听写练习1

来自电视剧《波士顿法律》

开案陈词

控：She came home that night 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 retrieve a handgun from the kitchen,  returned to the bedroom, and fired 6 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 form 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.

辩：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 decided to arrest you. That's your defendant, ladies and gentlemen, a law-abiding, loving, faithful advertising executive, and a innocent woman, whose whole life was just suddenly and wrongly destroyed. That's your defendant, and that's what the evidence will show.

结案陈词

辩：The first forensic expert 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 is asking you to believe, that she wore gloves to commit the crime, to explain the lack of powder residue on her hands, and the she took the gloves off to handle the murder weapon. It's possible it 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 the 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 she did it... no evidence of her intent even if she did. It all leads to the same verdict——Not guilty.

控：No evidence of anyone else being there, but the defendant. Time of death, 9:45, 15 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.