9159com金沙网站 > 9159com金沙网站 > 9159com金沙网站:美国加州多年重案得破,考研英


浏览次数:181 时间:2019-11-10


After watching Primal Fear(1996), several issues about professional responsibility attract my attention. This film is about a slick, hotshot criminal lawyer, Martin Vail (acting by Richard Gere), who takes one seemingly unwinnable case of a young altar boy, Aaron or Roy (acting by Edward Norton) accused of murdering a Catholic priest. (Refer to Jonathan Broxton). Martin is an excellent criminal lawyer, who provides competent and diligent legal service for Aaron, which basically follows the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 and 1.3 (following Rule). In addition, two interesting issues arouse my concern.

California police have arrested a former police officer for a notorious spree of murders, rapes and burglaries in the 1970s and 80s.


(1) “How can you defend someone if you know they did it? … How can you do what you do?”If we are all absolutely sure one commits the crime, how can a lawyer defend for a devil? Does that mean the lawyer share certain characters with the client?

Sacramento police say they arrested suspect Joseph James DeAngelo, 72.


Rule 1.2(b) says: “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The Rule indicates that one lawyer’s defending is unequal to support what the client does. The responsibility of the lawyer is to provide reliable legal service for their clients when they are confronting with the allegation and attacks from the strongest opposing part – the State of Leviathan. As what Martin said: “I believe in the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. I believe in that notion because I choose to believe in the basic goodness of people. I choose to believe that not all crimes are committed by bad people, and I try to understand that some very, very good people do some very bad things.” It is possible to analyze Martin’s expressions from three aspects. First, man’s nature at birth is good. Second, if good people do very bad things, they must have specific reasons so that the crime cannot be attributed to them safe and sound. Third, average people, like us, are disqualified to judge. Judging people, especially the client, is none of lawyer’s business. As Chapter Seven of Matthew said: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”

The suspect has been living in the Sacramento area and was identified after new efforts to solve the case, investigators say.

  By almost every measure, Paul Pfingst is an unsentimental prosecutor. Last week the San Diego County district attorney said he fully intends to try suspect Charles Andrew Williams, 15, as an adult for the Santana High School shootings. Even before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.

Based on the above analysis, before a suspect is found guilty, the client is innocent and the client has a right to be defended. Lawyer’s defense does not mean the lawyer endorses his client’s moral views or social activities.

Police blame the so-called Golden State Killer for 12 murders, 51 rapes and more than 120 burglaries. 

  So nobody would have wagered that Pfingst would also be the first D.A. in the U.S. to launch his very own Innocence Project. Yet last June, Pfingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools. In other words, he wanted to revisit past victories--this time playing for the other team. "I think people misunderstand being conservative for being biased," says Pfingst. "I consider myself a pragmatic guy, and I have no interest in putting innocent people in jail."

(2) “I’ll let you in on a little secret, sort of a client-attorney privilege type of a secret.” Whether Martin can tell the truth to others, especially the prosecutor, after Roy told him the truth in the end?

Mr DeAngelo is being held on suspicion of four counts of murder - the 1978 deaths of Brian and Katie Maggiore in Sacramento and the 1980 killings of Charlene and Lyman Smith in Ventura County.

  Around the U.S., flabbergasted defense attorneys and their jailed clients cheered his move. Among prosecutors, however, there was an awkward pause. After all, each DNA test costs as much as $5,000. Then there's the unspoken risk: if dozens of innocents turn up, the D.A. will have indicted his shop.

Rule 1.6(a) regulates: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).” Principally, fiduciary duty does not allow a lawyer to reveal the information relating to the client to a third party. Rule 1.6(b) mentions, under several specific circumstances, a lawyer allows to violate the responsibility of Confidentiality of Information, for example, “to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm”. At the end of the movie, Roy stated a client-attorney relationship between them, gave Martin no informed consent to reveal the information to others. Roy told Martin there was no Aaron at all. Linda was killed by him and Rushman, the Catholic priest, was also cut to pieces by him. At that point, Martin knew Roy’s acting cheated everyone, including himself, and Roy was not innocent at all. Once Roy’s self-statement is put before the prosecutor, it is foreseeable to hold a retrial for Roy. However, the current situation did not fall in Rule 1.6(b) and Martin has to keep the truth for the sake of Rule 1.6(a).

Prosecutors say additional charges are likely to follow.

  But nine months later, no budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted. Only the rare case merits review. Pfingst's team considers convictions before 1993, when the city started routine DNA testing. They discard cases if the defendant has been released. Of the 560 remaining files, they have re-examined 200, looking for cases with biological evidence and defendants who still claim innocence.

In conclusion, the Rule forbids Martin to reveal Roy’s information.

What did police say?

  They have identified three so far. The most compelling involves a man serving 12 years for molesting a girl who was playing in his apartment. But others were there at the time. Police found a small drop of saliva on the victim's shirt--too small a sample to test in 1991. Today that spot could free a man. Test results are due any day. Inspired by San Diego, 10 other counties in the U.S. are starting DNA audits.

(3) Other thoughts.

Police had been monitoring the suspect and used "discarded DNA" to match him to the crimes, according to Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones.

  By Amanda Ripley ez ncisco sijevic rtwell; Lisa McLaughlin; Joseph Pierro; Josh Tyrangiel and Sora Song

Martin did an illegal thing, when he was a prosecutor. Then, he decided to leave and became a defending attorney. He promised himself that he would reserve his lies for other than his public life. In other words, he did not want to wrong anyone anymore. Therefore, he believed there must be some reasons to justify a suspect’s behavior even though the public all regard the suspect as a criminal. Martin took advantage of Roy to complete his redemption. On the contrary, Roy utilized Martin to save his life. Finally, Roy told him the truth, which actually put Martin into a dilemma – on the one hand, Martin believed Aaron was innocent; on the other hand, Roy’s escape from the punishment of the law has ruined his belief. He had no choice but observed the regulation of the Rule. Let’s imagine the consequences of disobeying of the Rule. If one attorney does not take priority of client’s interest and reveals the information relating to the representation of a client to the public, how can we force a suspect to be honesty to his lawyer? (Ironically, the clients are likely to cheat their lawyers in real life, even though there’s a Clause of Confidentiality between them.) Supposedly, we are arrested for killing someone but actually not. Is it possible to tell lawyers everything? No! The attorney may reveal one’s early misconduct to the judge! Conversely, that does harm to clients and to everyone in the end. Thus, the fiduciary duty between the lawyer and the client, which is the goal of the Rule, plays a significant role in the operation of the jurisdiction system.

9159com金沙网站:美国加州多年重案得破,考研英语阅读理解精选之法律类。Announcing the arrest, Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said: "The answer has always been in Sacramento."

  注(1)本文选自Time; 03/19/贰零零肆, Vol. 157 Issue 11, p62, 1p, 2c, 3bw

Martin will face moral self-condemning in the following days. However, I prefer to attribute the primal fearto the prosecutor, Janet Venable. I feel she was too arrogant to evaluate the case reasonably. She brought her personal affairs into the criminal tribunal. The prosecutor must be more considerate before the trial. The prosecutor did no psychiatric examination to the defendant before the trial, even when the Judge asked: “Miss Venable, if you would like to re-open the Prosecution’s case and call the State’s psychiatrist, I will certainly agree to it.” Nonetheless, Miss Venable said: “No, I don’t think that’s necessary, Your Honor. I think we all get the picture here.” If the prosecutor can make full preparation and do more investigation, the outcome will be totally different. We can hardly measure one person’s mind. If we all believe the suspect is guilty, we need proof – that’s what prosecutors need to do. Substantive justice lies nowhere, but the diligence of the Prosecutor Party. Roy would be at large finally, yet that’s not the problem of Professional Responsibility.

"The magnitude of this case demanded that it be solved," she added.

  注(2)本文习题命题模仿对象二零零一年真题text 1.

© 本文版权归我  Maël  全数,任何款式转发请联系笔者。

Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten said that prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty.

  1.How did Pfingst carry out his own Innocence Project?

Two years ago the FBI offered a $50,000 (£36,000) reward to anyone who could help crack the case.

  [A]By getting rid of his bias against the suspects.

Crime spree that terrorised communities

  [B]By revisiting the past victories.

By James Cook, BBC News Los Angeles correspondent

  [C]By using the newly developed DNA-testing tools.

After four decades of frustration for detectives, it turned out the suspect had been living under their noses all along.

  [D]By his cooperation with his attorneys.

"We found the needle in the haystack and it was right here in Sacramento," said district attorney Anne Marie Schubert.

  2.Which of the following can be an advantage of Innocence Project?

Joseph James DeAngelo had apparently been living an ordinary life on a quiet suburban street, a former police officer with grown-up children who was "very surprised" when he was arrested and taken into custody.

  [A]To help correct the wrong judgments.

Details of his alleged crimes are deeply disturbing and collective psychological scars endure.

  [B]To oust the unqualified prosecutors.

Many police officers and prosecutors involved in the case vividly recall the terror of the crime spree in their communities.

  [C]To make the prosecutors in an awkward situation.

"Everyone was afraid," said FBI special agent Marcus Knutson, who was born and raised in Sacramento, as he announced a fresh appeal for information on the case two years ago.

  [D]To cheer up the defense attorneys and their jailed clients.

"We had people sleeping with shotguns, we had people purchasing dogs. People were concerned, and they had a right to be. This guy was terrorising the community. He did horrible things."

  3.The expression “flabbergasted”(Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means _______.

What do we know about the accused?


According to the Sacramento Bee newspaper, he had been living with his daughter and granddaughter in the city's Citrus Heights neighbourhood.


He was fired from the Auburn Police Department in 1979 after he was charged with shoplifting, according to the Auburn Journal.


Police say it was "very likely" that he was committing these crimes while employed as a police officer.


He had also worked as an officer in Exeter, California from 1973 to 1976, during a time when several crimes were committed there, police say.

  4.Why was Pfingst an unsentimental prosecutor?

What reaction has there been?

  [A]He intended to try a fifteen-year old suspect.

Jane Carson-Sandler, who was the rapist's fifth victim in October 1976, told the Island Packet newspaper that detectives had emailed her on Wednesday to inform her of the arrest.

  [B]He had no interest in putting the innocent in jail.

"I just found out this morning," she said. "I'm overwhelmed with joy. I've been crying, sobbing."

  [C]He supported the controversial California law.

The case was investigated by author Michelle McNamara for her book I'll Be Gone in the Dark. McNamara died before the book could be published.

  [D]He wanted to try suspect as young as fourteen.

Her co-author, Billy Jensen, tweeted on Tuesday night to say there would be a "rather large announcement tomorrow".

  5.Which of the following is not true according to the text?

Another contributor to the book, Paul Haynes, said: "Stunned. Excited. No other words right now."

  [A]Pfingst’s move didn’t have a great coverage.

What were the crimes?

  [B] Pfingst’s move had both the positive and negative effect.

The Golden State Killer, also known as the East Area Rapist, Original Night Stalker, and the Diamond Knot Killer is believed to have carried out rapes and murders between 1976 and 1986, killing girls and women aged between 12 and 41.

  [C] Pfingst’s move didn’t work well.

Prosecutors say the "reign of terror" began in Sacramento and spread to San Francisco and then on to central and southern California. Links between the cases were established by DNA evidence, police say.

  [D]Pfingst’s move greatly encouraged the jailed prisoners.

The attacker broke into homes at night and then tied up and raped his female victims.


Before fleeing he stole items such as cash, jewellery and identification.


The last case to be linked to the Golden State Killer was the rape and murder of an 18-year-old woman in Irvine, Orange County, in May 1986.


Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said the suspect had been called many names but added: "Today, it's our pleasure to call him 'defendant'."

  prosecutor [5prRsIkju:tE(r)]n.检察官 ,检察员,起诉人,原告

  controversial [kRntrE5v:F(E)l]adj.争论的, 争议的

  mandate [5mAndeIt]v.批准制订三个提醒,如通过准则;发表命令或须要:

  wager [5weIdVE(r)]v.下赌注, 保证

  conviction [kEn5vIkF(E)n]n.定罪, 发表有罪

  unravel[Qn5rAv(E)l]v. 阐明, 解决

  flabbergast[5flAbE^B:st; (?@) -^Ast]v.<口>使非常意外, 哑然失色, 使张口结舌

  indict[In5daIt]v.起诉, 控告, 指控, 告发


  oust[aJst]v.剥夺, 取代, 驱逐


  molest[mE5lest]v.骚乱, 困扰, 调戏

  saliva[sE5laIvE]n.口水, 唾液


  1.Even before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.

  主体句式:…Pfingst had stood behind …

  结构分析:Even before the tragedy是本句的光阴状语;主句是Pfingst had stood behind…;that 辅导的宾语从句修饰law;在从句中,as…as是风度翩翩词组,意思是“和…雷同”;现身的第五个as是介词,意思是“作为”。



  1.答案为C,属事实细节题。文中对应信息“Pfingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools.”是对第二段率先句的补偿表达。


  3.答案为D, 属猜词题。从第二段率先句话大家深知芬斯特只怕是U.S.A.先是个实行特别特殊的“清白安排”的人,因而她的做法很大概是令人备感震动的,进而可猜出该词的含义。


  5.答案为C,属推理剖断题。正因为 “Pfingst’s move works well”,美利坚合营国才又有“ten other counties are starting DNA audits”,並且,“no budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted”.

 [1] [2] [3] [下一页]

    越来越多消息请访谈:乐乎考研频道 考研论坛 考研博客圈