But now that this idea has been exposed in this way, wouldn't it be a slap in the face if they were to judge according to the outcome that Chuck predicted at the beginning?

It's one thing for you to guess it, but it's another thing for you to tell it in advance.

Therefore, the best judgment result that retains humanistic care and demonstrates objectivity and independence, which is one not guilty and one guilty, must not be said by them.

Then there is only one result.

Or acquitted of both counts of murder.

Or guilty on both counts of murder.

Both of these are too extreme. No matter which outcome, they, the jury members, will be swept away by the public opinion trend afterwards, causing them to bear huge psychological pressure, who should not have to bear this.

Even the real pressure afterwards.

The so-called jury does not have to bear any real influence from public opinion and justice, and can only follow its own heart and make its own verdict. That is an ideal result.

The most indispensable thing in the United States is that confidential information that should be top secret is leaked at just the right time.

This is also an ancestral craft.

Once the results of the jury's discussions in a closed environment and the final choices made by each person are leaked, they will be under very serious pressure from reality.

Isn’t this too terrible!

And New Yorkers who shouldn't have to endure all this, who can easily give judgments and model objective and independent thinking, have to endure all this because of Chuck.

This makes them angry and anxious.

After no one asked, Chuck left the witness stand and could easily read their thoughts from their micro-expressions.

He had no qualms about this.

The jury is supposed to correct and supervise legal persons who are purely legal but morally ambiguous from the perspective of ordinary people and make a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

Instead of letting them get mixed up.

The fair and objective jury in the movie 12 Angry Men is just like the image of America in countless Hollywood blockbusters, beautifying it like the American dream.

However, the reality is nothing like the American dream.

It's not that there is no fairness and objectivity, but more of it depends on which one of the defense lawyer or prosecutor is the most handsome, sweet-tongued and nice-tongued, whichever one will be believed.

If you can make excuses not to participate, then make excuses to avoid them; if you can make compromises, make compromises; if you can make peace with others, make peace with them.

The political stance that should exist will still exist.

If the jury really convicts from the perspective of ordinary Americans, as is its function and responsibility, then how come so many criminals who should have been sentenced can be killed in and out of prison, and why are so many wealthy criminals guilty of so many crimes?

Why was he acquitted obviously?

Public opinion outside is abuzz. Why does the jury that is supposed to represent the majority of ordinary people outside always come up with results that completely disappoint most ordinary people?

yes!

The judge can overturn the jury's decision.

But that's an extremely rare and shameless situation.

In the vast majority of cases, the outcome of the case is a slap in the face to most ordinary people, not because they are unwilling to take responsibility or because they are burdened with trouble.

In this case, Chuck didn't care whether they felt uncomfortable or not.

The closing arguments have arrived.

"Every law-abiding citizen has the right to protect himself properly when others are about to harm him or her. This is a right given to us by the law.

The law also says that deadly force cannot be used when citizens are completely safe.

Attention.

Not theoretical safety, not possible safety, but complete safety!

My client's safety was lost the moment they walked in. Just look at the past of the two habitual robbers and their loaded pistols.

Comply or resist?

My client had no choice.

Look at the cases in Los Angeles and San Francisco!

My client did not give in to these thugs.

He resisted, it was his will and his legal right."

The defense attorney watched as the jury made his closing speech.

The Executive Assistant Prosecutor then gave his own speech, again with the same words, reminding the defendant once again that the pursuit outside his jewelry store was murder, and asked the jury to think about if they were accidentally killed or accidentally killed in such a pursuit.

A scene in which someone is killed thinking he is an enemy.

The jury went in to deliberate.

"Dr. Wolfe, I really didn't expect you to be so candid."

Everyone was waiting outside for the jury to come out with the results. The defense lawyer came over with the defendant, sarcastically saying with some disbelief and suppressed ecstasy.

This case really took him on a roller coaster ride.

Originally he thought he could win.

Then Chuck was brought in to intervene in the case, and he felt that even if he lost, it wouldn't be a big deal.

But taking advantage of Chuck's courage to publicly admit those incorrect words that offended the jury and offended many people, this honesty gave him a renewed sense of victory.

And unknowingly, he suddenly remembered that if he really succeeded this time, then in a sense, he would be the first lawyer to defeat Detective Chuck!

The benefits brought by this title are not weaker than the sponsorship and connections brought by the Rifle Association.

The defendant’s jewelry store owner’s eyes looked much more complicated.

There is both the joy of insisting on believing that he will be rewarded after all the hardships, the disappointment that Chuck does not insist on standing by his side, and the admiration that Chuck can openly admit those things he said that are incorrect.

Looking at the calm Chuck, he couldn't help but have a bad thought, but for a while he couldn't think of anything wrong.

It wasn't until the news of the jury's appearance came out, everyone re-entered the court, and when he heard the jury representative announcing the result, he was shocked and figured out what the problem was.

Since Chuck is so upright, there is absolutely no need for him to lie to him. The suggestions he gave him before are probably really the best solutions for him.

But now it's too late.

"How did the jury decide on the first indictment in this case, second-degree murder of Desiree Booker?"

"guilty!"

"What is the jury's verdict on the second indictment in this case, second-degree murder of Cabbage Booker?"

"guilty!"

"No!"

After hearing the results, the jewelry store owner realized what the problem was and stood there in shock, with only his wife's desperate cries heard in his ears.
Chapter completed!