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.

片子不知道好坏，喜欢约翰屈伏塔。
另外，看了之后又一个观点，正义的维护也要通过商业的手段。
实际上，古时候的絃高就收过这样的批评。

       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。。。。

A civil action，在法律专业的词典里解释为“民事诉讼”，我的专业是新闻学，对法律的了解很有限，但在我看来，这部影片虽然在一些法律程序和相关知识上很专业，但其所反映出的与人性有关的内涵却具有普世的价值。金钱与良知、利润角逐与职业道德，这些二元体的对立在影片中所处可见，所以我认为与其说这是一部法律电影或是环保电影，倒不如说是一部揭示人性的电影。

作为贯穿整部影片的主人公Jan Schlichtmann，他身上所体现出的在金钱名利与职业良知间的挣扎和抉择是我印象最深的部分。最初Jan接下这个案子是因为看到了这背后可能为其带来的巨大的金钱和名声，但随着时间的进展，困难与阻力层层出现，使得现实与预期南辕北辙，Jan和他的公司也因此到了入不敷出甚至是一文不名的地步，这时候Jan的坚持就与金钱和名利毫无关联，他所坚持的是一种道德良知和职业准则，是对公平和正义的追求，是一种真正令人感动的人性。我想Jan的转变是一种在现实压力下对职业价值的重新思考和认识，这种转变也成就了Jan作为一个律师所能体现出的真正的职业价值。因此这篇文章我想着重探讨的就是在金钱最大化这种浪潮下律师真正的职业价值。

影片的开头给我留下了很深刻的印象，体现了Jan Schlichtmann在一个案件中追求金钱最大化的表现。被告为了求和解一点一点地往上加赔偿价格，而Jan Schlichtmann却一次一次地摇头，直到感觉到对方不会再往上加才喊停。这组镜头淋漓尽致地展现了基于律师自己的利益与原告利益的捆绑这个基础，Jan Schlichtmann最大化追逐金钱的表现。当然律师作为经纪人的一种，其收入的来源主要是在最大化被代理人利益的基础上收取一定比例的利润。Jan作为一名负责人身伤害代理的律师，理所应当地会不停地要求被告提高赔偿金，因为只有这样他才能为自己和公司收获高额的利润。这是律师这个职业的一种特殊性。

但在这个案件中Anne等多名丧子的家庭一再地强调他们不在乎钱，他们需要的只是一个道歉，因此才会出现当四名律师将和解的钱数告知他们时，Anne的转身离席。因为在这里，原告利益的体现不是金钱，而是一种道德上的索取。我想这也是让Jan他们所一直无法协调的地方，因为被告方的金钱和解对追求利润的律师来说可能已经足够，但对于心灵受到严重创伤的家庭来说这根本毫无作用。所以在这里出现了影片中一个最重要的矛盾。继续做下去，Jan则会面临没有后援没有朋友没有经费的窘境；不做，Jan无法面对丧子的家庭，更无法在良心上说服自己。

有些职业注定是与公平和正义捆绑在一起的，比如警察，法官，新闻记者，政府官员，因此这些职业的深层价值可以说也是一种普世的道德价值。律师这一职业也是如此，因为法律本身就是一种基于维护社会正常秩序的公平与正义的制度化，律师作为原告或被告的代理人，他们本身所承担的就是一种正义和公正。尤其在这部影片中，Jan所面对的对手是两个实力雄厚的大集团，但却为了自己的经济利益不惜以牺牲环境为代价，不论怎么说它们在道德上都是缺失者，因此在这里道德的天平是毫无意义的偏向Jan一方的。但在各方面证据都难以搜集的情况下，如何让道德体现为法律上认可的公正，是Jan的难题。他一直在作出努力，包括对地质和水文等相关专业知识的研究，而且在面对两大集团私下里对他的贿赂，他毫无动容，始终不同意和解。在这里，Jan作为一个律师，已经向我们展示了这个职业所应具备的道德良知，同时也在启迪着我们思考律师这一职业真正的价值所在：捍卫社会的公平与正义。

影片的接近尾声时，Jan在给EPA写的信中这样说道：“我有证据，但是不再有资源，不再有赌博的力量…在指控比亚特里斯公司的案子上，我没有钱，没有搭档。我还能说的是，我也没有客户…我把这些笨拙的东西都转寄给你…我甚至知道你可能不会去采用…不会像我开始时的那样去关心它。如果你决定要采用，我希望你能在我失败的地方取得成功。如果你要用钱来计算我的成功和失败，而完全撇开人们的苦难，这种算法表明…是完全失败的。不能说明的是…如果我能再知道些，现在不知道的东西，知道我失败的地方，如果我卷入这些人之中…知道所有的数字、所有的几率，所有的看法…我还会去做的。”这段话让我至为感动，从这段话中我们已经能够看到此时的Jan已经开始思考法律的价值和人性的意义，所以，在面对“你用什么来证明自己的生活质量？”这样略显嘲讽的诘问时，他才会回应出一个坦荡的微笑。
 
Jan最后的微笑和结尾时那首节奏明快幽默的Take me to the river让我从影片开始就十分沉重的心终于放松了下来。我想这才是这部影片所想真正表达的东西，有关人性，有关选择，有关律师的价值。

this movie is sort of disappointing, cutting short what is intriguing in the book, e.g., well-planned interrogatory, installing a team of expert witnesses, how to finance a personal injury case, etc. sometimes justice simply can't be done, which is a depressing dose of the reality.

however the cast is impressive, from Travolta to Duvall, and of course William Macy, compensating the shortness of the adoption.

BTW did you guys notice the shots of Fenway Park? I was getting excited! Go Sox!

从电影角度很有价值。镜头的拍摄，对话的表现方式。情节设计很巧妙，猜不透最后的结果。很爱financial advisor~最好笑的一段是：勇敢点，把脚放上来~

表现出很多。社会等级，律师道德观职业观，measure of life，是与非对与错。

老师让我们看的时候prepare answers for three questions:
1. Would you have taken the case?
2. Would you have settled? When? How would you have addressed this issue with your clients?
3. Would you want John Travolta's character or Robert Duval's character to be your lawyer? Why?

My answers would be:
1. Yes. Because the case is definitely profitable, given the fact that two large companies: Beatrice Food and W. R. Grace are involved.
2. Yes. Out of the court room, waiting for the jury's decision. I would say that I have tried my best, but I can no longer afford the huge expenses of investigation. This amount of money is a result of cost-and-benefit analysis. Though monetary value can never compensate and redeem your loss, we have tried our best to match up.
3. Robert Duval. I don't know how much a degree says, but in this movie, a lawyer from and teaches at Harvard is certainly more chill. He knows the rules, and manipulates them sometimes. He adjusts well and 扮猪吃老虎 in the legal world. 食物链中的上游. His personality and versatility speaks for everything. I don't like a lawyer who is too easy to read, and who is too eager for cases. His ignorant pride, so to speak. 身段不够柔软。