephanie Rogers: 我创办了公司,她带走的大部分客户也是我的
Brad Chase: Ms. Rogers,作为拍档,作为恋人,你俩都很杰出,没错吧?你们的照片经常出现在“环球或”“波士顿”杂志上,被誉为漂亮女人,你俩在公开场合露面比你们的客户还要多
Stephanie Rogers: 这对客户同样有好处,我不明白你想说什么
Brad Chase: 我想说你们俩经常恩爱的出现在公众场合,而生意也好得惊人,即使你真的被骗了,也谈不上经济损失
Stephanie Rogers: 她离开的确给我带来了损失
Brad Chase: 就算如此,你现在赚的比认识Tracey前多得多,怎么能算被伤害呢?
Stephanie Rogers: 我怎么能算被伤害?她让我爱上她,这…
Brad Chase: 这才是问题所在,对吗Ms. Rogers?这不是经济纠纷,而是你们的家务事。她让你心碎了吗?
律师Morrison: 反对
法官William Connolly: 反对无效
Brad Chase: 她让你心碎了吗?
Stephanie Rogers: 是的
Brad Chase: 你爱上了她,现在Ms. Rogers…和我的委托人共同度过的两年里,你觉得她爱你吗?
Stephanie Rogers: 是的

证人2:
原文1:
Tracy Green: My business had reached sort of a plateau, and I felt I could do better solo. And truthfully, I thought that she might to.
Brad Chase: Now before leaving, did you tell your clients?
Tracy Green: Absolutely not! I left. I contacted them. They decided to come with me. In that order.
Brad Chase: Now Tracy, we’ve heard the accusation that you pretended to love Stephanie for business reasons.
Tracy Green: It’s absolutely false. I… I fell in love with her. I mean, the idea that I could feign love for two plus years… just… you know how much I loved you, Stephanie.
Judge William Connolly:  Ms Green, please do not address anyone but me or your council.
Tracy Green: I never lied to her about my sexual orientation, and I’m offended by that.
Attorney Morrison: How many women had you been with prior to your relationship with my client.
Brad Chase: Objection!
Judge William Connolly: Overruled. However salacious, it’s in issue.
Attorney Morrison:  How many women?
Tracy Green: One.
Attorney Morrison:  One? And prior to your relationship with my client, how many men had you had sexual relationships with?
Tracy Green:  Several.
Attorney Morrison: Several? More than five?
Tracy Green: Yes.
Attorney Morrison: More than ten?
Tracy Green: I wanted to lead a heterosexual life, eventually I realized…
Attorney Morrison: My client asked you if you were bisexual. You answered, “No.”
Tracy Green: Because I’m not. I may have been with men in the past but ultimately I realized I preferred women.
Attorney Morrison: How many relationships have you had since Stephanie?
Tracy Green: One.
Attorney Morrison: A man or a woman.
Tracy Green: Well, the breakup with Stephanie was extremely painful…
Attorney Morrison: Your subsequent relationship was with a man or a woman?
Tracy Green: A man.
Attorney Morrison: A man? Now you spoke earlier about the exact order of how things went down. Rewinding a little further back, you met Stephanie,.became her lover, eventually became her business partner, left with clients and files, began having an affair with a man. Did I get the order right?

译文:
Tracy Green: 我们的业务进入稳定期,我觉得单干能做得更好,坦白的说我相信她也是
Brad Chase:  离开前,你通知客户了吗?
Tracy Green: 当然没有,我先离开,再联系他们,他们决定和我合作,我这样做的
Brad Chase: Tracey有指控说,你假装和Stephanie相爱,以获取经济利益
Tracy Green: 绝对没有。我真的爱她,我是说,假装爱一个人,两年多这种想法太…Stephanie,你知道我有多爱你
Judge William Connolly: Ms. Green请不要对其他人说话,除了我和你的律师
Tracy Green:  在性取向上我没对她说谎,也很气愤这样说我
律师Morrison: 在我当事人前,你跟多少女人一起过?
Brad Chase: 反对
法官William Connolly: 反对无效。有些敏感,但跟案子有关
律师Morrison: 多少女人?
Tracy Green:  一个
律师Morrison:  一个?那在我当事人前,你跟多少男人在一起过?
Tracy Green: 一些
律师Morrison:  一些?超过5个?
Tracy Green: 是的
律师Morrison: 超过10个?
Tracy Green: 我希望能成为异性恋,最终,我意识到…
律师Morrison: 我当事人问过你是不是双性恋,你否认了
Tracy Green: 因为我不是,我的确和男人一起过,但最终我发现自己更喜欢女人
律师Morrison:  在Stephanie后,你又有过几段关系?
Tracy Green: 一段
律师Morrison: 和男的,还是女的?
Tracy Green: 与Stephanie分手让我非常痛苦…
律师Morrison: 你后来发展的关系,是和男人,还是女人?
Tracy Green: 男人
律师Morrison: 男人?你曾说过事情发展的顺序,我们来回顾一下:你遇到了Stephanie,成了她的爱人,最后成了她的合作伙伴,带走了她的客户和文件,然后开始和一个男人谈恋爱。我的顺序没错吧?

结案陈词:
原文:
Attorney Morrison: Does it smell right to you? She had a history of men before my client; she never hinted to her best friends that she was anything but heterosexual; she had an affair with a man after she left my client. Her only fling with homosexuality just happened to coincide with the biggest financial windfall of her life. Suddenly being gay got her money. Got her profiled about town, in magazines, on TV as an IT girl. New found fame, new found money, new found sexual orientation. Does it smell right to you?
Brad Chase: In order to make a Cause Of Action for fraud, one must prove that he or she relied on the fraud to his or her own detriment. Now after partnering with my client, Ms Roger’s financial and professional fortunes soared. She benefited. In fact one might even say, considering the media coverage of this lawsuit that she’s actually benefiting from the breakup because as any PR professional knows, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. But if you’re determined to get hung-up on the issue, “Is Tracy Green gay or not?”, “Did she really love Stephanie or not?” consider Stephanie’s own testimony when I asked her, during the relationship, as she was living it, did she feel that Tracy loved her, and she answered was, “Yes.” But now in the wake of hurt and heartbreak she offers a different answer. Which version do you find more reliable?

译文:
律师Morrison: 各位觉得合理吗?她之前和男人在一起,她从没和朋友表示过自己不喜欢异性,之后她又和男人在一起,她唯一成同性恋的时候,就正好是她财源滚滚的时候,突然成了同性恋赚大钱。她出现在杂志电视上,成了时尚,有了名声,有了金钱,有了新的性取向,你们觉得正常吗?
Brad Chase:  要证明欺诈行为,就必须证明他或她被这个行为伤害。在和我的当事人搭档后,Ms. Rogers财运事业都平步青云,她获益匪浅,事实上,甚至可以说,单看媒体对本案的关注,她在分手中也得益不少。做公关的人都知道,新闻炒作百利而无一害,但是如果你们纠缠于Tracey Green是不是同性恋,她是否真爱过Stephanie,请想想Stephanie自己的证词吧。当我问到她:那段时间她是否感到Tracey真的爱她,她的回答是肯定的,但想到被伤害和心痛,她又给了相反的回答,你们觉得哪个答案更可信?

宣判:
原文:
Madam foreperson: In the matter of Rogers versus Green. We the jury find in favor of the defendant.
译文:
首席陪审员: Rogers对Green一案,陪审团判定辩方胜诉。



案件2
交叉询问:
证人1:
原文:
Mark Harrison: I tried diets. All of them. I exercised. I’d gone on Phen Phen years ago, and that helped a little, but… mainly I just kept gettin bigger.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: And at some point the defendant mentioned a new drug?
Mark Harrison: Yes. I forgot how he said he had access to it, but, basically he said he had this new drug, not on the market yet, called Vermonaband, and studies showed, how, it could help people lose weight. And desperate as I was, I just said, “Yes.”
A.D.A. Howard Zale: He sold you this drug? In his office?
Mark Harrison:  Yes. And he told me not to tell anyone, because he said it was illegal for him to be giving it to me.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Thank you, Mr Harrison.
Denny Crane: Can’t help but notice, you’re really fat.
Mark Harrison: Yes.
Denny Crane:  Been fatter?
Mark Harrison:  Much.
Denny Crane:  Drug worked?
Mark Harrison: Huge! I mean I lost weight. My cholesterol went down. My HDL actually went up!
Denny Crane: Hm
Mark Harrison:  I mean it was a godsend. Of course, till the… you know, police cut off my supplier.
Alan Shore: Objection to the word ‘supplier’, Your Honor. It makes my client sound like a drug dealer.
Denny Crane: Well he is a drug dealer, he sold him drugs.
Alan Shore: Yes! But there’s a bias that goes with the word ‘dealer’. He simply prescribed a medicine to help him live.
Denny Crane: He’s right.
Alan Shore:  This man almost died. Didn’t he?
Denny Crane: Didn’t you?
Mark Harrison: I had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes. I mean, I was at serious risk for a major heart attack or a stroke, probably still am.
Denny Crane: Since you stopped taking the drug?
Mark Harrison: I’m having problems again.
Denny Crane:  Did my client tell you that this drug is unapproved by the FDA?
Mark Harrison: Yes.
Denny Crane: Did he tell you that there could be side affects?
Mark Harrison: Yes.
Denny Crane: You were fully informed?
Mark Harrison: I was.
Denny Crane: You consented?
Mark Harrison:  I did.
Denny Crane: Take it again?
Mark Harrison: Absolutely!
Denny Crane: Like the doctor?
Mark Harrison: Love him.
Denny Crane: How’s your memory.
Mark Harrison: My memory’s fine.
Denny Crane:  What’s my name.
Mark Harrison: Denny Crane.
Denny Crane: Like you mean it.
Mark Harrison: Denny Crane!
Denny Crane:  What’s my name?!!
Mark Harrison:  Denny Crane!!!
Denny Crane: No further questions.

译文:
Mark Harrison: 我吃减肥药,无数种,我锻炼,几年前我还用过芬-芬类减肥药(美国食品药物管理局97年禁止其用于减肥,它能引发心脏疾病),但是都收效甚微,关键是,我还在不断的变胖
检察官 Howard Zale: 于是,被告建议了一种新药?
Mark Harrison:  是的,我忘记他说药怎么来的,但他说自己有这种新药,还没上市,叫Ramonibend,研究表明它有助于减肥,我已经绝望了,我就说好的
检察官Howard Zale:  他在办公室里给你这药?
Mark Harrison: 是的,还让我别说出去,因为他说了这是违法的
检察官Howard Zale: 谢谢你,Mr. Harrison
Denny Crane: 我忍不住想说你实在很胖
Mark Harrison:  是的
Denny Crane: 你更胖了?
Mark Harrison:  胖了很多
Denny Crane: 药有效了
Mark Harrison: 非常。我的意思是,我变轻了,胆固醇下降了,我的HDL上升了(HDL:高密度脂蛋白),这是上天的恩赐,当然,直到…警察切断了供应商
Alan Shore:  反对"供应商"一词,法官大人,这让我的当事人像药贩子
Denny Crane: 他就是药贩子,他把药卖给了他
Alan Shore: 是的,但"贩子"一词是贬义的,他只是开了处方想救他
Denny Crane:  他是对的
Alan Shore: 这人就要没命了,不是吗?
Denny Crane: 不是吗?
Mark Harrison: 我有高血压,高胆固醇,糖尿病,我的意思是,我很可能突发心脏病或中风,包括现在
Denny Crane:  那你停药后呢?
Mark Harrison:  这些问题又回来了
Denny Crane: 我的委托人告诉过你这药未经FDA许可吗?
Mark Harrison:  是的
Denny Crane:  他告诉过你会有副作用?
Mark Harrison: 是的
Denny Crane:  你全知道?
Mark Harrison: 是的
Denny Crane: 你还是答应了?
Mark Harrison:  是的
Denny Crane: 再说一次?
Mark Harrison: 是的
Denny Crane: 喜欢这个医生?
Mark Harrison: 我爱他
Denny Crane: 你记性好吗?
Mark Harrison:  很好
Denny Crane: 我叫什么?
Mark Harrison: Denny Crane.
Denny Crane: 凶一点
Mark Harrison:  Denny Crane!
Denny Crane: 我的名字叫什么?
Mark Harrison: Denny Crane!!!
Denny Crane: 我问完了

证人2
原文:
Dr.Leonard Raskin: People lament the cost of health care, they cry over soaring litigation costs and scream about the eroding integrity of our medical profession. The conduct of this doctor and others like him are to blame.
Denny Crane: Oh… Lighten up man.
Judge Paul Resnick: Mr Crane! You’ll get your turn.
Dr Leonard Raskin: We have rules. One is we do not go prescribing experimental drugs that the FDA hasn’t approved for market.
A.D.A. Howard Zale:  Even if the patient consents?
Dr Leonard Raskin: The patient will always follow the lead of his doctor. For God’s sake look what people buy off infomercials. They’ll try anything, hair potions; pills that make you lose weight while you sleep. Desperate people will try anything. And when you have a licensed doctor saying, “Here. Take this.”? They will.
Denny Crane: This isn’t a potion. This drug works.
Dr Leonard Raskin: In preliminary studies. But there’s much, much, more testing to be done.
Denny Crane: How long does it take the FDA to approve a drug?
Dr Leonard Raskin: It isn’t quick, but…
Denny Crane: How long?
Dr Leonard Raskin: Nine years.
Denny Crane: My client’s patient would be dead by then. But, hey! You got your rules.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Objection!
Denny Crane: Oh be quiet.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Your Honor, he can’t tell me to be quiet.
Judge Paul Resnick: Let him have his turn, Mr Zale.
Denny Crane: You say that doctors shouldn’t prescribe non-FDA-approved drugs as a rule.
Dr Leonard Raskin: Yes.
Denny Crane: Doctors don’t prescribe medications for things that the FDA hasn’t approved them for?
Dr Leonard Raskin: Off label prescriptions happen, but…
Denny Crane:  Doctor, have you ever prescribed a drug that wasn’t approved for the particular condition you were treating?
Dr Leonard Raskin: Yes, but…
Denny Crane: And doctor, if you were overweight, and at risk for an eminent stroke or heart attack. Is it your testimony that you would never consider taking Vermonaband?
Dr Leonard Raskin: For myself, I might, but...
Denny Crane: But, you wouldn’t give your patient the same opportunity, because you have rules.

译文:
医生Leonard Raskin: 人们抱怨医疗费用的巨额,哭诉诉讼费用的高昂,悲哀医疗专业的腐败,这个医生的行为,所有这样的医生,都该被谴责
Denny Crane: Oh,乐观点嘛
法官Paul Resnick: Mr. Crane,会轮到你发言的
医生 Leonard Raskin: 我们有规矩,其中之一就是绝对不用仍在试验中FDA还未认可的药物
检察官Howard Zale: 即使病人同意?
Dr Leonard Raskin: 病人总是听医生的。看在上帝的份上,看看人们对导购节目疯狂,他们什么都愿意尝试,轻松亮发剂,睡觉减肥片,绝望的人什么都会试,当执业医师说:"用这个",他们就会用。
Denny Crane: 这不是试剂,这药很有疗效
医生 Leonard Raskin: 只是初步的研究,还有很多很多的测试要做
Denny Crane: FDA认可药物通常要多久
医生 Leonard Raskin: 不是很快,但…
Denny Crane: 多久?
医生Leonard Raskin: 9年
Denny Crane: 那时我的当事人可能已经死了,但,无所谓,是有规矩的
检察官Howard Zale: 反对
Denny Crane: 安静
检察官Howard Zale: 法官大人,他无权叫我安静
法官Paul Resnick:  让他继续吧,Mr. Zale
Denny Crane: 你说照规定,医生不能用未经FDA许可的药
医生 Leonard Raskin: 是的
Denny Crane: 医生的处方中从不用还没有被FDA许可的药?
医生 Leonard Raskin: 也有非核准药物,但…
Denny Crane: 医生,你是否有过以非核准适应症开立处方?
医生Leonard Raskin: 是的 但是…
Denny Crane: 那么,医生,如果你超重了,并可能突发中风或心脏病,你敢不敢说绝对不会考虑服用Ramonibend?
医生Leonard Raskin: 对自己的话,可能会,但是…
Denny Crane: 但你不会给病人,即使情况相同,因为你们有规定

证人3
原文:
Dr Robert Mclean: I considered it life or death. He was at risk of cardiac arrest, diabetes.
Denny Crane: And this drug was your only resort?
Dr Robert Mclean:  It was my last resort. Believe me, I’m not in the habit of prescribing non-approved drugs, but this…
Denny Crane: Doctor, would you tell the jury, and me to, for that matter cause I’ve forgotten, how Veromanabin works?
Dr Robert Mclean: It suppresses a protein in the brain that makes you want to eat. In fact this drug blocks nearly all cravings. It can be used to help people quit smoking, drinking, which is why it’s been called the wonder drug.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: So! You just figured what the hell, why wait for proof?
Dr Robert Mclean: My patient couldn’t wait Mr Zale. He was looking at an eminent physical demise. In medical terms we call it death.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Any published studies on this drug? To justify this wonder status you give it?
Dr Robert Mclean: Not yet.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Has this drug been approved for sale?
Dr Robert Mclean:  Not yet.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: How’d you get your hands on this drug doctor?
Dr Robert Mclean: I had a connection at one of the clinics where it’s being tested. I won’t reveal more than that.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: You’re a licensed doctor, prescribing a drug not approved by the FDA, to desperate patients.
Dr Robert Mclean: With a full warning.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: How can warn about a drug side affect you don’t know about?
Dr Robert Mclean: The warning I gave Mr Harrison was exactly that! This drug may have side affects we don’t know about.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Possible fatal side effects?
Dr Robert Mclean: There’s no evidence of that.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: So you decide…
Dr Robert Mclean: Balancing the benefits against the known risks of a coronary if he doesn’t take it, I favor taking the medication.
A.D.A. Howard Zale:  This is an experimental drug!
Dr Robert Mclean: Which I have no financial in.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Which you boot leg!
Dr Robert Mclean:  My only concern was a patient’s health.
A.D.A. Howard Zale:  So! Doctor’s should feel free to ignore the FDA whenever they choose?
Dr Robert Mclean: I never said that.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Oh, so you should feel free whenever you choose?
Dr Robert Mclean: Sometimes desperate circumstances require desperate measures.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: And desperate people will do anything, won’t they?

译文:
医生 Robert Mclean: 我觉得是生死攸关的事,他有心跳停止和糖尿病的危险
Denny Crane: 而这种药物是你的唯一选择?
医生 Robert Mclean: 是我仅有的选择,相信我,我没有开非核准药物的习惯,但是这次…
Denny Crane: 医生,请再次告诉陪审团和我,因为我有些忘了,Ramonibend是怎么起作用?
医生 Robert Mclean: 它抑制大脑里控制食欲的蛋白质,事实上这种药物阻止了所有欲望,它能帮助人们戒酒,戒烟,所以它被称为“梦幻之药”
检察官Howard Zale: 你说得那么花好稻好,干嘛还要等验证?
医生 Robert Mclean: 我的病人等不起Mr. Zale,他随时可能停止生理活动,医学上,我们称之为死亡
检察官Howard Zale: 有对这种药研究的学术发表吗?可以证明刚才你说的那些奇效是真的?
医生 Robert Mclean: 还没有
检察官Howard Zale:  这种药物获准出售了吗?
医生 Robert Mclean: 还没有
检察官Howard Zale: 你怎么得到这些药物的?
医生 Robert Mclean: 我和测试药物的一家诊所有联系,关于这个我不想多说…
检察官Howard Zale: 你是一个有执照的医生,却给绝望的病人FDA还未许可的药
医生 Robert Mclean: 我警告过他所有可能的危险
检察官Howard Zale: 你连药物副作用都不清楚,怎么能给警告?
医生 Robert Mclean: 我给Mr. Harrison的警告是:这药的副作用我们也不清楚
检察官Howard Zale: 有可能致命的危险?
医生 Robert Mclean: 没有证据表明会那样
检察官Howard Zale: 所以你决定…
医生 Robert Mclean: 先解决已经存在的心脏问题,如果他不愿用这个,我会选择药物治疗
检察官Howard Zale: 这是实验中药物
医生 Robert Mclean: 我没有任何获利
检察官Howard Zale: 你私自出售
医生 Robert Mclean: 我关心的是病人的健康
检察官Howard Zale: 所以医生们可以无视FDA随心所欲
医生 Robert Mclean: 我没那样说
检察官 Howard Zale: 那就是你可以随心所欲了
医生 Robert Mclean: 有时绝境求生要险中求胜
检察官Howard Zale: 但绝望之人是不顾后果的,不是吗?

结案陈词:
原文:
A.D.A. Howard Zale:  Do I have to convince you of the danger of prescribing nonapproved drugs? Defrauding overweight people with diet gimmicks is a billion dollar industry? And now we’re going to let doctors get in on the racket and say, “It’s okay to sell black market pills under the table.”? It’s precisely because physicians have such an influence over their patients that we demand that drugs be approved by the FDA. But this doctor decided he shouldn’t be held to that. This doctor figured he’s above the law. This doctor is the equivalent of a drug dealer selling cocaine in an alleyway, and he should be punished accordingly.
Alan Shore: I thought I was closing.
Denny Crane: I’m first chair.
Alan Shore: You got to ask all the questions.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Objection! Your Honor, these two have tried to trivialize the severity of this case with their Abbott and Costello routine. But it’s an insult to this court.
Alan Shore: Your Honor, it’s only fair I get to do something here.
Judge Paul Resnick: Mr Shore. The court is anything but amused.
Alan Shore: I’m not…
Denny Crane: No. I, I, I, got it. We’ll split it. You go first.
Alan Shore: Fine. Okay. First, this big deal about FDA approval. Doctors prescribe medications every day for uses the FDA never considered. Aspirin for years has been used to prevent and treat heart attacks. Did the FDA ever test for that? No. They were sanctioned only as a pain-reliever until recently. Beta blockers are prescribed for migraines with no FDA approval; we take anticonvulsants for pain, for Bipolar Disorders, antidepressants for insomnia, steroids for cancer. People in this country are getting prescriptions by the thousands every day from their doctors, for treatments the FDA has never signed off on. And what about the FDA? David Graham a drug reviewer with the agency just testified before Congress that the FDA is, I quote, “Virtually incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs.” The FDA is broken folks. Raise your hand if you agree. Except for those on Bioxin.
A.D.A. Howard Zale: Objection.
Alan Shore: The FDA’s own point man said to Congress, that we are currently facing the single greatest drug safety catastrophe in the history of the world. So who then is there to protect the patient? Who is there to protect Mr Harrision? His doctor! My client had a medication that could save his patient’s life. He wasn’t going to wait nine years for approval from a broken, ineffective agency. This is life or death, for God’s sake. Life? Or Death?
Denny Crane: I’m at risk for Alzheimer’s. I got some sort of plaque inside my brain, my memory… I might have met somebody before I wouldn’t know. What you wouldn’t know is what it feels like to be… losing it, to be… feel… to be slipping. There’s a prescription drug dextroamphetamine. It’s very big on the black market. It’s used by college kids to bone up for exams. I’ve been taking it. He turns to look at Alan. I don’t know how it works. But you get your memory back. It reintroduces you to your vocabulary. Helps with mental arithmetic. Facial recognition. Go for all productivity. Basically, you get your brain back. And no FDA or any other agency is gonna tell me I don’t have the right to get back my brain. No government or corporation is gonna tell me or order me to continue losing my mind. I agree with the prosecutor. This claim that desperate people will try desperate measures. So what?

译文:
检察官Howard Zale: 相信不用再多说,使用未经许可药物的危险,欺骗肥胖人士服用减肥药是条敛财之道。我们难道要让医生也掺和进来,还默认偷售黑市药品是可以的?恰恰是因为医师对病人们有绝对的影响力,所以我们要求药物必须通过FDA许可。但是这个医生不愿受约束,这个医生认为他凌驾于法律,这个医生就像药贩子在巷子里卖可卡因一样,他理应得到应有的惩处。
Alan Shore: 是我来结案呈词
Denny Crane: 我主你副
Alan Shore: 发问全由你来的
检察官Howard Zale: 反对,法官大人,这两人扰乱法庭肃穆,他们一唱一和很搞笑,但这是对庭审的侮辱
Alan Shore: 法官大人,这是庭审剩下的我唯一能做的事了
法官Paul Resnick:  Mr. Shore,法庭是神圣庄严的地方
Alan Shore:  我没有…
Denny Crane: 不,有了,有办法了,我们上下半场,你先来
Alan Shore: 好的,Okay。首先,这桩关于FDA认证的案子,医生每天开着FDA还未认可的药物,阿司匹林,用于预防心脏病很多年了,FDA认证过吗? 没有。直到最近它才被批准作为止痛药。受体阻滞药医治偏头痛,没有经过FDA许可,我们用抗惊厥药止痛治疗两极紊乱,抗抑郁药治疗失眠,类固醇治疗癌症。这个国家的人每天从医生那里,得到上千张FDA从未许可过的处方,那么FDA呢?David Graham,药物评论家向国会证实FDA,原句是“实际上是不能保护美国人民远离危险药物”朋友们,FDA是无用的,同意的请举手,除了在吃vioxin的。
检察官Howard Zale: 反对
Alan Shore:  FDA的重要人物对国会说:我们现在面对的是历史上最巨大的药物安全灾难。那么,究竟谁在保护病人,谁在保护Mr. Harrison?是他的医生。我的当事人开的处方能救病人的性命,他不用再白等九年,等一个无用的低效的机构来证明生死攸关。看在上帝的份上,是生死攸关。
Denny Crane: 我会变成老年痴呆,我的脑子里有什么病变,我的记忆…我可能见过你们某些人,但我不会记得,你们无法体会那种感觉,失去它,变得…感觉…渐渐不行了。有一种处方药,右旋安非他命,在黑市上用量很大,大学生用它来通过考试,我也吃这个。我不清楚原理,但你找回了记忆,帮你记住单词,帮你加快心算,帮你认人,一切的能力,基本上…基本上你的脑子回来了,没有FDA或任何机构说我无权找回我的脑子,没有政府或法庭会命令我继续失去记忆。我同意控方他说绝望的人会做绝望的事,那又怎样?

宣判:
原文:
Master foreperson: In the matter of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus Dr Robert MacLean. We find the defendant Dr Robert McLean, not guilty.

译文:
首席陪审员: 麻州对Robert Mclean医生一案,我们判定Robert Mclean医生,无罪。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:43 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Til We Meat Again
Season 1, Episode 14


114.jpg
2008-12-27 02:44


疯牛病

交叉询问:
证人1:
原文:
Mayor George Bostwick: Simpy put. I don’t think we can guarantee the safety of beef.
Attorney Timothy Simms: Why not?
Mayor George Bostwick: Well, for starters, we just lifted the ban on Canadian cattle where Mad Cow disease was just found. Again.
Attorney Timothy Simms: The percentage of Mad Cow in Canada is statistically…
Mayor George Bostwick: B-b-b-but why take chances? Consider this disease. It’s incurable, it rots the brain, it’s invariable fatal, and it’s a painful death.
Attorney Timothy Simms: But our government has assured us there’s absolutely no danger in this.
Mayor George Bostwick: Our government is pro-beef, are you kidding? In the last five years the agriculture business has donated 140 million dollars to congressional and presidential candidates. Fast food chains, the Cattlemen’s Beef Associate. You name it. They’ve all given big bucks.
Attorney Timothy Simms: But the Department of Agriculture says that…
Mayor George Bostwick: Oh please. The USDA is in the meat industry’s back pocket.
Judge Clark Brown: What evidence do you have of that?
Mayor George Bostwick: You want evidence? How about the last Secretary of Agriculture appointed meat industry advocates to top jobs at the USDA? How about the Secretary’s former Chief Of Staff used to be chief lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association? The USDA has been bought.
Attorney Timothy Simms: Pretty strong words, Mr Bostwick. Oprah got sued for saying less.
Mayor George Bostwick: Well what does that tell you? The meat industry gets to sue a talk show host for putting down a hamburger? Free speech doesn’t apply when it comes to beef?
Judge Clark Brown: Well, certainly the USDA has an interest in making meat safe?
Mayor George Bostwick: But they have a double mandate Your Honor. And while one may be to keep beef safe. But the other, the bigger one, is to promote the sale of American meat. You think there’s a real interest in this country in rooting out Mad Cow disease? It’s don’t ask, don’t tell.
Shirley Schmidt: Objection!
Mayor George Bostwick: This past April, a cow, stumbled and fell in Texas. The vet suspected a central nervous system disorder. That animal should have been tested. It wasn’t. It was quickly slaughtered and put into pig feed. Why? Because God forbid we discover Mad Cow disease. It’d cost billions and billions of dollars! Well, I’m not gonna wait. If that gets me sued. So be it.
Shirley Schmidt: How many people in this country have been afflicted with the human strain of Mad Cow disease?
Mayor George Bostwick: I don’t plan to…
Shirley Schmidt: To wait. Yes. How many?
Mayor George Bostwick: We don’t know.
Shirley Schmidt: There have been no confirmed cases.
Mayor George Bostwick: According to some scientists, many people we think have Alzheimer’s could in fact be sick from Mad Cow disease.
Shirley Schmidt: Are you a scientist sir?
Mayor George Bostwick: No.
Shirley Schmidt: Before you became mayor, what was your occupation?
Mayor George Bostwick: I owned auto dealerships.
Shirley Schmidt: You were a car salesman? Given that 3 million people are killed or injured on our roads every year, do you also plan to ban automobiles?
Mayor George Bostwick: No.
Shirley Schmidt: What about Salmonella? Any plans to criminalize chickens?
Mayor George Bostwick:People don’t die from chickens or…
Shirley Schmidt: What about mercury in fish?
Mayor George Bostwick: It’s a concern. But again, I made a judgment as mayor and the selectmen concurred that the dangers of beef…
Shirley Schmidt: Have you any personal political ambitions beyond that of being mayor of Summersport?
Mayor George Bostwick: I’m not trying to get headlines, if that’s what you’re saying?
Shirley Schmidt: I didn’t say that, but… funny you did. Under her breath to Denny. Have you got anything?
Denny Crane: You would agree, Mr Mayor that by an large, vegetarians are communists?
Mayor George Bostwick: I certainly would not.
Denny Crane: We’re at war, Mr Bostwick. Think we can win that war if we suddenly say to our soldiers no more meat? Think a nation of fish-eaters can protect the world you wimp?
Attorney Timothy Simms: Objection?
Denny Crane: Withdrawn. Nothing further.
Mayor George Bostwick: Wimp?
Shirley Schmidt: What the hell are you doing?
Denny Crane: Don’t bother with the merits, Shirley. This case, it’s all about the judge.


译文:
市长 George Bostwick: 简单的说,我认为我们无法保证牛肉的安全
律师 Timothy Simms: 为什么不?
市长George Bostwick: 作为发起人,我们刚对加拿大牛肉解禁,却又再次发现疯牛病
律师Timothy Simms: 据统计,在加拿大疯牛的比例…
市长George Bostwick: 可为何要碰运气呢?鉴于这种疾病,是无法医治的,它破坏大脑,是致命的,死得很痛苦
律师Timothy Simms: 可我们的政府保证牛肉是绝对安全的
市长George Bostwick: 我们的政府支持牛肉,你在说笑吧?,过去五年里,农业的收入为国会和总统候选人捐赠了一亿四千万美元,快餐连锁店,牲畜牛肉协会,凡是你叫得出名字的
律师Timothy Simms: 可是农业部说…
市长George Bostwick: 哦别天真了,美国农业部与是肉类行业是一伙的
法官 Clark Brown: 你的说法有什么证据支持?
市长 George Bostwick: 你要证据么?比如上一届的农业部部长任命肉类行业的拥护者担任了美国农业部里最重要的职位,比如部长的前参谋长过去总是美国国家牲畜牛肉协会的主要说客。美国农业部被收买了
律师Timothy Simms: 你的言辞很激烈,Bostwick先生,Oprah因为说得太少被起诉
市长George Bostwick: 那又说明什么呢?肉类行业要起诉一位脱口秀主持人,因为她拒绝吃汉堡包,当涉及到牛肉时,就不再有言论自由
法官 Clark Brown: 当然,美国农业部很努力在保证肉制品的安全
市长George Bostwick: 可他们有双重授权,法官大人,一方面可能要保持牛肉的安全,另一方面更强大的一方…正在促进美国肉类的销售,你认为发现疯牛病对这个国家有利么?是“不能问,不能说”
Shirley Schmidt: 反对
市长 George Bostwick: 刚过去的四月份,在德克萨斯州有一头牛走路不稳然后摔倒了,兽医怀疑是中枢神经系统紊乱,那个动物本应该被送去检验,可是没有,它被迅速宰杀然后做了猪食,为什么?因为政府不允许我们发现疯牛病,这类花费简直是无底洞。我可不想等,如果那会让我被起诉,那就起诉吧
Shirley Schmidt: 我国有多少人感染了人类的疯牛病?
市长George Bostwick: 我没打算…
Shirley Schmidt: 等下,回答我有多少?
市长 George Bostwick: 我们不知道
Shirley Schmidt: 至今仍未有确诊的案例
市长George Bostwick: 根据某些科学家的说法,很多为是患了老年痴呆症的人实际上是吃了疯牛而病的
Shirley Schmidt: 你是科学家么,先生?
市长George Bostwick: 不是
Shirley Schmidt: 在你成为市长前,你的职业是什么?
市长George Bostwick: 我是汽车代理
Shirley Schmidt: 就是推销汽车,倘若每年有三百万人在公路上死伤,你也打算禁止汽车么?
市长George Bostwick:
Shirley Schmidt: 那沙门氏菌(能够引起禽流感)呢?有计划要定鸡的罪么?
市长George Bostwick: 人们不会因为鸡而死,或…
Shirley Schmidt: 那鱼里含的汞呢?
市长George Bostwick: 这也是关心的问题,可我再次声明,作为市长兼镇理事会成员来判断牛肉的危险…
Shirley Schmidt: 你有政治野心么,除了成为Summersport的市长?
市长George Bostwick: 我并不想成为头条新闻,如果那就是你要说的
Shirley Schmidt: 我可没那么说,有意思的是--你自己说了.你有什么要补充么?
Denny Crane: 你是否基本上同意,市长先生,素食主义者就是共产主义者?
市长George Bostwick: 当然不同意
Denny Crane: 我们在战争时期Bostwick先生,假如可以赢得战争,如果突然对我们的士兵说“不能吃肉了”你认为举国上下都是只吃鱼的人能保护世界么?你这个懦夫
律师Timothy Simms: 反对
Denny Crane: 我收回,没有问题了
Shirley Schmidt: 你到底在干什么?
Denny Crane: 别为我的优点费心Shirley,这个案子的关键是这个法官


证人2
原文:

Dr Raymond Young: Personally, I would never eat meat.
Attorney Timothy Simms: Why doctor?
Dr Raymond Young: We don’t have the means to keep track of what cattle are being fed. Nor are we adequately testing them in my opinion.
Shirley Schmidt: Your Honor. I object to paranoia being offered as evidence.
Dr Raymond Young: I’m sorry, but it’s absolutely reckless for a government to be telling us we’re safe, when the scientific community can’t necessarily detect all the ways this disease can be contracted or transmitted.
Judge Clark Brown: But let’s look at statistic. Nobody in this country seems to be getting sick from Mad Cows.
Dr Raymond Young: Judge, we just can’t know that. The disease may have an incubation period of up to 40 years. You may be infected right now.
Judge Clark Brown: My point is nobody now seems to be demonstrating symptoms.
Dr Raymond Young: We don’t know that for sure either. The human strain of the Mad Cow disease called Creutzfeldt-Jakob. But we call it CJD. You can also get CJD sporadically, with no link to infected meat. And some of the people we’ve diagnosed with Alzheimer’s might in fact have CJD. We don’t know how many cases there really are. You cannot tell me the government has all this figured out.
Shirley Schmidt: And the government just covers this up?
Dr Raymond Young: Well, it’s probably not so much a cover-up. It’s just we’re not terribly motivated to discover the problem. The economic consequences would be too severe.
Shirley Schmidt: Economic consequences? The beef industry would risk an outbreak of Mad Cow disease? That wouldn’t bankrupt them overnight?
Dr Raymond Young: The beef industry can’t always tell when a cow is sick. And they’re desperate to believe that isolated cases are isolated cases.
Shirley Schmidt: And the Department of Agriculture just plays along?
Dr Raymond Young: The month after that sick cow was found in Washington state? Mad Cow disease testing dropped almost 50%. That’s outrageous.
Shirley Schmidt: It eventually went up?
Dr Raymond Young: Look. They tried to track the herd where that Washington cow came from? They couldn’t find 53 of the 80 cows. They’ve since admitted their cattle track-back system isn’t up and running, and it would have to be done on a voluntary bases. Voluntary! Please! What meat-packing plant wants the distinction of having a mad cow? Which is why I order the fish.
Shirley Schmidt: Denny?
Denny Crane: Hmm?
Shirley Schmidt: I’m getting my ass kicked here.
Denny Crane: I can see that.
Shirley Schmidt: Any suggestions?
Denny Crane: How old are you, sir?
Dr Raymond Young: 46.
Denny Crane: I’m 72. I can mop the floor with you. You know why? I eat meat. Makes me strong. Builds up my immune system, fights off a whole bunch of other diseases I might have had if I weren’t so strong. Red meat saves lives, maybe. Ever think about that?
Dr Raymond Young: I’m sorry but there’s no real evidence to support that opinion.
Denny Crane: Oh. Sorry. Any hard evidence to support yours?
Dr Raymond Young: Hard evidence? No. But I don’t think we really wanna wait for that evidence to come rushing in.
Denny Crane: I had him there. Right till the end.


译文:
医生 Raymond Young: 个人来言,我从不吃肉
律师Timothy Simms: 为什么,医生?
医生 Raymond Young: 我们没有办法跟踪牛吃的食物,也不能做到足够的检测
Shirley Schmidt: 法官大人,我反对用极端的个例作为证据
医生 Raymond Young: 抱歉,但这绝对是不顾后果的,政府一直告诉我们是安全的,在科学界不能自始至终的检测的情况下,这些疾病可能感染了或传播了。可是让我们看看统计数据吧
法官 Clark Brown: 这国家里好象没有人因为疯牛而得病
医生 Raymond Young: 法官大人,这是无法肯定的。这病可能潜伏长达40年,你现在很可能已经被感染了
法官 Clark Brown: 我的观点是,现在好象还没人出现病症
医生 Raymond Young: 我们也不能肯定这个说法,人类感染疯牛病,叫做古兹菲德-雅各氏病,简称CJD。可是你可能很偶然患上CJD与肉类毫无关系,还有一些人,我们诊断为老年痴呆症,实际上,可能是患了CJD,我们不知道真实存在有多少病例,你不能说政府已发现了所有的
Shirley Schmidt: 你是说政府完全掩盖了这一切么?
医生 Raymond Young: 可能无法掩盖那么多,只是我们不是急切要揭露问题,因为经济影响会很严重
Shirley Schmidt: 经济影响?牛肉产业要冒着疯牛病爆发的风险那不会让他们一夜之间破产?
医生 Raymond Young: 牛肉产业不会总告诉你何时有牛病了,他们更愿意相信个别的案例是孤立存在的
Shirley Schmidt: 那农业部就是帮凶了?
医生 Raymond Young: 发现华盛顿州的病牛之后的一个月,疯牛病的检测通过率立刻下降了50%,这太无耻了
Shirley Schmidt: 还会上升的?
医生 Raymond Young: 他们尝试追踪华盛顿州那只牛所在的牛群,却不知道80头牛中的53头去了哪,他们这才承认牲畜跟踪系统出了问题,这本应该在自愿的基础上完成。自愿的…别逗了,哪个肉制品工厂愿意被发现有疯牛呢?那就是为什么我只吃鱼
Shirley Schmidt: Denny,我无还手之力了
Denny Crane: 看得出来
Shirley Schmidt: 有什么建议么?
Denny Crane: 你多大了,先生?
医生 Raymond Young: 46岁
Denny Crane: 我已经72岁了,我可以和你一起擦地板,知道为什么吗?我吃肉。吃肉使我强壮,构造我的免疫系统,让我打败其他大堆的我可能患的疾病,这都因为我如此健壮。红肉能救命,宝贝。你从没那么想过么?
医生 Raymond Young: 很抱歉,可没有任何证据支持你的观点
Denny Crane: 哦非常抱歉。有任何确实的证据支持你的观点么?
医生 Raymond Young: 确实的证据,还没有,可我不认为我们真要等到证据涌现的时候
Denny Crane: 我让他在那,直到结束


结案陈词:
原文:
Shirley Schmidt: We had an expression in this country years ago called, ‘Where’s the beef?’ Translation? Where’s the substance? Your Honor, do you know anybody who’s been victimized by Mad Cow disease? Know anybody who knows anybody? Know anybody, who knows anybody, who knows anybody? There’s simply not a shred of evidence to suggest that a single person in this country has ever become ill from a mad cow. But… why wait? That’s the mayor’s shingle. Why? Wait? Because this man and others like him, have sacrificed their lives and their livelihoods building their restaurants. Maybe as a courtesy, we could wait for a scintilla of evidence before arbitrarily destroying their businesses. The fact is the USDA has done an exemplary job conducting tests and establishing safeguards to prevent the outbreak of Mad Cow disease. Which is probably why, it hasn’t broken out. But we could give into our fear and panic, baseless panic, but that would make us…a nation of nansy, pansy’s. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be a nansy, pansy.
Attorney Timothy Simms: Towns make rules all the time. Lots of em. Zone fast-food restaurants out of business. Through permits, they can control how you build your house! Some towns ban alcohol. Cigarettes. Others have curfews. We do all kinds of things. The only legal requirement is that the laws are reasonable. It is not unreasonable to fear an outbreak of Mad Cow disease. We’ve had a case in Washington State. Another, last month, in Canada, we just lifted the ban on Canadian beef! The incubation period for this disease could be decades. We have no guarantee that we’re not already infected. It is simply reckless for the government to be injecting certainty, when the scientific community cannot. And forget Mad Cow, we already know that eating beef can cause high cholesterol, heart disease, it increases the risk of colon cancer, there’s listeria and ecoli, which has already killed people. Dioxin! The poison that almost killed the Ukrainian president that stuff is on our grazing grass! Scientists say the average American has about 10 units of Dioxin in their blood fat, simply from eating animal fat. There are all kinds of reasonable justifications for a mayor to try to reduce red meat from diet of his citizenry. And let me remind you, there is nothing, nothing in the constitution that guarantees anybody the right to sell a hamburger.

译文:
Shirley Schmidt: 很多年前有一句话“牛肉在哪里”翻译过来,就是说物质在哪里。法官大人,有谁知道谁是疯牛病的受害者,谁又认识谁知道这事呢?谁又认识谁又认识谁是知道的呢?根本就没有任何一丝证据,表明我国任何一个人曾经因为疯牛而生病,可为什么要等到它出现呢?这就是市长的所宣扬的,为什么要等?因为这个人和其他喜欢他的人,用一生的心血经营着他们的餐馆,也许出于礼貌,在武断的摧毁他们的生意之前我们可以找到一丁点儿的证据,事实是,美国农业部已经做了模范的工作去指导检验,建立安全措施防止疯牛病大规模爆发,这很可能就是它没有爆发的原因,我们可以向恐惧和害怕屈服…毫无根据的恐惧,可那会让我们变成…举国上下都是软弱无能的,我不知道你怎么想,可…我不想成为一个软弱无能的人.
律师Timothy Simms: 一直以来小镇制订了很多规则,很多规则使快餐店倒闭,通过许可,他们可以控制你怎么建你的房子,一些城镇禁酒,禁烟,其他一些还实行宵禁,我们做各种各样的事,唯一合法的要求是法律是合法的.害怕疯牛病的爆发是合理的,在华盛顿州已经有过案例,另一个案例是上个月在加拿大,我们刚刚撤销牛肉进口禁令,一头加拿大牛就被发现感染了疯牛病,这种病的潜伏期长达几十年,我们不能保证我们还未感染.当科学界都没有定论时,政府就宣扬如此肯定的结论,完全是不计后果的,即使不考虑疯牛的因素,众所周知,吃牛肉会引起高胆固醇,心脏病,会增加患结肠癌的风险,现存的李斯特氏杆菌和大肠埃希菌已经可以导致死亡,戴奥辛这种有毒物质几乎杀死了乌克兰总统,而这种物质存在于放牧的草里.科学家说,每个美国人的血脂里大约有10个单位的戴奥辛,仅仅是从动物脂肪中获取的.作为一个市长,从市民的餐桌上尽量减少红肉,不甚枚举的事实可证明这是合理的.让我提醒你们,没有…在宪法里没有法律,是保障任何人销售汉堡包的权利.

法官陈述:
原文:
Judge Clark Brown: Well, thank you all for staying late. I did some research of my own. As you may know I pride myself on being a conscientious fact finder. Mad Cow disease is here, and for all the guarantees supplied by the government, the scientific community doesn’t back ‘em up. We all have a right to be concerned. The governmental agencies in place to protect us seem to be controlled by the industries we need protection from! This Mad Cow disease started out in Europe and worked its way over here. And it is true; the scientists are at odds with our government. But as a tryer of fact, a judge must rely on facts and there is no evidence of an epidemic. If a judge were to allow himself to be governed by fear alone, well, then it is true and I agree it would make him a… a… nansy, pansy. This judge is anything but! I find the law banning sale of red meat to be premature, if not capricious, and it is hereby overturned. Case adjourned!
译文:
法官 Clark Brown: 感谢各位的等待,我自己做了些调研,正如你们所了解的,我很自豪作为一个尽责的事实挖掘者。疯牛病的确存在,尽管政府提供了很多保证,科学界似乎并不买账,我们有权利被关心,有义务保护我们的政府部门,好象被那些损害我们的产业所控制,疯牛病在欧洲爆发,正朝我们这蔓延,这是事实。科学家与我们的政府对此争论不休,可作为一个事实的检验者,一个法官,必须依靠事实证据,这并没有疫疾流行的证据,如果一个法官允许自己被恐惧支配,那么的确,这会让他成为一个…软弱无能的人。我决不是这样的人,我认为这项禁止红肉的法律,为时尚早,如没有意外的话,它被否决了,退庭。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:44 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Tortured Souls
Season 1, Episode 15


115.jpg
2008-12-27 02:44


案件1 酷刑
交叉询问:
证人1
原文:

Officer Joe Garrett: We had received a tip that the suspect, Damon Harris, was visiting his brother Paul. So we went to the brother's house.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: And did you find the suspect?
Alan Shore: Excuse me. I'm new to this case as is the jury of course. To help us track the facts, I was wondering if you could refer to him as the kidnapping suspect so we're clear that we're talking about the man who snatched a six-year-old child. The boy’s sitting right over here.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Was the kidnapping suspect there, Officer?
Officer Joe Garrett: No.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: The brother was there?
Officer Joe Garrett: Yes.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Could you tell us what happened?
Officer Joe Garrett: Well, we searched the premises. Uh, couldn't find the kidnapping suspect. We asked the brother if he knew his whereabouts. He claimed he did not.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: And then what happened?
Officer Joe Garrett: What happened is basically what you saw on the tape. My partner began to interrogate the brother. More coercively.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: At any time was the victim of this attack considered a suspect himself in the kidnapping?
Officer Joe Garrett: No.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: You never considered him connected to the crime?
Officer Joe Garrett: No.
Shirley Schmidt: As Mr. Shore noted, you were trying to find the six-year-old boy seated over here?
Officer Joe Garrett: Yes.
Shirley Schmidt: He was kidnapped how long before this incident?
Officer Joe Garrett: The day before.
Shirley Schmidt: As time goes by what are the chances of finding a kidnapped child alive?
Officer Joe Garrett: After 48 hours, we consider it extremely remote.
Shirley Schmidt: In fact, the kidnapper we're talking about is suspected in the kidnapping of another boy, correct?
Officer Joe Garrett: Yes.
Shirley Schmidt: Did you every find that boy?
Officer Joe Garrett: We found his remains.
Shirley Schmidt: While my client was committing his coercive acts against the brother, what did you do?
Officer Joe Garrett: I stood back.
Shirley Schmidt: You never intervened?
Officer Joe Garrett: No.
Shirley Schmidt: Did you report it?
Officer Joe Garrett: Not at first. Uh, eventually.
Shirley Schmidt: By the way, as a result of my client's physical coercive acts, did the brother tell you anything?
Officer Joe Garrett: He gave us a list of places his brother would frequent.
Shirley Schmidt: And did you search those places?
Officer Joe Garrett: Yes.
Shirley Schmidt: And?
Officer Joe Garrett: We found the suspect. And the child.

译文:
警官Joe Garrett: 我们收到线报,呃,关于疑犯Damon Harris,线报说他去见他哥哥Paul,所以我们就去了他哥哥家
检察官Nicholas Preston: 那么你们在那找到疑犯了吗?
Alan Shore: 对不起,我刚刚接到这个案子陪审团当然也是,为了帮助我们寻找真相,我想知道你是否能指认他就是绑架疑犯?这样我们就能弄清我们在讨论的是关于一个劫持了6岁儿童的男人,那孩子就坐在这
检察官Nicholas Preston: 绑架疑犯在那吗,警官?
警官 Joe Garrett: 不在
检察官Nicholas Preston: T他的哥哥在那吗?
警官Joe Garrett:
检察官Nicholas Preston: 你能告诉我们发生过什么吗?
警官 Joe Garrett: 好,我们搜查了那所房子,没有找到疑犯,我们询问他的哥哥他是否知道些什么,他说他不知道
检察官 Nicholas Preston: 那么接下来发生了什么?
警官Joe Garrett: 接下来发生的就是你在那录像带上看到的,我的同事开始,呃,开始,对他哥哥的询问更强硬
检察官 Nicholas Preston: 在任何时间,这案子的受害人被错认做绑架疑犯了吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 没有
检察官 Nicholas Preston: 你从没认为他和那案子有关吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 没有
Shirley Schmidt: 正如Shore先生陈述,你们试图寻找现在坐在那的那位6岁的男孩?
警官Joe Garrett: 是的
Shirley Schmidt: 这案子发生前,他已经被绑架多久了?
警官Joe Garrett: 这事发生的前天
Shirley Schmidt: 时间越来越少,你们找到活着被绑架孩子的机会有多大?
警官Joe Garrett: 48小时之后,我们就认为很难再有希望了
Shirley Schmidt: 实际上,我们讨论的那位绑架疑犯,曾经有过绑架另一个男孩的案底,是吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 是的
Shirley Schmidt: 你们找到那个男孩了吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 我们只找到他的尸体
Shirley Schmidt: 那么当我的当事人正对他的哥哥实施强硬行为时,你做了什么?
警官Joe Garrett: 我退后了
Shirley Schmidt: 你没有干预吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 没有
Shirley Schmidt: 你报告了这件事吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 一开始没有,呃,后来有
Shirley Schmidt: 顺便问一下,我的当事人实施完强硬行为的结果,疑犯的哥哥告诉你们什么了?
警官Joe Garrett: 他给了我们一张他弟弟可能会出现地方的单子
Shirley Schmidt: 那么你们搜查了这些地方吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 是的
Shirley Schmidt: 有收获吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 我们找到了疑犯,还有那孩子

证人2:
原文:
Officer Wayne Kirkland: I knew he knew something. Either where his brother was or where the child was. He knew something.
Shirley Schmidt: And you were prepared to beat it out of him?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: I was prepared to punch him. To intimidate him. I didn't actually mean to break his arm.
Shirley Schmidt: But Mr. Kirkland, what we saw in the tape?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: There are different rules in kidnappins.
Shirley Schmidt: What do you mean different rules?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: The understanding is we're not supposed to break bones or cause any permanent injury. But physical discomfiture is permitted. It's okay to, say, dislocate a shoulder. Tear a muscle.
Shirley Schmidt: You're talking about torture. This was an innocent man, he wasn't even the suspected kidnapper!
Officer Wayne Kirkland: And I'm sorry I hurt him. But I felt he knew where his brother was. I considered this to be like self-defense or defense of others. I was gonna do whatever I could to save that boy. All I could think about was my own son.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: The end justifies the means?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: I guess I have to say yes to that.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Suppose the suspected kidnapper had confessed to a priest? You'd feel no compunction about beating up clergy to get your information?
Officer Joe Garrett: I didn't say that.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Well, is there a distinction? An innocent man has information that would lead to the recovery of a child.
Officer Wayne Kirkland: I guess I felt the victim here wasn't so innocent.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Ah, so we're out there playing judge, too. Policeman, judge, executioner.
Shirley Schmidt: Objection.
Judge Dale Mellman: Sustained.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Who told you it was okay to tear muscles and dislocate shoulders in kidnapping situations?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: There's no formal directive. Just understood.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Understood by the police who arrested you after you did it?
Officer Wayne Kirkland: I was arrested because the media got a hold of this. That's the only reason I'm here.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: How sad is that? You tortured an innocent man with no criminal record whose only offense was that his fugitive brother stopped at his house. And the only reason you're here is because the media got a hold of it?

译文:
警官Wayne Kirkland: 我知道他了解些什么,或者知道他弟弟在哪或者知道那孩子在哪,他一定知道些什么
Shirley Schmidt: 所以你准备打他让他说
警官 Wayne Kirkland: 我那时只想打他,吓吓他,我没真的想弄断他的胳膊
Shirley Schmidt: 但是,Kirkland先生,我们在录像带上看到的?
警官 Wayne Kirkland: 在绑架案里有不同的规定
Shirley Schmidt: 你说的"不同的规定"是什么意思
警官Wayne Kirkland: 意思是我们不打算打碎谁的骨头,或者造成什么永久伤害,但是身体的这类强制是被允许的,比如使肩膀脱臼,肌肉弄伤,都是允许的
Shirley Schmidt: 你所指的是拷问,而你当时对待的是一个无辜的人,他并不是绑架疑犯
警官Wayne Kirkland: 我很对不起我弄伤他了,但是我那时觉得他应该知道他弟弟在哪,我想我的行为应该是像正当防卫,或者是为了别人所做出的防卫,为了救那孩子我那时会做任何事,我能想到的是我自己的儿子
检察官Nicholas Preston: 为了正当目的可以不择手段吗?
警官Wayne Kirkland: 我想我不得不回答是
检察官Nicholas Preston: 假如那个绑架案疑犯向一位神父忏悔过,你觉得你揍一位神父去获得你要的会没关系吗?
警官Joe Garrett: 我没那么说
检察官Nicholas Preston: 那么,这有什么不同吗?一个知道些什么的无辜者可能会帮忙去找到孩子
警官Wayne Kirkland: 我那时感觉此案的受害者并不那么无辜
检察官Nicholas Preston: 啊,所以那时你开始审判了,是吗?警察,法官,执行者
Shirley Schmidt: 反对
法官Dale Mellman: 反对有效
检察官Nicholas Preston: 谁告诉你把人肌肉弄伤,让人肩膀脱臼在绑架案里是可以的?
警官Wayne Kirkland: 没有正式的说明,我只是这么认为的
检察官 Nicholas Preston: 到警察因为你做过的把你逮捕后你还这么认为吗?
警官Wayne Kirkland: 我被逮捕只是因为媒体得到了那录像带,那是我现在在这的唯一原因
检察官Nicholas Preston: 还有什么比这更糟的?你虐待一个没有犯罪记录无辜的人,他唯一的罪过就是他逃亡的弟弟逃到了他家,而你在这的唯一原因就是因为媒体得到了那录像带?

证人3:
原文:
Captain Larry McDonald: Never, ever, ever did we send the message, directly, indirectly or otherwise, that it is acceptable procedure to physically coerce suspects or witnesses.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Officer Kirkland says it was understood that with kidnapping cases there’s a different set of rules.
Captain Larry McDonald: He's mistaken. Our department is to serve and protect the public and that includes honoring their civil liberties.
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: So he was acting outside the scope of his authority as a police officer, in your opinion?
Captain Larry McDonald: He was acting outside the scope of the law. He committed a vicious criminal assault. It was disgraceful. I'm repulsed every time I see that footage.
Shirley Schmidt: That's a funny thing that you mention footage, Captain, because my client wasn't arrested until that video was aired on the news.
Captain Larry McDonald: We were investigating prior to that broadcast.
Shirley Schmidt: Ah. You were investigating. Tell me, when did first hear about my client's conduct?
Captain Larry McDonald: I can't really recall.
Shirley Schmidt: Maybe I can help out. The, uh, victim made a complaint and filed a written report the day that it happened. His family members verified it. You had knowledge of my client's disgraceful acts from day one, didn't you, Captain? And yet, when they recovered the child, you held a press conference singing the praises of your officers, including Mr. Kirkland. Then when the footage went out over the airways, suddenly, my client's conduct became disgraceful.
Captain Larry McDonald: We have not ever, and will not ever condone torture.
Shirley Schmidt: Alan Dershowitz recently said that if we had a suspect in custody who knew that a bomb was about to go off and kill people, torture would be used. Do you disagree with that?
Captain Larry McDonald: We've never had such a ticking-bomb case here so I can’t answer.
Shirley Schmidt: Let's say we're trying to crack a big terrorist case, say the Pan Am jet that went down in Lockerbie. Was torture used there?
Captain Larry McDonald: You'd have to ask the FBI.
Shirley Schmidt: There were reports, I should say rumors, that electrical devices were attached to the prisoners' genitalia. Are you familiar...?
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: Objection.
Judge Dale Mellman: This court is not going to admit rumors, Ms. Schmidt.
Shirley Schmidt: Let me ask you something, Captain. If they were tortured? Do you care?

译文:
上尉Larry McDonald: 我们从来都没有,发出过这样的信息,直接的间接的或者以其他什么方式,说明对嫌犯或者证人进行身体侵害,是可以接受的
检察官Nicholas Preston: 警官说这很容易明白,在绑架案里用些不同的规则
上尉Larry McDonald: 他错了,我们的部门是服务于民众,保护民众的,当然也包括尊重他们的公民自由权利
检察官Nicholas Preston: 那么在你看来,他的所作所为已经超出了他的职责范围?
上尉Larry McDonald: 他所做的超出了法律的范围,他承认实施了恶意的攻击行为,这真丢脸,每次我都看不下去那录像
Shirley Schmidt: 您提到那录像真是件有趣的事,上尉,那录像在新闻上一播出,我的当事人就被逮捕了
上尉Larry McDonald: 在播出前我们就在进行调查
Shirley Schmidt: 啊,你们那时正在调查,告诉我 你第一次听到我当事人的这行为是什么时候?
上尉Larry McDonald: 我记不起来了
Shirley Schmidt: 也许我能帮你记起来,受害者做了份控诉还填了份书面报告,就在这件事发生的当天,他的家人可以证实,你能确定我当事人不光彩的行为是从那天开始的,是吗上尉?还有,当他们发现那孩子时,你开了个新闻发布会以表彰破案的警官,也包括Kirkland先生,而当录像带在新闻播出后,突然之间我当事人的行为就变成不光彩的了
上尉Larry McDonald: 我们没有过也永不会原谅私刑
Shirley Schmidt: Alan Dershowitz 刚刚说如果我们有一个被拘捕的嫌犯,他正好知道有个炸弹马上要爆炸了,将会杀死很多人,这时就得用私刑了,你同意吗?
上尉Larry McDonald: 我们现在这没有什么炸弹的事情,所以我回答不了
Shirley Schmidt: 那让我们说我们正在调查一个大恐怖分子的案子,比如说,泛美航空的客机在洛克比爆炸了(指洛克比空难 是恐怖事件),那么这案子私刑能用吗?
上尉Larry McDonald: 你应该去问联邦调查局
Shirley Schmidt: 有些报告,也许我该说是流言,关于洛克比的流言,据说有带电的装置被装在了囚犯的生殖器上,你熟悉…
检察官Nicholas Preston: 反对
法官Dale Mellman: 这个法庭是不会承认流言的,Schmidt女士
Shirley Schmidt: 上尉,让我来问你一些事情,如果他们经受私刑,你真会在乎吗?

结案陈词:
原文:
A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: He's not above the law because he's a policeman. He doesn't get to be exempt from the law because there's a fortuitous result. He beat up an innocent man. Fractured a cheekbone. Broke an arm. Put him in the hospital. This was an aggravated assault. It was torture. Paul Harris didn't have specific information as to the whereabouts of the supect. All he had was a general idea of the places he liked to frequent. For that, you saw what happened to him.
Alan Shore: The truth is, as Americans we love torture. We keep it to ourselves of course. But come on, when it comes to evildoers? Torture's okay. Hollywood certainly knows that. Dirty Harry. Boom. Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. Heroes torturing the bad guys. In theaters all across the country we cheered. We like torture! Is there potential for abuse? Without question. The events at Abu Ghraib prison were deplorable. But do we really think they happened in a vacuum? Alberto Gonzalez, our Attorney General, wrote a memo to the administration saying torture's okay. Our Supreme Court just recently held that evidence gained from torture can be used in trials. Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading civil rights activists in our country, raised the idea of using torture warrants so as to at least to be more open about it. Torture warrants.
Love that torture. Shhhh. Mr. Preston talks about the witness here being an innocent man. Now come on. He wasn't that innocent. He did harbor a fugitive. One who kidnaps and kills children. He did have information that ultimately led to the rescue of the child here. And he refused to give it up until he was… coerced. As for my client being above the law? Well, the law in this country has always been subject to evolving community standards of humanity. So the twelve of you get to go back there, as a community, and asks yourselves "Was this a good thing or not?" He's happy. He's alive. They're sure as hell happy. My client saved a life! That little boy's life. If it were your child wouldn't you want the police to do whatever was necessary? This officer got the job done using a method that our government, our military, our attorney general and, yes, even our Supreme Court has said is sometimes okay. Sometimes. Depending on the situation. Torture's okay. Just don't tell anybody.

译文:
检察官Nicholas Preston: 他不能凌驾于法律之上因为他是个警察,不能因为抓到嫌犯这个偶然的结果就让他免于罪责,他攻击了一个无辜的男人,揍他的脸,弄断他的胳膊,把他送进医院,这是项很严重的故意伤害行为,这是私刑。Paul Harris没什么疑犯的特别信息,他仅有的就是一些疑犯可能会出现的地方,因为那些,你们就看到了发生在他身上的事情
Alan Shore: 事实是,作为美国人,我们爱刑讯。我们当然不会公开这种嗜好,但是想想,当它被用来对付罪人时,刑讯没什么不好。好莱坞当然知道这个,“警探哈里”精彩,Charles Bronson 在“死亡请求”里,Denzel Washington 在“怒火救援”里,英雄们总是对坏蛋用刑讯,在全国的剧场里我们都在欢呼,我们爱刑讯。刑讯有被滥用的危险吗?这毫无疑问。发生在阿布格莱布监狱的事就很悲惨(曾发生过美军虐囚丑闻),但我们真的相信他们是无缘无故发生的吗?Alberto Gonzales,我们的司法部长,给政府的一个报告称,刑讯是可以接受的,我们的最高法院也刚刚批准,可以采用刑讯得来的证据,Alan Dershowitz,我们国家最活跃的公民权利人士之一,提出建议使用刑讯许可证,所以至少对私刑抱着宽容点的态度,刑讯许可证,我爱刑讯。Preston先生谈到该案的受害者是位无辜的人,看看吧,他并没那么无辜,他的确帮助了个逃犯,一个绑架并杀死过孩子的逃犯,他的确知道什么,最后也通过他提供的信息这找到了孩子,而直到使用强制手段他才供出信息,至于说到我的当事人凌驾于法律之上,你们看,这个国家的法律是其次,社会对于人性的发展才是最重要的,你们12个人也会回到社会中去,那么,问问你们自己,我当事人做的这是件好事还是坏事?他很快乐,他还活着,他们一家都一定很高兴。我的当事人救了一个人的命,那个小男孩的命。如果他是你们的孩子,难道你们不想警察做所有他们能做的来找到孩子吗?这位警官完成了自己的职责,通过使用一种我们的政府,我们的军队,我们的司法部长,噢对,还有我们的最高法院,都认为有时是可行的方法。有时,根据情况,刑讯是可行的,但是别让任何人知道。

宣判:
原文:
Foreman: In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Wayne Kirkland, re the charge of aggravated assault, we find the defendant, Wayne Kirkland, not guilty.

译文:
陪审员:在公诉Wayne Kirkland控诉其故意伤害一案中,我们认定被告,无罪。

案件2:逃婚
交叉询问:
证人1:
原文:

Frannie Huber: I waited my whole life for this day. My friends, my family, they were all gathered to celebrate the happiest event in my life. And instead they were witness to such a humiliation. I'm still reeling from it psychologically.
Chelina Hall: Did you require treatment?
Frannie Huber: Yes, for many, many months. My therapist thinks the trauma is even an inhibitor to my finding love again.
Chelina Hall: Had he given any indication at all that he was wavering?
Frannie Huber: None. No. Everything was fine. It was more than fine, actually. It was perfect. Until suddenly um... Well, what you saw. I'm in church with 300 people gathered from all over. He just, um… well, you saw it.
Donny Crane: What are you saying? If he didn't feel committed he should've married you just the same ‘cause the catering was paid for?
Frannie Huber: If he didn't feel committed, what were we doing up there? I, I was standing in my gown, my wedding dress.
Donny Crane: But this is love, Frannie. It takes funny, unexpected bounces. We're talking about emotions of the heart.
Denny Crane: Objection. Sounds like a girly man.
Donny Crane: Move to strike!
Denny Crane: That's better.
Judge Sean Keneally: Mr. Crane!
Donny Crane: Frannie, do you think my client planned for it to go down like this?
Frannie Huber: Do you have any idea what a jolt it was to be left standing in the church, on a day that you've been planning for a lifetime?
Donny Crane: You see that guy over there? Denny Crane? He pretended to be my father for twenty-five years. I know a good jolt when I...
Chelina Hall: Objection.
Donny Crane: You lost a fiance. I lost a foundation.
Chelina Hall: Objection!
Judge Sean Keneally: Mr. Crane.
Donny Crane: Emotional wallops are a part of life. You don't go running into court to address them.
Denny Crane: That's exactly what you're doing now.
Donny Crane: You shut up!
Judge Sean Keneally: Counsel!
Donny Crane: I'm sorry. I apologize to the court. Sometimes pain can cause you to lash out. Would you agree with that, Frannie? If the hurt was deep enough, you'd wanna lash out at the person who caused it. Is it possible you're doing just a little of that here? Hmm?

译文:
Frannie Huber: 我用我的一生等待这一天,我的朋友,我的家人,他们都聚在一起庆祝我生命中最快乐的日子,可结果呢,他们看到了这么一件丢脸的事情,因为这件事,我精神上仍然饱受伤害
Chelina Hall: 你要求心理治疗了吗?
Frannie Huber: 是的,接受了好几个月的治疗,我的医生认为这创伤会让我很难再找到爱情了
Chelina Hall: 他有过任何暗示他在这件事上有摇摆吗?
Frannie Huber: 不,没有。一切都看起来好好的,诶,实际上,那些日子他更好了,很完美,直到那天,突然的…就如你们看到的,我和300个从各地赶来的人在教堂里,而他…你们看到了
Donny Crane: 你怎么说呢?如果他不感到有罪,他本应该娶你就因为结婚的酒席已经付了钱吗?
Frannie Huber: 如果他不感到有罪,我们在这在干什么,我…我那时穿着礼服,我的结婚礼服
Donny Crane: 但是这是关于爱情的事Frannie,爱情总是会有意想不到的事,我们讨论的是心里的感觉
Denny Crane: 反对,听起来像个娘娘腔
Donny Crane: 要求撤销质问
Denny Crane: 那更不错
法官 Sean Keneally: Crane先生!
Donny Crane: Frannie,你认为我的当事人是计划好这么做的吗?
Frannie Huber: 你知道那是什么样的感觉吗?你期待一生的一天,却被人抛弃在教堂里
Donny Crane: 你看到坐那的那人了吗?Denny Crane,他装作是我的父亲25年了,我知道那种感觉当我…
Chelina Hall: 反对
Donny Crane: 你失去了一个未婚夫,我失去了整个世界
Chelina Hall: 反对
Judge Sean Keneally: Crane先生
Donny Crane: 感情重创是生活的一部分,你不应该跑到法庭来说这些
Denny Crane: 这正是你正在做的事
Donny Crane: 你闭嘴 !
Judge Sean Keneally: 律师先生!
Donny Crane: 对不起,我向法庭道歉,有些时候痛苦能让你失去控制,你同意吗Frannie?如果那伤害足够深,你想打击让你经受这些的那个人,是吗?你现在来法庭是不是为了这个原因?

证人2:
原文:

Michael Foster: I absolutely planned to marry her.
Donny Crane: Well? What happened, Mike?
Michael Foster: I just... I panicked.
Donny Crane: At that particular moment?
Michael Foster: Look, I had a phobic kind of thing about losing control of my life. Frannie, she picked out the caterer, the church, the minister, the reception hall, and it just hit me, that wedding was a microcosm of marriage with every decision to be made by her. I just panicked.
Donny Crane: Did you think of how embarrassing it would be for her?
Michael Foster: And for me, too. I was the one standing up there looking like an idiot. But we were at the "speak now or forever hold your peace" part. What other choice did I have?
Donny Crane: Thank you.
Denny Crane: I must say, we've all just seen the best of Donny Crane.
Donny Crane: Objection.
Denny Crane: Withdrawn. Withdrawn. Uh, Mitch. May I, may I call you Mitch?
Michael Foster: My name is Michael.
Denny Crane: As I understand your testimony, you just weren't ready to get married?
Michael Foster: That's right.
Denny Crane: It's a huge decision. Affects your whole life.
Michael Foster: Yes.
Denny Crane: It affects her life.
Michael Foster: Of course.
Denny Crane: You, you seem like a considerate sort of guy. Are you?
Michael Foster: I think so.
Denny Crane: You must have sensed that when you left her at the altar like that it would be a big number on her? You weren't insensitive to that?
Michael Foster: No. But, again. What else could I have done?
Denny Crane: Well, yes. Would it be unreasonable to say that the groom incurs a duty to perhaps sort out his feelings before thirty minutes into the ceremony?
Michael Foster: Well, uh.
Denny Crane: That's not unreasonable, is it? For the groom to be sure before he walks down the aisle. Is that unreasonable?
Michael Foster: Uh… uh… I guess not.
Denny Crane: Ever tell her you're sorry?
Michael Foster: Course, I did.
Denny Crane: Wanna tell her now?
Michael Foster: Frannie? I'm sorry.
Denny Crane: And, Mitch.
Michael Foster: My name's Michael.
Denny Crane: What's your lawyer's name?
Michael Foster: Donny Crane.
Denny Crane: What's my name?
Michael Foster: Denny Crane.
Denny Crane: Big difference, isn't there?
Donny Crane: Move to strike.
Judge: Mr. Crane!
Denny Crane: Now you got it. Lock and load. I love the law.

译文:
Michael Foster: 我的确是打算娶她的
Donny Crane: 那么,到底发生了什么Mike?
Michael Foster: 我只是…很恐惧
Donny Crane: 在那个时刻吗?
Michael Foster: 听着,我有点恐惧症,如果我的生活失去控制的话,Frannie,她,她办了结婚宴席,教堂,牧师,大厅,这都让我恐惧,那场婚礼就像是婚姻的缩影,每个决定都是她做出的,我只是恐惧
Donny Crane: 你没想过你那样做会让她多窘迫吗?
Michael Foster: 我也一样窘迫,我站在那就像个傻瓜,那个时候,要么说出来,要么永远沉默,我有什么其他选择吗?
Donny Crane: 谢谢
Denny Crane: 我得说,刚才我们看到了最好的Donny Crane
Donny Crane: 反对
Denny Crane: 收回,Mitch 我能叫你Mitch 吗?(Mitch与Michael相似,亦有逃跑者的意思)
Michael Foster: 我的名字是Michael
Denny Crane: 就我理解你的证言,你只是还没准备好结婚?
Michael Foster: 是的
Denny Crane: 那不是个小决定,它将影响你的一生
Michael Foster: 是的
Denny Crane: 它也将影响她的一生
Michael Foster: 当然
Denny Crane: 你,你应该是那种考虑事情很周到的人,是吗?
Michael Foster: 我想是的
Denny Crane: 你一定有想到过,呃…当你把她抛弃在结婚礼坛上时,那对她将是一个巨大的打击,你不会对这个一点概念也没有吧?
Michael Foster: 不,我想重复一遍,除那之外我还能做什么呢?
Denny Crane: 啊,是,这么说是不是不合理?新郎突然感到要改变主意,就在结婚典礼30分钟前?
Michael Foster: 这个…
Denny Crane: 这不合理,是吗?当新郎走在走廊上时终于拿定了主意,这是不是不合理?
Michael Foster: 呃…我想不合理
Denny Crane: 你曾经对她说过你很抱歉吗?
Michael Foster: 当然,我说过
Denny Crane: 你想现在再对她说吗?
Michael Foster: Frannie,我很抱歉
Denny Crane: 啊,Mitch
Michael Foster: 我的名字是 Michael
Denny Crane: 你的律师叫什么名字?
Michael Foster: Donny Crane
Denny Crane: 我叫什么名字?
Michael Foster: Denny Crane
Denny Crane: 很大的不同,不是吗?
Donny Crane: 要求撤销质问
法官: Crane先生!
Denny Crane: 现在你才明白,我宝刀不老,我爱法律

结案陈词:
原文:
Chelina Hall: This is every woman's, perhaps every man's greatest nightmare: Being left at the altar. In front of all our family, our closet friends. Our boss! There is no greater humiliation. And it could happen to anybody. It could happen to you, your granddaughter, your son. Me. We gotta send a message. Right now! To every bride and every groom: You wanna have a change of heart? Fine! But have the decency to have it before you walk down the aisle. And there's only one way to really send that message, isn't there? Money.
Donny Crane: What would you have him do? The ceremony somehow takes precedence over the institution itself? The goal is to avoid embarrassment now? This is marriage. For God's sake "til death do us part; let no man tear asunder." Now, my client did the honorable thing. He refused to take vows he didn't feel he could live up to. And does anybody here really feel he should have? This is marriage.

译文:
Chelina Hall: 这是每个女人,可能也是每个男人最可怕的恶梦,在我们的家人前,在我们的挚友前,在我们的上司前,被离弃在结婚礼坛前,没有比这更大的羞辱了。而这可能发生在每个人身上,这可能发生在你们身上,你们的女儿,或者你们的儿子身上,也可能发生在我身上。我们现在要问问每个新郎和新娘,你想改变主意吗?可以,但请你们走进礼堂前就做好决定,现在只有一种方法才能真正传达这种信息,不是吗?就是让我的当事人拿到钱。
Donny Crane: 他要怎么做呢?结婚仪式难道要凌驾于宪法之上吗?现在我们这场官司就是为了讨回面子吗?这是婚姻。看在上帝份上“直道死亡把我们分开”“否则让我们永不分离”,我的当事人做了件值得骄傲的事情,他拒绝向他自己做不到的事情宣誓,有人真的认为他应该草率地结婚吗?这是婚姻。

宣判:
原文:

Foreperson: On the question of liability, we find in favor of the plaintiff. On the question of damages, we order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of one point six million dollars.

译文
首席陪审员: 我们支持原告,关于赔偿,我们判定被告需向原告支付总额为160万美元的赔偿金


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:44 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Let Sales Ring
Season 1, Episode 16


116.jpg
2008-12-27 02:45


案件1:自我冷冻

交叉询问:
证人1:
原文:

Shirley Schmidt: Mr Bombay, you are asking for a court order to end your life.
Milton Bombay: Under today's science. Tomorrow might be quite different.
Shirley Schmidt: But, Sir, let's be realistic.
Milton Bombay: Why the hell do I have to be realistic? It's my body. What do I have to do? Get pregnant?
Shirley Schmidt: Well, you may be couching this in pro-life terms, but in today's scientific world being frozen makes you dead.
Milton Bombay: I am asking for the chance to be alive in tomorrow's world. To play with my great great great great grandchildren.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Do you have grandchildren today?
Milton Bombay: I've got six. All grown. Three of them love me.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Ha ha, Suppose one of them came into the court at say, the age of 30, asking to be frozen?
Milton Bombay: I'd say wait. You've got a lot of years.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Well, but maybe they would like it done before their body starts to go south, which at 30, it can.
Milton Bombay: Look, I don't advocate this for young, healthy people.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: But certainly if you can decide for yourself, so should others, right?
Milton Bombay: I'm close to 80. My life is almost over.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Does one have to be old to get this autonomy? How about somebody 35, with cancer?
Milton Bombay: If it was incurable? Yes.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Parkinson's Disease? MS? What if somebody wanted to get frozen to avoid the draft?
Denny Crane: Let him move to Canada. Freeze his balls off. Denny Crane.

译文:
Shirley Schmidt: Bombay先生 你向法庭请求中止生命
Milton Bombay: 用今天的科技,明天可能会大不一样
Shirley Schmidt: 但是,先生,现实一点
Milton Bombay: 该死的为什么我要现实一点呢?这是我的身体,我要做什么,让自己怀孕吗?
Shirley Schmidt: 你也许有点超前了,但是以今天的科技,冷冻意味着死亡
Milton Bombay: 我在争取将来重生的机会,和我的曾曾曾曾孙一起玩耍
律师General Doug Beecham: 你现在有孙子了吗?
Milton Bombay: 有六个,都成年了,有三个很爱我
律师General Doug Beecham: 假设他们中有一个今天出现在这里,比如30岁,也请求冷冻?
Milton Bombay: 我会说再等等,你还年轻
律师General Doug Beecham: 但如果他们想在壮年时就这么做呢?比如30岁
Milton Bombay: 我不提倡健康的年轻人这么做
律师General Doug Beecham: 但是如果你能自己作主,那其他人也能,对吗?
Milton Bombay: 我快80了,快死的人了
律师General Doug Beecham: 难道只有年长者才能自己作主吗?一个35岁的癌症患者呢?
Milton Bombay: 如果是绝症,他可以
律师General Doug Beecham: 帕金森综合症?假设有人想被冷冻以此逃脱兵役呢?
Denny Crane: 让他去加拿大,把他的蛋蛋冻起来(加拿大人无需服兵役)。Denny Crane

证人2:
原文:

Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Cryonics proponents don't refer to the patient as dead, simply, "preserved."
Shirley Schmidt: Frozen?
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Yes.
Shirley Schmidt: But, Doctor, if the person's heart isn't beating; if there's no brain activity, we tend to call them dead?
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Under today's medical definition, yes. But the definition of cryonics is basically a process using a very cold temperature to prevent people from dying.
Denny Crane: Where'd we get this quack?
Milton Bombay: Shhh.
Shirley Schmidt: Uh, Doctor. Let's be fair. Has anyone ever been brought back to life after being frozen?
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: No, and it's not likely to happen soon. But the technology is changing. We're discovering more and more about molecular nanotechnology everyday. And one day, it will be a reality.
Denny Crane: A molecular what?
Shirley Schmidt: One second, Doctor. Denny, I'm gonna try something here. I don't have time to explain. I just need you to go with it, okay? I want you to count backwards from a hundred, silently.
Denny Crane: Why?
Shirley Schmidt: I'll explain later. It's important.
Denny Crane: Uh, 99, 98.
Shirley Schmidt: Okay, Doctor. We've heard that cryonics is in our future; but, please, give me one example, one piece of evidence that indicates that this could possibly work.
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: The wood frog.
Shirley Schmidt: I'm sorry. Did you say, “Wood frog?”
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Ah, yes. A frog in the Canadian Arctic that hibernates and completely freezes in the winter. No heartbeat, no brain activity. It goes completely dead by today's definition of death. Then in the spring, it wakens, brain activity resumes, heart starts beating. It's alive again.
Shirley Schmidt: And you think, if it's possible for a frog....?
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Why not for a human? If we can accomplish total metabolic arrest with no tissue damage, we will be able to freeze people for thousands of years and bring them back to life.
Shirley Schmidt: Thank you, Doctor.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: Humans are warm-blooded animals, designed to stay at 98 degrees. Those frogs are cold-blooded with a completely different molecular structure.
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Admittedly, the future of cryonics involves the development of molecular technology.
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: For which there is no evidence it can work with warm-blooded animals.
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: Yes, there is. We have frozen rat livers, thawed them and transplanted them into living rats. In Israel they did it with frozen hearts. In both cases the rats lived--not for long--but the livers and hearts did come back to life. With humans, we've frozen heart valves...
Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: And you think the idea of freezing people is ethical? Is that consistent with....?
Dr. Malcolm Freemont: It's evidently ethical to freeze embryos. But again, I'm up here to give you the science, not engage in a moral debate.

译文:
医生Malcolm Freemont: 人体冷冻学的支持者们不认为病人“死亡”,而是“保存”
Shirley Schmidt: 冷冻?
医生Malcolm Freemont: 是的
Shirley Schmidt: 但是医生,如果心脏停止跳动,大脑停止活动,我们就称为死亡?
医生Malcolm Freemont: 按照今天的医学定义,是的,但是根据人体冷冻学,这是在极低的温度下维持生命的过程
Denny Crane: 我们从哪儿找来的江湖郎中
Shirley Schmidt: 医生,坦白说,有没有人在被冷冻后生还?
医生Malcolm Freemont: 没有,现在还不行,但科技在进步,我们正在研究分子纳米技术,总有一天会实现的
Denny Crane: 分子什么?
Shirley Schmidt: 稍等,医生,Denny 我正在询问,没有时间跟你解释,你只需要坐在这里,好吗?从100开始往前默数
Denny Crane: 为什么?
Shirley Schmidt: 一会再告诉你,这很重要
Denny Crane: 99,98…
Shirley Schmidt: 好了,医生,我们已经了解未来的冷冻技术,但请你举个例子,证明这项技术是可行的
医生Malcolm Freemont: 林蛙
Shirley Schmidt: 抱歉,你说的是林蛙吗?
医生Malcolm Freemont: 是的,一种生活在加拿大北极圈的生物,冬眠时会完全冷冻,没有心跳,没有大脑活动,按照今天对死亡的定义,它和死了一模一样,春天它又会苏醒,大脑恢复运转,心脏继续跳动,它又活了
Shirley Schmidt: 那你认为林蛙可以…
医生Malcolm Freemont: 人也一样可以了,如果在人体组织完好无损的情况下,完全中止新陈代谢,人们能够被冷冻上千年,再起死回生
Shirley Schmidt: 谢谢,医生
律师General Doug Beecham: 人类是热血动物,人体温度是98华氏度,而青蛙是冷血动物,它们的分子结构完全不同
医生Malcolm Freemont: 不可否认冷冻技术的发展,包含分子技术的进步
律师General Doug Beecham: 但没有证据能表明它对热血动物一样有效
医生Malcolm Freemont: 有证据,我们冷冻老鼠肝脏,再把它们解冻,移植到活老鼠体内,在以色列,还移植过心脏,两个手术里,老鼠都活了,虽然存活时间不长,但心脏和肝脏的确重活了,我们已经冷冻了心脏瓣…
律师General Doug Beecham: 你认为人体冷冻符合伦理吗?它能…
医生Malcolm Freemont: 很明显冷冻胚胎符合伦理,我想再次声明我们在讨论科学,不是道德辩论

结案陈词:
原文:

Assistant Attorney General Doug Beecham: There is nothing in the law to support Mr Bombay’s request that he be assisted in his quest to die. And that’s what this is. Assisted suicide. Now, we hear a lot of talk about personnel autonomy. But there is a sanctity to life, Your Honor. A State has interest in that sanctity. If we erode that in any way, well… we make the idea of suicide more acceptable. Perhaps more conceivable for the troubled teenager or the depressed mother. You say suicide in some situations is an option. But we have an overriding State interest, and a humane one, in not sending that message.
Milton Bombay: At the risk of sounding immodest, I am one of the greatest lawyers, possibly the greatest to grace the courtrooms of this commonwealth. And just the possibility of being to still try cases in the twentysecond century. Uh, I have ALS. In a few months I’ll lose motor control, control of my bowels, my brain will begin to… ha, ha. In a year or so I’ll be dead. Legends shouldn’t die like that. I don’t wanna die like that. Cryonics might not work, but a hundred years ago nobody was talking about cloning, or the human genome, and a hundred years from now, who knows what’s possible? I truly, truly, love life, and the chance to be living again seems preferable to eternal nothingness. And uh, ha, well, what, what Red Sox fan wouldn’t jump at the chance to lie next to Ted Williams? I realize, Your Honor, that no Judge would do what I’m asking for. Do it anyway,

译文:
律师General Doug Beecham: Bombay先生请求协助死亡并冷冻的请求,法律中没有可支持的条款,那意味着协助自杀。现在我们听到很多关于个人自主的谈论,但生命是神圣的,法官大人,国家对生命的神圣担负责任,如果我们践踏生命,如果我们默许了自杀行为,或许会有更多困境中的年轻人或绝望的母亲自杀。你说在某些情况下自杀是一种可行的选择,但是我们还拥有高于个人的国家利益,我们还有人道关怀。
Milton Bombay: 可能有人说我很自负,但我认为我是最伟大的律师之一。我为这个国家的法庭增添了光彩,或许还能继续把官司打到22世纪,我患有肌萎缩侧索硬化症,今后的几个月里,我的肌肉将萎缩,内脏也将衰竭,我的大脑将开始…一年多之内我就将告别人世,传奇人物不能就这样死去,我也不想这样死去。人体冷冻或许没有效,但是100年前人们对克隆或人体基因毫无了解,谁又能预言100年后的世界呢?我非常,非常热爱生命,和死后的虚无缥缈相比,我更珍爱这个能重生的机会,为什么红袜队(全美职业棒球队)球迷不接受Ted Williams的做法呢?(红袜队球员,死后使用了人体冷冻法)法官大人,我知道没有法官会答应我的请求,不管怎样,宣判吧。

法官陈述:
原文:

Judge James Billmeyer: Mr Bombay, it seems ironic, if not indecent, that the State’s interest in preserving life should mandate that you should die a wrenching and painful death, rather than be frozen in hopes of finding a cure. But that is the law as it stands today. We live in a country that celebrates individual liberties and personnel autonomy, but when it comes to controlling your own destiny, this is a freedom that does not yet ring. I will pray for you, but I cannot grant you your request. Your motion is denied. God bless you.

译文:
法官James Billmeyer: Bombay先生,真是讽刺啊,国家应该维护你死亡的权利,在痛苦中死去而不是怀着治愈的希望被冷冻,但这就是今天的法律。这个国家崇尚个人自由和个人自主,但是谈到掌控自己的命运,这只是沉默的自由,我为你祈祷,但我不能同意你的请求,你的请求遭到拒绝,上帝保佑你。

案件2:广播风波
交叉询问:
原文:

Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Why this one particular network?
Steven Harper: Look, I know that all the networks pander, some to the Liberals, some to the Conservative, but when a news organization goes as far as to actually promote a political agenda.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Can I dial you back one second? How do they do that?
Steven Harper: Well, first, the broadcasts speak for themselves. Their CEO used to be the chief media operative for former Republican presidents.
Alan Shore: I object to his open mind, Judge.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Move to strike.
Judge Peter Harding: Sustained.
Steven Harper: And then when I saw the documentary "Outfoxed," it blew my mind.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Because...?
Steven Harper: Because it detailed the extent to which the media can go to promote conservative Republican causes.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Your Honor, we'd like to show you a brief series of clips from this documentary.
Clip 1: We weren't necessarily, as it was told to us, a news-gathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view.
Clip 2: They wanted all news to be a matter of opinion. We were ordered from the top to carry propaganda, carry Republican, rightwing, propaganda.
Clip 3: It was made very clear to us that our activities were being monitored, and if someone wasn't watching it live, they were at least recording it, and they would review after the fact to see what we did.
Steven Harper: If you watch the documentary, and I strongly suggest that you do, you'll see that this goes on and on and on, and these accounts are from people on the inside.
Judge Peter Harding: Okay. But to put a device on the television?
Steven Harper: I hate the idea of shutting down free expression, but this became more of a safety issue.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: A safety issue?
Steven Harper: They've got their talk show hosts declaring that anyone who is opposed to the war is an enemy of the state. A traitor! We're getting more and more fights. Kids are being attacked for being unpatriotic. Arab and Muslim students are being targeted. Maybe this little device is overkill, I admit that, but I've got a high school to run, and the first order of the day is keep the kids safe.
Alan Shore: I thought the first order of an academic community was embracing diversity of opinion.
Steven Harper: Not when it's a bias that fosters intolerance.
Alan Shore: Did you attach any little blockers to networks that lie about Presidents, and say… the National Guard.
Steven Harper: I don't dispute there's a Liberal bias, too.
Alan Shore: But you don't censure those networks.
Steven Harper: Those networks don't foster intolerance.
Alan Shore: Any blockers for shock jocks? Or is racism a misogyny not a concern?
Steven Harper: Look, there's a lot of garbage out there. I'll admit that.
Alan Shore: What about your own teachers?
Steven Harper: My teachers?
Alan Shore: A recent poll showed six out of seven college professors voted for John Kerry. Does that not suggest a bias in academia, Mr Harper?
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Objection.
Alan Shore: We've got countless news programs. Too many talk shows to keep track of, all kinds of opinions being spewed out over the air waves. Extremes to the left, to the right. And the only thing you block...?
Steven Harper: That's actually not true. There’s all kinds of programs we don't permit.
Alan Shore: But this is the only news show?
Steven Harper: Look, what does it say that they make a device to block out this particular news network?
Alan Shore: It says that censorship is popular. That doesn't make it right.
Steven Harper: And as principal I have to make that call. And let me say this: I am a proud American. I got a flag on my porch. I pray for those troops every night. I taught some of those kids. They're over there fighting for democracy which includes the right for you to question your government. And for this network to be saying otherwise offends me as a citizen and as a principal.
Alan Shore: I see. So…? You're squashing content to promote democracy.
Steven Harper: Once again, I will shut down any content that fosters intolerance. That is where I stand.

译文:
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 为什么是这个广播公司呢?
Steven Harper: 我了解所有广播公司的伎俩,自由党的,保守党的,但是当一个新闻机构在推动政治进程的话
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 我能先问问吗,这是怎样办到的?
Steven Harper: 首先广播公司有自己的利益,广播公司CEO曾利用传媒私下为前共和党主席工作过
Alan Shore: 反对他的猜测,法官
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 请求删除刚才的谈话
法官Peter Harding: 有效
Steven Harper: 当我看到"Outfoxed"( 批判美国福克斯电视台的纪录片),我惊呆了
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 因为…?
Steven Harper: 因为它详细记录了媒体怎样推动保守的共和党的进程
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 法官大人,我有一份该纪录片的剪辑片段
片断1: 正如人们所说的一样,我们并不是一个必要的新闻机构,而只是一种观点的传话筒
片断2: 他们想让所有的新闻都是一个声音,我们被下令进行政治宣传,宣传右翼的保守党
片断3: 很明显我们的活动被监控了,就算没有实时监控,他们至少有记录,可以随时掌握我们的一言一行
Steven Harper: 我强烈建议你看此纪录片,你会发现这些情节会在电视上反复出现,纪录片里的讲述者都是新闻工作者
法官Peter Harding: 好的,但电视上安装设备呢?
Steven Harper: 我讨厌禁止自由言论,但这不仅是出于安全考虑
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 安全考虑?
Steven Harper: 他们让主持人宣称只要有人反对战争,他就是国家公敌,是叛国者,我们正陷入越来越多的战争中,孩子们因为不爱国而受到批评,阿拉伯和穆斯林的学生成了众矢之的,我承认也许这个小玩意有点过头了,但我作为校长,我的首要责任是保护孩子们的安全
Alan Shore: 我认为学校的首要责任是让孩子们了解不同的声音
Steven Harper: 除非以宽容为前提
Alan Shore: 你是否用这玩意阻止过歪曲总统或是国家安全的广播公司?
Steven Harper: 我也不否认存在对自由党的偏见
Alan Shore: 但你并没有检查过这些节目
Steven Harper: 这些节目并没有鼓吹狭隘的思想
Alan Shore: 阻止过shock jock(一个大胆的电台)吗?或者种族歧视和厌女症并不是焦点?
Steven Harper: 我得承认,有很多垃圾节目
Alan Shore: 学校的老师呢?
Steven Harper: 老师们?
Alan Shore: 近期的民意调查显示七分之六的大学教授投票赞成Jone Kerry(民主党人),难道这不表明了学术界的偏向吗?
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: 反对
Alan Shore: 我们有数不清的新闻节目,铺天盖地的脱口秀,电视里充满了各种各样的观点,极左的或极右的,而你唯一阻止的是…?
Steven Harper: 事情不是这样的,有很多我们不允许的节目
Alan Shore: 但这仅仅是新闻节目?
Steven Harper: 阻止某个广播公司意味着什么呢?
Alan Shore: 意味着审查行为普遍存在,但并非正确
Steven Harper: 作为校长,我必须这样做,让我告诉你,我是个自豪的美国人,在我的门廊里悬挂着国旗,我每晚都为军队祈祷,我教我的孩子们也这么做,他们为了民主而战,包括你向质问政府的权利,然而 作为一名校长和一个公民,这个广播公司的做法激怒了我
Alan Shore: 我知道,所以…你阻止新闻以此推动民主
Steven Harper: 重复一遍,我阻止任何鼓吹狭隘思想的节目,这就是我的立场

结案陈词:
原文:

Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: Every major media watchdog group has labeled this news program as the most biased, right wing news program on television.
Judge Peter Harding: So what? Political bias is rampant throughout the news business. Including Liberal bias.
Attorney Elizabeth Tyler: We’re not talking about just a slant, Judge. A recent poll showed that the more people watch this news show, the less they know about foreign policy, and the more inclined they are to support the government. Now that may be good team spirit, but it’s disgraceful journalism.
Judge Peter Harding: But come on. You talk about a democracy. What kind of principal censors free expression?
Steven Harper: Um, Your Honor? If I may? Any principal has the right, if not the obligation to rail against biased wherever he sees it. You saw that tape!
Judge Peter Harding: Which was also biased and self-serving.
Steven Harper: Their most popular commentator threatens retribution against those who descent. It almost rises to the level of hate speech, and if in my view, it jeopardizes the welfare of the students, I certainly have the authority to shut it down.
Judge Peter Harding: Mr Shore, this is a school. Is it wise to expose students to programs which send a message you’re anti-American if you question the government?
Alan Shore: Your Honor, before we convict them as the network of Conservative values, or any values for that matter, let’s remember these are the folks who brought you Joe Billionaire and Who’s your Papa?
Judge Peter Harding: That’s the entertainment division, Mr Shore. I’m talking about the news.
Alan Shore: And I’m telling you it’s all the same. This isn’t about political content. This is corporation looking to make money. They began as alternative news programming to grab a market share. They saw ratings and profit in a Conservative demographic and they’ve been waving the flag ever since and so what! News today, all of it, is infotainment. Last February a deadly toxin known as Rizen was found in the mail room of the Senate majority leader. Headline news led with Janet Jackson’s exposed breast. A month ago, while we’re in the middle of a war, news casts all across the country led with Prince Harry’s costume at a keg party. It’s a business! And while some news groups go with the deeper social issues like Brad and Jennifer’s breakup, the one here chooses to run with red, white and blue. And by the way, before you vilify them, a survey done in 2002 revealed that 70 percent of the people in this country believe it is good when news organizations take a strong, pro-American, point of view. 70 percent!
Judge Peter Harding: Does that make it right?
Alan Shore: Of course it makes it right! Because the rule in infotainment is, give the people what they want. This is money, Your Honor, not politics. Let me say, I am a great lover of the news.
Judge Peter Harding: I can see that.
Alan Shore: I watch it all. On days like 9/11 or for other world-changing events the news programs are nothing short of spectacular. When Martin Luther King delivered I Have a Dream. When President Kennedy was shot. When we walked on the moon. The Ted Offensive? Are lives are shaped by these events, in part because of the news. But on all other days they’re businesses, looking to compete like anybody else in a highly competitive marketplace. They sell product. And even if you’re determined to believe that this particular network is some evil empire looking to spread right-wing propaganda, that still doesn’t change the fact that we’re in this room today, because a principal is shutting down the expression of ideas simply because he disagrees with the content. If anything needs a champion today, it’s the First Amendment. In a recent poll, half of today’s high school students thought newspapers should get government approval of stories before publishing them. The First Amendment has become an endangered species, and here we have a high school principal practicing censorship. My, my. We do have a problem.

译文:
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 每个主流媒体都认为这个新闻节目,是最偏狭,右翼的节目
法官Peter Harding: 那又怎样?政治偏向在新闻行业里屡见不鲜,包括对自由的偏向
律师Elizabeth Tyler: 我们不仅是在讨论偏向,法官,最近的民意调查显示新闻节目看得越多,人们对国外的政策了解得就越少,人们也就更倾向于支持政府,这可能是很好的团结精神,但对新闻界来说却不光彩
法官Peter Harding: 你刚刚提到了民主,什么样的校长有权阻止言论自由呢?
Steven Harper: 法官大人,我可以说几句吗?任何校长都有权力或是义务阻隔他所见到的偏向,你看过录像
法官Peter Harding: 也很有偏向并很自私
Steven Harper: 最受欢迎的评论员竟威胁持异议的人几乎演变成了分裂性的发言,我认为如果会对学生造成恶劣的影响,我完全有权关闭它
法官Peter Harding: Shore先生,这是学校,这样的节目宣扬,如果你质问政府那你就是反美人士,你觉得让学生看这样的节目合适吗?
Alan Shore: 法官大人,这样的广播公司具有保守派或其他的价值观,而孩子们却成了广播公司的牺牲品,我们应当记住这样的人,他们带给我们“Joe,Billy,and Aaron谁是你们的父亲”?
法官Peter Harding: 那是娱乐节目Shore先生,我说的是新闻
Alan Shore: 我认为它们都一样,与政治内容无关,这是一个需要赢利的公司。一开始新闻节目的内容像墙头草,他们需要占领市场份额,他们在保守派支持者里看到了商机,因此他们向保守派倾斜,那又怎样呢?今天所有的新闻都是信息娱乐化,去年二月一种叫做蓖麻毒的致命毒素,在参议院多数党领袖的收发室被发现,报纸的头条新闻竟是明星珍妮杰克逊的走光照片,一个月前我们还处在战争之中时,全国的新闻节目却大肆报导啤酒狂欢派对上哈里王子的装束,这就是商业。有些媒体对社会事件做深度报道,比如彼得布莱特和珍妮佛的离婚,还有一个媒体报导美国的政界新闻,哦对了,在你歪曲他们之前,一份2002年的调查表明:当新闻机构持强硬的亲美态度时,全国70%的人对此持赞成意见。70%!
法官Peter Harding: 这样做是对的吗?
Alan Shore: 当然是对的,因为信息娱乐化的原则就是“给人们想要的”,这是金钱,法官大人,不是政治,其实我也是个新闻爱好者
法官Peter Harding: 看得出来
Alan Shore: 我一直都看新闻。当911或其他世界大事发生的时候,新闻节目精彩不已,当马丁路德金发表“我有一个梦想”时,当肯尼迪总统被害时,当人类登上月球时,越战中的“新年攻势”,我们的生活受这些大事件的影响,一部分来自于新闻,但是在其他的日子里,它们只是商业行为。像人与人之间一样在激烈的市场里相互竞争,它们贩卖商品,即使你坚信某个居心不良的公司在宣传右翼思想,但仍然无法改变事实:今天我们身在这样的社会中,而有个校长却禁止我们畅所欲言,仅仅因为他不同意我们的观点,如果任何事都需要一个支持后盾的话,那就是第一修正案。最近的一个民意调查里,一半的中学生认为在出版报纸之前政府应审查报纸内容,第一修正案已经形同虚设了,现在校长也在检查节目内容。天啊!我们确实存在问题。

法官陈述:
原文:

Judge Peter Harding: I grew up watching Walter Cronkite. It was a time the news seemed to be fair, objective, trusted. In fact whenever we doubted the blather coming out of the politician’s mouths, it was the press we turned to get a sense of the truth. Well. Walter Cronkite has definitely left the building. When it comes to credibility, big media is dead. Networks pander. Some to Conservatives, others to Liberals. This past election you could turn to one channel to see President Bush ahead, turn to another to see Kerry leading. Ridiculous. And I agree with Mr Shore, it’s probably more about money than ideology. And being about money, well, why shouldn’t networks be free to adopt a bias in hopes of attracting a bigger audience? This is America. Mr Harper, I realize times have changed in the high schools as well. Hate violence is on the rise. Administrators have to be freer to curtail students of liberties including disruptive speech. But attaching a device to a television that blocks out a certain network because of the content? That seems to go too far. It’s censorship, Sir. And I can’t let it stand. The motion for the plaintive is granted.

译文:
法官Peter Harding: 我是看着Walter Cronkite(CBS著名新闻主播)长大的,那时候的新闻很客观,公正,可信,事实上当我们怀疑政客嘴里滔滔不绝的废话时,我们会在新闻里寻找信任感。Walter Cronkite已经离开了,主流媒体的可信度岌岌可危,曲意奉迎的广播公司,保守派的,自由派的,上一次的大选报导一个频道里总统布什遥遥领先,另一个频道里Kerry却胜券在握,实在荒谬。我同意Shore先生的看法,在金钱面前,思想意识不堪一击,全是金钱在作祟,为了更高的收视率,广播公司为什么不能任意偏向任何一方呢?这是美国。Harper先生,我注意到中学也在改变,对暴力的仇恨渐长,管理者们肆意限制学生的合法自由,包括负面言论,但是仅仅因为节目内容,在电视上安装装置来阻止某个广播公司就太过分了。这是擅自的审查行为,先生,我不能接受,原告胜诉。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:45 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Death Be Not Proud
Season 1, Episode 17


117.jpg
2008-12-27 02:46


德州法院:

原文:
A.D.A. Glenn Jackson: Ezekial Borns murdered a man in cold blood for a few dollars. He confessed to it. The Petitioner has gone up and down State and Federal courts, exhausting his appeals, losing his habeas arguments, and failing on claims of constitutional violations. Four different courts of appeal have reviewed and rejected each and every one of his arguments. Now is the time for this man to pay the penalty imposed on him fairly and legally. A Texas jury had decided that Ezekial Borns is a dangerous killer. He has forfeited his right to live. Thank you.
Chelina Hall: With all due respect, may it please the court.
Alan Shore: Good afternoon. My name is Alan Shore.
Judge Christopher Serra: Mr Shore! What are new issues being raised here?
Alan Shore: The first issue before the court concerns the absence of any African-American jurors.
Judge Lance Abrams: That was previously argued and ruled on, Counsel.
Alan Shore: Yes. Before the lower courts. This bench has never considered…
Judge Christopher Serra: We’re not persuaded that the absence of a black juror is in violation of due process. What’s your next issue?
Alan Shore: I would turn the court’s attention to the fact that the Grand Jury which indicted Mr Borns, similarly, was all white. This raises equal protection laws that…
Judge Christopher Serra: That issue was never raised and is therefore waived.
Alan Shore: Your Honor, Texas Law requires that the jury recommend death only in cases where they find that the defendant poses a threat of future dangerousness to society. We maintain this is unconstitutional. Juries are supposed to find on elements of guilt and innocence based on facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Not on the basis of perceived probabilities. Moreover, as a practical matter, since Ezekial Borns will remain in prison for life, he couldn’t possibly constitute a future threat to society, unless the law assumes prison breaks.
Judge Christopher Serra: That’s an interesting issue, Counsel, but uh, that also was never raised and therefore it is deemed waived. Next?
Alan Shore: May it please the court. Mr Borns’ trial lawyer has recently admitted he was ineffective counsel. He was abusing cocaine and alcohol during the trial, and...
Judge Martha Brenford: Not legally inadequate.
Alan Shore: I believe if you examine the transcripts…
Judge Lance Abrams: Mr Shore. Representation can always be better. Especially when we play Monday morning quarterback.
Alan Shore: With all due respect, this lawyer never gave an opening statement, he never questioned several of the prosecution’s witnesses, he failed to pursue a number of leads and important sentencing issues. This court right here today has recognized that many valid grounds for appeal were never raised.
Judge Christopher Serra: This court is satisfied that the representation was adequate. Is there anything else?
Alan Shore: Yes. Mr Borns may be innocent.
Judge Christopher Serra: The jury disagreed. And legally that issue has been settled.
Alan Shore: The DNA evidence shows somebody else was there.
Judge Christopher Serra: But it does not disprove that your client was also there. And, your guy confessed by the way.
Alan Shore: My client has an IQ of eighty; he was interrogated for sixteen hours.
Judge Lance Abrams: Coercion was never raised.
Alan Shore: It was never raised because his lawyer was an inadequate hack! Though the nine of you seem quite satisfied with his performance. With all due respect.
Judge Christopher Serra: Mr Shore? You came down here from Massachusetts?
Alan Shore: Yes. Sir.
Judge Christopher Serra: We in Texas have been living with this case for eight years.
Alan Shore: You’ve been living with it personally? May it please the court.
Judge Christopher Serra: You first met Mr Borns, when?
Alan Shore: Yesterday.
Judge Christopher Serra: And you are proposing to us, that you know him. You know what I’d like to propose? I’d like to propose that you got a problem with the death penalty in general. Now, is that why you came here, Sir?
Alan Shore: I am here. With all due respect, may it please the court, because I have a problem with the State executing a man with diminished capacity. Who may very well be innocent! I’m particularly troubled, may it please the court, with all due respect, that you don’t have a problem with it. You may not want to regard my client’s innocence, but you cannot possibly disregard the fact that 117 wrongfully convicted people have been saved from execution in this country. 117! The system is hardly foolproof. And Texas! This State is responsible for a full third of all executions in America. How can that be? The criminals are just somehow worse here? Last year you accounted for fully half of the nation’s executions. Fifty percent from one State! You cannot disregard the possibility, the possibility, that something’s up in Texas.
Judge Lance Abrams: I would urge you to confine your remarks to your client, and not the good state of Texas.
Alan Shore: Zeke Borns never had a chance. He was rounded up as a teenager, thrown in a cell while he was still doped up on drugs, brow-beaten and interrogated, until his IQ of eighty was overcome, he confessed to a crime he had no memory of, still has no memory of, for which there is no evidence, other than two witnesses who saw him pumping gas around the time of the murder. He was given a coked-up lawyer, who admittedly did nothing. I’m now before nine presumably intelligent people in the justice business, who have the benefit of knowing all of this. Add to that, you know DNA places somebody else at the scene, and you’re indifferent! You don’t care! Whether you believe in my client’s innocence, and I’ll assume, with all due respect, may it please the court, that you don’t! You cannot be sure of his guilt! You simply cannot! And failing that, how can you kill him? How can you kill him? And I would sincerely, sincerely, sincerely, hope that you don’t penalize my client, simply because his lawyers happen to be from Massachusetts. The home of the New England Patriots, who could kick ass over any football team you’ve got in the good state of Texas. May it please the court.

译文:
检控官Glenn Jackson: Ezekiel Borns为钱残忍的杀害了一个人,他也认罪了。上诉人在州法院和联邦法院忙活着,竭尽所能的申诉,人身权的论据站不住脚,违反宪法的断言也靠不住,四个不同的上诉法庭审查了并驳回了每一条论据。现在,是时候让他接受公正合理的惩罚了。Texas的陪审团应该裁定Ezekiel Borns是个危险的杀手,他没有继续生存的权利,谢谢。
Chelina Hall: “冒昧说两句,但愿法庭容许”
Alan Shore: 下午好,我叫Alan Shore
法官Christopher Serra: Shore先生,你有什么新问题吗?
Alan Shore: 我的第一个问题是此法庭缺少一个名非裔陪审员
法官Lance Abrams: 此问题已经提过并解决了,辩护律师
Alan Shore: 那是在下级法院,本庭从未考虑…
法官Christopher Serra: 没有非裔陪审员并不违反任何法律程序,你还有什么疑问?
Alan Shore: 我希望庭上注意指控Borns先生的大陪审团几乎都是白人,平等保护法律…
法官Christopher Serra: 该问题未被提起,所以勿须讨论
Alan Shore: 法官大人,Texas法律认为陪审团只能在认为被告可能在未来对社会有一定威胁性时才能建议执行死刑,我们认为这是违反宪法的,陪审团应该在排除合理疑问的基础上判定是否有罪,而不是基于自己的主观判断,而且,事实上,既然Ezekiel Borns将在牢中度过余生,他不可能对社会造成任何危害,除非说,法庭认为他会越狱。
法官Christopher Serra: 这个问题很有趣辩护律师,不过,这个问题也并未举证,因为也可以省略讨论,还有嘛?
Alan Shore: 冒昧说句,Borns的辩护律师最近承认自己的工作不称职,他曾在审讯期间服用可卡因和酗酒…
法官Martha Brenford: 并没有违反法律
Alan Shore: 我相信,如果你看过法庭记录…
法官Lance Abrams: Shore先生,你的陈述很精彩,不过都是放马后炮
Alan Shore: 请恕我直言,该律师从未做过开庭陈述,他从未盘问过检控官的证人,大量线索没调查,重要的宣判也没看,今天在这里,法庭发现那么多有效上诉论据都没有被举证
法官Christopher Serra: 法庭认为,双方的陈述都很令人满意,还有什么问题?
Alan Shore: 是的,Borns先生也许是无辜的
法官Christopher Serra: 陪审团并不这么认为,而且,法律上,该问题已经解决了
Alan Shore: DNA证据显示,有其他人在现场
法官Christopher Serra: 但是并不能否认,被告也在现场,而且,那家伙自己承认的
Alan Shore: 我的当事人智商只有80,他被审问了16个小时
法官Lance Abrams: 逼供没有被提出过
Alan Shore: 没有被提出是因为他的辩护律师是个不负责任的家伙,尽管你们9位似乎很满意他的表现,请恕我冒昧
法官Christopher Serra: Shore先生,你是从Massachusetts来的?
Alan Shore: 是的,先生
法官Christopher Serra: 在Texas,我们为这案子忙了8年
Alan Shore: 是您亲自负责的嘛,但愿法庭容许我这么问
法官Christopher Serra: 你第一次见到Borns先生是什么时候?
Alan Shore: 昨天
法官Christopher Serra: 你是想告诉我们,你了解他,你知道我想说什么嘛?我想说的是,你们在衡量死刑方面有很大的问题,那么,这就是你来的原因?
Alan Shore: 我来这里,冒昧说这句,希望法庭容许,是因为我看不惯一个对智障人士执行死刑的州,而且那个人可能是无辜的。我于心不安,冒昧说这句,希望法庭容许,你们似乎对此没有意见,你们不愿承认我的当事人是无罪的,但是你们不能够否认事实在这个国家有117个被错判的人,被免于了执行死刑 117个人,死刑的体制一点都不牢固,而Texas州的死刑案占了全美1/3,为什么会这样?这的罪犯更恶劣吗?去年,全国的死刑,你们占了一半,1个州就占了一半,你不能否认这个可能,那就是,Texas州有麻烦了。
法官Lance Abrams: 我劝你把这套论调跟你的当事人说,而不是对善良的Texas州人民
Alan Shore: Zeke Borns从没得到机会,他还是孩子时就被逮捕,在他因嗑药而昏迷时被关进监狱,饱受恫吓和审讯,直到被告完全崩溃。他认罪,但他并不记得,至今仍是没有犯罪证据,除了两个证人,在案发期间看到他曾去加过油,他被指派给一个嗜酒的律师,而他毫无作为,在九个从事公正事业显然智力超凡的各位面前,你们有权了解这些事。再者,你们知道DNA表明有其他人到过现场,你们却漠不关心,无动于衷,不管你们是否相信我的当事人是无罪的…我认定…恕我直言,望法庭许可,你们不能…也无法确信他是有罪的,显而易见。既然如此,又如何能判他的罪,凭什么裁定他死刑?所以我非常,非常,非常诚挚的,希望你们不会处罚我的当事人,特别是不要因为他的律师来自Massachusetts--新英格兰爱国者队的家乡,他们可以教训Texas的任何一支球队,希望法庭容许。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 02:46 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Boston Legal
The Black Widow
Season 2, Episode 1

Schadenfreude
Season 2, Episode 2


201.jpg
2008-12-27 23:26


黑寡妇

交叉询问:


证人1:
原文:
Detective Frank Richmond: First of all when I got to the scene of the crime she was completely calm. Her expression was cold, blank, detached.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Did she say anything?
Detective Frank Richmond: She said it was his heart. And then she offered that he was having chest pains earlier. It was as if she was trying to steer us to natural causes. Perhaps to head off an autopsy.
Brad Chase: Objection!
Judge Harvey Cooper: Sustained.
Detective Frank Richmond: Later when we confronted her with the toxicology reports she just went silent. We asked her if anyone had a motive to kill her husband. She coldly responded that she was through answering our questions.
Brad Chase: How long have you been a detective sir?
Detective Frank Richmond: Twenty-two years.
Brad Chase: Ever have occasion to talk to someone whose spouse just died?
Detective Frank Richmond: Of course.
Denny Crane: Ever know such person to be in shock?
Detective Frank Richmond: Of course.
Brad Chase: Is it possible one manifestation of shock is a blank expression?
Detective Frank Richmond: I suppose.
Brad Chase: Did you investigate the possibility that anybody else killed Joel Nolan?
Detective Frank Richmond: We ruled everybody out but her.
Brad Chase: I’m sorry, maybe I missed it. Is there any reference in your notes to other suspects?
Detective Frank Richmond: No.
Brad Chase: Did you mention to anyone that you considered other suspects?
Detective Frank Richmond: No.
Brad Chase: Did you investigate suicide?
Detective Frank Richmond: We ruled out suicide.
Denny Crane: Hah. There’s a cop that’ll never make captain.
Judge Harvey Cooper: Mr Crane. Approach please. I have instructed Mr Shore. I will so instruct you. Not to make comments to undermine my courtroom. Mr Shore has already bought himself a jail sentence at the conclusion of this trial. I’d have no compunction about assigning him a bunkmate.
Denny Crane: Um. Sorry your Honor I have Mad Cow Disease. I think you do too. Look at his eye. Your Honor?

译文:
警探Frank Richmond: 一开始,当我们赶到案发现场时,她显得十分冷静,她的表现得很冷酷,面无表情,事不相关的样子
检控官Todd Milken: 她说了什么吗?
警探Frank Richmond: 她说他的心脏出毛病了,然后她说他早些时候有过胸痛,就像是她在尝试让我们认为这是一场自然死亡,也许是为了避免尸检
Brad Chase: 反对
法官Harvey Cooper: 反对有效
警探Frank Richmond: 之后,当我们向她出示了毒性检验报告后,她就沉默了,我们问她是否有人想要杀死她的丈夫,在回答我们的问题时她一直很冷淡
Brad Chase: 你当侦探多久了,先生?
警探Frank Richmond: 22年
Brad Chase: 有没有曾经和刚死了配偶的人说过话?
警探Frank Richmond: 当然有
Denny Crane: 你曾遇见过处于震惊状态下的人吗?
警探Frank Richmond: 当然
Brad Chase: 当受到惊吓时,面无表情有没有可能是其中的一种表达方式?
警探Frank Richmond: 我想是的
Brad Chase: 你有没有调查过其他有可能杀死Joel Nolan的人?
警探Frank Richmond: 我们排除了她以外的其他人
Brad Chase: 很抱歉,也许我没看到,但是你的报告中有提到其他的嫌疑人吗?
警探Frank Richmond: 没有
Brad Chase: 你有和别人提过你有其他怀疑目标吗?
警探Frank Richmond: 没有
Brad Chase: 你有调查过自杀的可能性吗?
警探Frank Richmond: 我们排除了自杀
Denny Crane: 嗯,所以他永远都没机会升职
法官Harvey Cooper: Crane先生,请上来。我曾经警告过Shore先生,现在我也同样警告你,别在我的庭上乱说话,Shore先生已经为自己在审判完后招来了一场牢狱之灾,我不会介意为他找个同伴的
Denny Crane: 很抱歉,法官阁下,我有,呃…疯牛病。我想你也有,看他的眼睛,法官阁下…

证人2:
原文:

Frances Stadler: He threatened to leave her. And he was screaming at her, “You’re out of the will. You’re out of the will.” Two days later she killed him.
Alan Shore and Brad Chase: Objection!
Judge Harvey Cooper: Sustained. That last remark is stricken.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Miss Stadler could you describe the defendant’s relationship with the diseased?
Frances Stadler: It wasn’t good. He was increasingly anger over her affair.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Calling your attention to the evening of December 13th this past year. Did you have opportunity to hear a conversation between the defendant and her boyfriend? That man seated there. Justin Murray?
Frances Stadler: It was an argument.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Can you tell us what you heard ma’m?
Frances Stadler: Well! Mr Murray, the boyfriend, was very upset that she was still having sex with her husband. And she said, “Look at the bright side. His heart isn’t very good. Sex increases the chance of his having a coronary.”
A.D.A Todd Milken: Thank you.
Kelly Nolan: I said that as a joke.
Denny Crane: I’ll visit you in jail. Conjugal.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Your witness.
Alan Shore: Ms Stadler. When I asked you a week ago why you suspected my client of her husband’s death you never mentioned this remark made to the boyfriend about sex and coronaries. Did you?
Frances Stadler: I wanted to keep that nugget for trial.
Alan Shore: You don’t like Kelly Nolan?
Frances Stadler: No I don’t.
Alan Shore: Of course not. You looked after Mr Nolan. She got to spend his money. Mr Nolan and his wife had an arrangement. Did they not? Where she was permitted to date other men.
Frances Stadler: All I can tell you is he wasn’t happy about her and the boyfriend.
Alan Shore: Was he angry about it?
Frances Stadler: Yes.
Alan Shore: Did he ever despair over it?
Frances Stadler: Sometimes.
Alan Shore: In fact he suffered a few bouts of depression over the last couple of years didn’t he?
Frances Stadler: Minor.
Judge Harvey Cooper: Mr Shore. What are you doing?
Alan Shore: Just loosening up. Your Honor. Did you kill Joel Nolan!!!
Frances Stadler: What!
A.D.A Todd Milken: Objection!
Alan Shore: You had access to the wine!!!
Judge Harvey Cooper: Mr Shore! You’d better have a good-faith basis for this.
Alan Shore: I’d love to have a basis. But since the police didn’t investigate the possibility, I’m limited. It would have been so nice if the police had actually gathered evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion instead of supporting preconceived one. Don’t you agree?
A.D.A Todd Milken: Objection!
Alan Shore: That is stricken. I will see counsel in chambers.

译文:
Frances Stadler: 他威胁说要离开她,而且他对她大喊“遗嘱里没你份,没你的份”,两天后,她杀了他
Alan Shore and Brad Chase: 反对
法官Harvey Cooper: 反对有效,请删掉最后那句证词
检控官Todd Milken: Stadler小姐,你能描述一下被告和死者的关系吗?
Frances Stadler: 他们关系不好,他对她的外遇越来越生气
检控官Todd Milken: 请你回想一下去年的12月13日傍晚,你是否恰好听到了被告和他男朋友之间的一段对话?就是坐在那儿的那位Justin Murray
Frances Stadler: 他们在争吵
检控官Todd Milken: 你能告诉我们你听到了什么吗,女士?
Frances Stadler: 好吧Murray先生,那位男朋友对她和他的丈夫仍然有着性关系感到十分沮丧,然后她说“往好处想,他的心脏并不是很好”“性行为会增加他得心脏病的机会”
检控官Todd Milken: 谢谢
Kelly Nolan: 我是作为笑话说的
Denny Crane: 我会以丈夫的身份去监狱里看你的
检控官Todd Milken: 证人是你的了
Alan Shore: Stadler小姐,当我上个星期问你为什么你怀疑我的委托人和她丈夫的死有关,你从来没有提过她和她男朋友之间的这段对话,关于性爱和心脏病的,是吗?
Frances Stadler: 我要把它作为庭上的杀手锏
Alan Shore: 你并不喜欢Kelly Nolan
Frances Stadler: 是的,我不喜欢
Alan Shore: 当然是这样,你全心照顾Nolan先生,而她却花他的钱,Nolan先生和他的妻子有过协议,是吗? 关于他允许她和其他男人约会
Frances Stadler: 我能够告诉你的就是他对她和她男朋友的事并不感到高兴
Alan Shore: 噢,他对此感到生气?
Frances Stadler: 是的
Alan Shore: 他有没对此感到绝望?
Frances Stadler: 有时候
Alan Shore: 事实上,他在最后2年里经常受到困扰,是不是?
Frances Stadler: 一般吧
法官Harvey Cooper: Shore先生,你在干什么?
Alan Shore: 只是在热身,法官阁下。是不是你杀了Joel Nolan?
Frances Stadler: 什么
检控官Todd Milken: 反对
Alan Shore: 你有机会碰到那杯酒
法官Harvey Cooper: Shore先生,你说这话最好有根据
Alan Shore: 我喜欢有根有据,但是由于警方根本没有调查过这种可能性,我没有太多的证据,如果警方事实上收集证据是为了得出一个结论,而不是为了证明一个假设该有多好,你同意吗?
检控官Todd Milken: 反对
Alan Shore: 这句话不记录在案 律师们我们去里间谈谈

证人3:
原文:

Kelly Nolan: We were making love. When suddenly he started to grab his chest. I was sure he was having a heart attack.
Alan Shore: What did you do?
Kelly Nolan: I called 911. But by the time they got there is was too late.
Alan Shore: At some point you learned your husband had both Viagra and Nitroglycerin in his system?
Kelly Nolan: Yes.
Alan Shore: And you learned the Nitroglycerin had been traced to the wine?
Kelly Nolan: Yes.
Alan Shore: It was determined the capsules were emptied into the wine. That certainly looks like murder Kelly.
Kelly Nolan: Which is exactly what he intended.
Alan Shore: You’re saying he wanted to die?
Kelly Nolan: And frame me for his murder. Even though we had an arrangement, he became extremely angry over my affair.
Alan Shore: What about the statement you made to your boyfriend? About your husband having a heart attack?
Kelly Nolan: It was a joke. A bad one, but...
Alan Shore: Pretty big coincidence, him dying of an apparent coronary.
Kelly Nolan: If Frances Stadler overheard the joke, I have no doubt she told my husband about it. Which likely gave him the idea.
Alan Shore: How could your husband hate you so much, he was willing to die, just to frame you?
Kelly Nolan: He was willing to die perhaps because he so insanely loved me. And I was giving my love to another.
Alan Shore: You didn’t kill him?
Kelly Nolan: I absolutely did not kill him.
Operator: 911 Operator.
Kelly Nolan: Yes. My husband has had a heart attack. Please send an ambulance? We’re a 1622 Wiggum drive in Sudbury. As soon as you can.
A.D.A Todd Milken: That was your 911 call?
Kelly Nolan: Yes.
A.D.A Todd Milken: It didn’t sound wildly distressed.
Kelly Nolan: I was trying to remain calm to communicate the information, in the hopes of saving his life.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Ah. You were trying to appear calm?
Kelly Nolan: Yes. At that time I didn’t know it was a crime. Now I do.
A.D.A Todd Milken: According to Detective Richmond, you weren’t crying. Your, your mascara wasn’t even running.
Kelly Nolan: I suppose if I were trying to get away with something, I would have made sure there were some streaks. I might have also washed out the wine glass. Wiped it for prints. There are all sorts of things the innocent forget to do.

译文
Kelly Nolan: 我们当时在做爱,他突然捂着胸口,我当时肯定他心脏病发作了
Alan Shore: 你做了什么?
Kelly Nolan: 我打电话报警,但是他们来到的时候已经迟了
Alan Shore: 在那之后,你获悉了你的丈夫同时服用了伟哥和硝化甘油?
Kelly Nolan: 是的
Alan Shore: 而你也知道硝化甘油是来自于红酒里?
Kelly Nolan: 是的
Alan Shore: 调查表明一些硝化甘油胶囊被倒入红酒里,这看上去的确像是谋杀,Kelly
Kelly Nolan: 这正是他所期望的
Alan Shore: 你在说他想要死?
Kelly Nolan: 而且设计成谋杀来陷害我,即使我们有协定,他还是为我的外遇而感到十分愤怒
Alan Shore: 你对你男朋友说的那些话呢?关于你丈夫的心脏病?
Kelly Nolan: 是一个笑话,一个糟糕的笑话,但是…
Alan Shore: 事情就是那么巧,他就是心脏病发死的
Kelly Nolan: 如果Frances Stadler无意中听到了这个笑话,我相信她一定会告诉我的丈夫,这就给了他一个主意
Alan Shore: 你的丈夫怎么会恨你恨到这种程度,以至于他要用死亡来陷害你?
Kelly Nolan: 他愿意去死也许是因为他太爱我了,而我爱上了别人
Alan Shore: 你没有杀他?
Kelly Nolan: 我绝对没有杀他
Operator: 911 接线员
Kelly Nolan: 是这样的,我的丈夫心脏病发,请派辆救护车来,我们在1622 Wigham drive in Sudbury,请尽快
检控官Todd Milken: 这就是你打的911电话?
Kelly Nolan: 是的
检控官Todd Milken: 你听起来并不悲伤
Kelly Nolan: 我试图保持镇静和接线生沟通,以便拯救他的生命
检控官Todd Milken: 啊,你在试图保持镇静?
Kelly Nolan: 是的,在那个时候,我不知道这样也可以成为犯罪,现在我知道了
检控官Todd Milken: 根据Richmond侦探的证词,你没有哭,你的睫毛膏甚至都保持原样
Kelly Nolan: 我想如果我真的做了而想要逍遥法外,我应该确保我有多条后路可退,我同样也会把红酒杯洗干净,抹掉指纹,还有各种一个清白的人想不到的措施

结案陈词:

原文:
Operator: 911 Operator.
Kelly Nolan: Yes. My husband has had a heart attack. Please send an ambulance? We’re a 1622 Wiggum drive in Sudbury. As soon as you can.
A.D.A Todd Milken: Did that sound like grief to you? How cold, calculating is this woman? Detective Richmond told you she wasn’t even crying at the scene. Just a blank expression as she calmly tried to steer the police toward natural causes. And then when confronted with the toxicology evidence she says, “Gee! He killed himself to get back at me!” That is the most implausible, far-fetched, desperate theory I’ve ever heard in my seventeen years as a District Attorney. What kind of monster can drug her husband and then actually hang around to watch him check out. Well, you saw that monster on the stand. Flat affect, no emotion, cold, her testimony was chilling. Without conscience! You got to witness first-hand, the psyche of a murderer.
Denny Crane: Keep going until you get reasonable doubt.
Alan Shore: I could be up there all day.
Judge Harvey Cooper: Mr Shore. We’re waiting.
Alan Shore: Yes, your Honor. Why are we here? Certainly not because of evidence, there isn’t any. Any witnesses see my client give her husband Viagra? Anybody see her put Nitroglycerine into his wine? No. We’re being asked to assume that evil. Well! Why can’t we impute the same sinister mentality to the deceased? Because people just don’t take their own lives? We have over a million suicides, across the globe, every year. A million1 Suicide is a much more common and therefore plausible thing than murder! So why are we here? Because Kelly Nolan had a blank expression on her face when the police arrived at the scene? She was in shock for God’s sake. Her husband had just died right before her eyes. Fingerprints on the wineglass? It was her house! She was having wine with her husband! Is it so inconceivable that she would touch his glass? And if she were guilty? Don’t you think she would have wiped the glass clean? Or washed it so the Nitro wouldn’t have been detected. Why are we here? Because her husband allegedly threatened to cut her out of his will two days before? According to Kelly, that never happened! The housekeeper says it did. But this is a witness who admittedly loathed my client, who admittedly concealed information from me so she could do more damage at trial. She has a bias! And the prosecution offered nobody to corroborate her. So! Why are we here? The coronary joke. Made to the boyfriend. Suspiciously coincidental. But that was something she said! Not did. And she said it in jest! Let’s remember. There is no suggestion that either the boyfriend or the housekeeper took this remark seriously for a second! If they did, why did they not contact the police? There is simply no evidence that would allow you to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that Kelly Nolan killed her husband! So. Why are we here? But. As long as we are. What about the police? They admittedly didn’t investigate any other theory, including suicide. You heard Detective Richmond, they immediately focused on Kelly, and only Kelly. Because she’s the one they wanted to get. And I don’t know about you, but I certainly find it curious that the prosecution, instead of reprising evidence in his closing argument, chose to focus on my client’s testimonial demeanor. What the hell is that?! He wants you to convict her of murder because she came off as cold in the witness chair. I saw cold to. But what I mainly observed was someone who was rigidly unapologetic. Well, wrongly accused people tend to be that way. How warm would any of you be if you were falsely accused of murder, if you were made sport of by the media, if your privacy was violated and naked pictures of you were posted on the Internet? People, who are unrelentingly vilified, tend to end up cold and hard. Kelly Nolan has emotionally shut down. She cannot feel. She cannot emote. And she cannot fake vulnerability for the purpose of appealing to a jury’s sympathy. She’s innocent! And she’s not required to prove it. Shadenfreude. From the German words, Schaden and Freude, damage and joy. It means to take spiteful, malicious delight in the misfortune of others. We used to dismiss this as simply an ugly side of human nature, but it is much much more than that. Recently a Stanford professor actually captured Schadenfreude on a brain scan. It’s a physiological medical phenomenon. When we see others fall it sometimes causes a chemical to be released in the dorsal striatum of the brain which actually causes us to feel pleasure. If you watch the news or read the papers, which of course you don’t because the Judge said not to, but if you did, you would see the undeniable delicious joy of the media and the public over Kelly Nolan’s plight. I have no doubt that you want Kelly Nolan to be punished. She married for money, she had an affair, she carried on naked in the pool with her boyfriend. She’s cold, materialistic, unlikable, and it might bring you all pleasure to see her go to jail. But as for evidence to establish that she committed a murder beyond all reasonable doubt? It just isn’t there. The only possible route to a guilty verdict here is Schadenfreude. Alan looks to Denny. Denny nods his head. Thank you.

译文:
Operator: 911 接线员
Kelly Nolan: 是这样的,我的丈夫心脏病发,请派辆救护车来,我们在1622 Wigham drive in Sudbury,请尽快
检控官Todd Milken: 你们感觉得到悲伤么,多么冷酷和精于算计的女人啊。Richmond侦探告诉过你们,她甚至没有在现场掉泪,只是一副面无表情的样子,就像她冷静地试图诱导警察认为这是一场自然死亡。然后当我们向她出示了毒性检验报告后她说“呀,他自杀是为了向我报复”,这是我作为一个地区检察官17年来听过的最虚无缥缈的,牵强附会的理由。怎么样的怪物才会给他的丈夫下药,然后在旁边看着他死去?你们可以看到那个怪物面无表情,冷酷无情,她的证词冷酷而且毫无良心,你们现在亲眼看到了一个杀人犯的样板。
Denny Crane: 一直说直到你找到合理的怀疑为止
Alan Shore: 我可以在那说上一整天
法官Harvey Cooper: Shore先生,我们在等着呢
Alan Shore: 是的,法官阁下。我们在这里干什么?当然不是因为证据确凿,根本就没有证据。有人看见我的委托人给他丈夫服用伟哥了吗?有人看见她把硝化甘油倒进他的红酒里?没有,我们只是被要求假定这种带有恶意的行为。那好,为什么我们不能假定死者本身的行为带有恶意呢?因为人们不会自杀。全球每年有超过一百万的人自杀,一百万!自杀比谋杀更常见和被接受,那么我们在这里干什么?因为警方到达现场的时候,Kelly Nolan有一副毫无表情的面孔。她当时大受打击,看在上帝的份上,她的丈夫就在她眼前死去,酒杯上的指纹,那可是她家,她曾和丈夫一起喝酒,你能想象她不会接触到他的酒杯吗?而如果是她做的,你们不认为她会把杯子抹干净或者洗干净使得硝化甘油不会被检测出来?我们在这里干什么?因为她的丈夫在两天前威胁要把她从遗嘱中移去?根据Kelly的说法,这从来没有发生过,是管家说的,但是这个证人十分厌恶我的委托人,以至于对我隐瞒信息,从而使她可以在庭上获得更有破坏力的效果,她存有偏见,而且没有人能够证明她所说的是事实,那么我们在这里干什么?对,她和男朋友所说的关于心脏病的笑话,这符合猜测,但是她只是在说,她没有做,而且她是在开玩笑。让我们想一下,并没有迹象表明她男朋友或者管家曾经把这些话当回事,如果他们真的相信了,为什么他们不联系警方?这儿根本就没有证据可以让你们排除任何合理的怀疑而作出结论认为Kelly Nolan杀了她的丈夫,那我们在这里干什么?但是既然我们已经在这里了,那么警方那边怎么样?他们承认了根本就没有调查过其他的可能性,包括自杀。你们都听过Richmond侦探的证词,他们立即锁定了Kelly而且只锁定了Kelly,因为她是他们想要抓的人。而我不知道你们怎么想的,但是我的确发现这个起诉人很奇怪,他不在结案陈词中强调证据,反而把焦点对准我委托人的言行举止,这到底在搞什么?你要你们定她的罪,因为她在证人席上表现的很冷淡。我也觉得她很冷淡,但是我更在意的是,某人有着严谨的辩词。好吧,蒙冤错判的人一般都是这样子的,如果你被错判谋杀,如果你被媒体所围堵,如果你的隐私被侵犯了,而你的裸照网上到处都是,你们当中还有谁能够保持笑容?遭到无情谩骂的人通常都会变得冷酷而无情,Kelly Nolan关闭了她的情感之门,她不能感受,不能表达,而她也不能因为要获得陪审团的同情而假装孱弱,她是无辜的,而她不需要去证明这点。“Schadenfreude”(幸灾乐祸)。这个词源自与德语的schaden和freude,意思是“毁灭”和“快乐”,它的意思是把自己的快乐建立在别人的痛苦不幸之上,我们常把它归到人性的丑恶面之中,但是远远不止如此。最近,斯坦福大学的一名教授在脑部扫描中发现了“schadenfreude”的存在,这是一种生理现象,当我们看到其他人的失败,有时候大脑的背纹状体会产生一种化学物质,使我们感到愉快。如果你们看过新闻或者读过报纸,当然你们不会,因为法官说了不允许,但是假设你们看过,你们会发现媒体和大众对Kelly Nolan所处的困境怀着一种难以抗拒的快感。我不怀疑你们想要Kelly Nolan受到惩罚,她为钱结婚,她有婚外情,她赤身裸体和男朋友在泳池边嬉戏,她冷酷,无情,不讨人喜欢,看着她进监狱也许会让你们所有人感到愉快,但是作为裁定她谋杀罪名成立的证据,能够排除所有合理怀疑的证据,就是不存在。而作出有罪裁决的唯一理由就是…“schadenfreude”。谢谢。

宣判:

原文:

Jury Foreman: In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Kelly Nolan on the charge of murder in the first degree, we the jury find the defendant, Kelly Nolan, not guilty.

译文:
陪审团: 在联邦政府对Kelly Nolan一案关于一级谋杀的罪名,陪审团认为被告Kelly Nolan罪名不成立。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:26 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

A Whiff and a Prayer
Season 2, Episode 4


204.jpg
2008-12-27 23:27


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 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Men to Boys
Season 2, Episode 5


205.jpg
2008-12-27 23:28


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 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Witches of Mass Destruction
Season 2, Episode 6


206.jpg
2008-12-27 23:29


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 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Truly Madly, Deeply
Season 2, Episode 7


207.jpg
2008-12-27 23:29


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 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

Ass Fat Jungle
Season 2, Episode 8


208.jpg
2008-12-27 23:30


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,说选择这个他们觉得引起这场犯罪的人,但事情的确是发生了,尤其是这个目击证人,还需要一些帮助,这时候Lydia的阿尔茨海默氏来了,她的大脑欺骗了她,她把Jason的脸从一组人中挑了出来,转到了这辆车上,四级阿尔茨海默氏症就是属于痴呆了。我们的这个目击证人,不仅不记得我的名字,她也不知道今天是星期几,她以为是坐公车过来的,但其实别人开车送她过来的。她遭受着老年痴呆的痛苦,我知道我们都能感受到她的感觉,我们怎么可能没有感觉呢?她很可爱,看起来是那么值得信赖,我们的心不得不倾向于任何患有这种可怕疾病的人,某一天我们或许我们认识的某人也会和她一样。超过150万的美国人正在遭受阿尔茨海默氏症的痛苦,到2015年,那个数字会增加到1千4百万,这不是其他人的疾病,这已经或会影响到我们中的任何一个。当然,我们心里是倾向于Lydia的。但这个审讯是除去所有合理的怀疑后证明其有罪,但这里并没有去除那些怀疑,所有检控方给出的只是一个孤单的正在遭受末期痴呆痛苦的证人,除去所有合理的怀疑?你们自己知道。

判:
原文:

Foreperson: In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Jason Matheny, on the charge of vehicular homicide, we find the defendant, Jason Matheny, not guilty.
译文:
陪审团:在联邦政府对Jason Matheny驾车杀人的指控中,我们一致裁决被告Jason Matheny罪名不成立。


[ 本帖最后由 chuantiaoyu 于 2008-12-27 23:30 编辑 ]
1

评分人数

  • 爱死你

TOP

返回列表