法网边缘

   Civil Action is, I think, one of the best movies about how American law really works. The movie is based on a book (the same name)—and the book is based on a true story.
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
 
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
 
(2) Tool: Discovery.
 
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
 
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
 
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
 
  Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
 
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
 
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
 
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
 
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
                The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.

(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
 
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
 
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
 
(7) Moral Questions
   The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.

        每次看这样的法律片都能把人看得热血沸腾，如同前段时间看的《因父之名》也是一样。但是恰恰法律是不能热血沸腾的，庭审尤其如此，不能因为情感而控制自己的理性思维。律师不能这样，法官更不能这样。而律师尤其永远不是正义的化身。经验丰富的确是律师的一大优势，这是年轻律师无法相比的。

     看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。

       从公民中产生陪审员参与法院审判案件的制度。最早起源于奴隶制国家雅典、罗马,为中世纪欧洲少数封建国家所继承,盛行于现代西方社会。英国资产阶级革命胜利后，陪审制度在法律上正式得以确立，并逐渐向全世界推广。独立后的美国通过宪法及其修正案，牢牢确立了陪审制度的独特地位。英国的许多殖民地国也采用了陪审制度，就连司法制度迥异的法国和德国也借鉴了英国的陪审模式，说明陪审制度在世界范围的认可程度。

      某一模式的存在必然有其独有的好处和特性，陪审制度使普通公民能够参与司法过程，可以防止法官徇私枉法、独断专行，纠正其不周之处。同时陪审团的裁决更能反映社会一般人的观念，因而陪审制度是使司法走向民主化的一个重要途径，这是英国法对世界法制的一大贡献。使得精英治国和公民治国之间取得一个平衡。

      但从《法网边缘》我们也看到陪审制度的一个重大缺陷，或者说它自身特性决定了无法回避的问题。

（1）陪审员只能看到法庭上的证据，即法律事实。
      法律事实与客观事实之间的差距。所谓“客观事实”，就是原本发生的，在意识之外，不依赖人们的主观意识而存在的现实事实。在诉讼中，一般情形下，法官不可能找出案件的客观事实，并根据案件的客观事实进行裁判。案件的发生通常是在若干时间（年月、或者数月数年）以前，任何人都无法准确描述、再现客观事实，即使某些当事人能够准确描述、回顾客观事实，司法机关、法院法官一般都不会相信或采纳。因此，法院认定事实，不可能依人们的直观，不可能根据当事人的亲眼所见、亲耳所闻或者亲身感知，来判定案件事实的真伪。因此，一个案件事实的客观性与法律事实之间是有距离的，甚至有非常大的距离，更有的完全背离客观事实。无论人们如何努力，都无法到达客观事实。法律事实就是法官通过法定程序，按照证据规则，根据当事人提交的证据材料，经过质证采信后，对案件事实所作的合理推断与认定，理论上称之为法律拟制事实。这种合理推断、认定，是相对的，不是绝对的。就律师而言，不关心事实上发生了什么，而要看证据能说明什么，由此，证据至关重要。

       证据在法律中的重要作用已无需多言，但证据采集的不全面或伪造证据，律师对同一个证据不同的引导对于陪审员的影响都是不一样的。正如影片中，Facher和Jan在外面等待陪审员做回答时，说的一段话“法庭不是一个寻找真相的地方，在这里你能找到任何接近真相的东西，你就算幸运的了。”如何利用证据争取对己方更有利的判断，就是一个律师努力争取的地方，同时也成为蒙蔽陪审员双眼的一种手段。

（2）法官对审判过程的把控，陪审员职能发挥也可能被利用。
       Skinner法官在电影里对案件的影响作用不容小视，他对几次有争议性的认定不谈，单是他对诉讼的一拆为二便是一个很值得商榷的行为。以及中途对陪审员三个复杂问题的提问，即Jan所说先翻译成日文在翻译成中文的三个问题。
陪审员对这三个问题的回答，直接影响了案件的后续判决。陪审员职能的被程序利用。

（3）陪审成员的选择、陪审成员的判断如何把握。
    缺乏专业知识、临时性的陪审员对案件的判决是否就是正确的呢？这个问题存在很大争议。现在被认为雅典最大的悲剧——苏格拉底之死，程序正义未必带来的结果正义。陪审员随机抽样，来的人五花八门，人种肤色各异，有业无业不论，知识文化不论。

      对美国的陪审团制度，争议也很多。它在美国的司法制度中看上去是最薄弱的一个环节。在美国，最强大的就是法律队伍了，为什么偏偏要找一帮“外行”来做“法官之上的法官”呢？在美国，所有理解赞同这个制度的人，从来不认为它是一个完美的制度，只是找不到一个比它更好的制度罢了。

      这正像美国人有时候开玩笑的说法：如果你不把陪审团制度和其它国家的制度相比的话，它真是糟透了。美国的第三任总统杰斐逊就认为，陪审团制度在维护民主所起的作用上，比选举权还要重要。

      抛开制度因素不谈，这就是一出悲剧。悲剧的主角是最普普通通的老百姓，他们的活泼可爱的孩子无辜地被剥夺了生命的权利。8个家庭失去了自己的孩子，汽车和卡车呼啸而过，我抱他放在我腿上。。。。