美國華人
美國華人文學城博客
編者按：2月23日曹律師去函Thompson檢察官，從法理和案例證明梁警官案件審理試槍環節出現重大問題，希望檢察官認真對待這一問題，同意陪審團以親自試槍為判斷基礎已構成誤判，並請求法庭宣布審判無效，重審此案。廣大民眾和媒體也要密切關注檢察官的行動。
在編者采訪曹律師時，他表示也希望這封信起到一個普法的作用。通過事實證據、法理和以前的案例證明陪審員斷案不得當，這完全是一個法律問題，而不是請願、抗議，也不帶有任何族裔情緒。判案失誤，檢察官有義務主動提請法庭宣布判決無效。另外、向法官施加任何壓力或者要求輕判都是沒有用的。因為他相信美國司法獨立不容任何人幹預和幹擾。
Saving Officer Liang — 我的行動
by 曹青樺（David Q. Cao）
梁警官一案判決後，10號陪審員Carlton Screen向媒體披露陪審團每人親自試拉梁警官執勤手槍的扳機，斷定扳機太難拉（“too hard to pull”），之後裁定梁警官不可能意外導致該槍擊發。
從看到這個報道和視頻的那一刻我就覺得陪審團審理過程出現了重大問題: 陪審員隻能依靠專家證人（expert witnesses）證詞的協助，而不可以通過自己試手槍扳機，來決定梁警官手槍擊發是否“意外”（accidentally）擊發這一重大事實問題。此後我的有關文章每一篇都提到這一點。
2016年2月20日我發文公開呼籲檢察官Kenneth Thompson先生主動要求宣布判決無效。2月22號我根據一個紐約記者提供的E-mail地址，把下邊這封信發給檢查官辦公室裏一名工作人員，請他轉發給Thompson檢查官。
2月23號我又用Priority Mail將該函寄給了他。USPS Tracking Number: 9405509699939718865451（今天東部時間上午11:33已經送到）。我希望Thompson先生認真對待這一重大審理問題，同意陪審團以親自試槍為判斷基礎已構成誤判，並請求法庭宣布審判無效，重審此案。
我期待著Thompson檢察官的答複。也希望大家和媒體有機會向他詢問此事。
曹青樺
2016年2月25日
下麵是曹青樺律師給Thompson檢察官信函原文：
Dear Mr. Thompson,
My name is David Cao. I am an attorney in Houston Texas. I read and watched the media interview of juror Carlton Screen after the Peter Liang verdict. If the verdict had been reached as Screen described, I believe there had been a gross error with the jury, and injustice would occur unless the verdict be overturned. Here’s why:
According to Screen, all the jurors tried the pistol’s trigger, and decided that “it was too hard to pull.” Mr. Screen told the media, “It was 10 to two for conviction, but the two were a little bit doubtful,” but after the jurors tried the pistol one by one, all agreed that officer Liang had been guilty. (source: http://abc7ny.com/news/peter-liang-juror-speaks-out-about-conviction;-ex-officers-partner-fired-nypd/1197735/; http://nypost.com/2016/02/12/why-jury-believed-nypd-cop-was-lying-about-stairwell-shooting/)
The jurors’ testing of officer Liang’s service pistol was obviously instrumental to his conviction.
Whether the trigger was “too hard to pull” for officer Liang on November 20, 2014, under the conditions in the stairwell in the Pink House, should be determined by the jury with the help of expert witnesses, including at least physiologists and firearm experts, taking into consideration of Liang’s physical strength at the time, his prior training with that pistol, especially how many rounds he had fired through it, his muscle memory, the impact of his psychological condition in the allegedly dangerous stairwell, etc. It should not be determined by jurors using their own lay-person fingers, in a courtroom that was completely different from the Pink House stairwell. Further, according to the Screen interview report, most jurors had never held a gun.
To me, it is very likely a mistrial occurred. I respectfully urge that you look into this matter and request the Court to overturn the verdict if you agree the jury committed an error.
Fairness to the defendant is the bedrock of America’s criminal justice system. The government would not hesitate to do the right thing to the defendant. Five years ago, in People of New York against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the New York assistant district attorneys, upon finding their sole eyewitness, the complainant, had credibility problems, motioned to dismiss their own case, stating “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.” (see page 2, motion to dismiss, attached.) In 2009, after senator Ted Stevens had been convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations, the Justice Department found that the federal prosecutors had failed to provide certain information to the defendant to use at trial. It might not even have been a harmful error, but the Attorney General righteously declared to dismiss the indictment and not to proceed with a new trial. (Statement and source attached.) I believe you will follow their example if there was any error in the process of officer Liang’s conviction.
Respectfully yours,
David Cao
郵寄憑證：
本文由作者投稿，內容不代表《美國華人》立場。歡迎轉發。其他媒體如要轉載請聯絡我們。
《美國華人》(ChineseAmerican.org) ：一個立場中立的互聯網新媒體。
