现代大学英语精读第二版（第三册）学习笔记（原文及全文翻译）——16B - Harry Hoffman（哈利·霍夫曼）

最新推荐文章于 2021-11-18 11:22:53 发布

预见未来to50

最新推荐文章于 2021-11-18 11:22:53 发布

阅读量2.4k

点赞数

分类专栏：英语翻译作品英语精读文章标签：其他

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/hpdlzu80100/article/details/120990033

版权

英语精读同时被 2 个专栏收录

488 篇文章 159 订阅

订阅专栏

英语翻译作品

471 篇文章 68 订阅

订阅专栏

1924年，哈利·霍夫曼被误判为谋杀莫德·鲍尔的凶手，尽管他坚称自己是无辜的。在多次审判中，证据看似确凿，包括目击证人、弹道专家的鉴定和他自己的可疑行为。然而，霍夫曼的律师莱博维茨通过揭示目击证人证词的疑点、警察的偏见和关键证据的误导，最终成功为霍夫曼赢得无罪释放。此案揭示了司法系统中可能出现的错误和偏见。

摘要由CSDN通过智能技术生成

Unit 16B - Harry Hoffman

Harry Hoffman

Rupert Furneaux

In 1924 Harry Hoffman, Staten Island cinema projectionist, was convicted of the murder of Maude Bauer. His fellow citizens, dubbed Hoffman lucky, for the jury had been strangely merciful finding him guilty only of second-degree murder which carried a sentence of life imprisonment rather than death in the electric chair. Only Hoffman protested that another man, someone who closely resembled him, had committed the crime. It was a case of mistaken identity. He demanded a new trial. His attorney warned Hoffman of the terrible danger he faced: he could still be convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. But Hoffman refused to accept his sentence.

Hoffman had been convicted on apparently overwhelming evidence; his guilt seemed to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

On 25 March 1924 Mrs. Bauer had driven into the country. Turning off South Avenue, in Staten Island in the State of New York, into Morrell Avenue, the car skidded off the road and its wheels became bogged in mud. Mrs. Bauer left the car to get help. She hailed a passing motorist, a man driving a Ford Sedan. Several children playing near this spot saw Mrs. Bauer get into the car, which drove away, and one of them, thirteen-year-old Barbara Fahs, later described the driver as dark-complexioned with brown hair, wearing tortoiseshell spectacles and a brown coat and hat.

Half an hour later Mrs. Bauer's body was found in a lonely lane. She had been shot twice, in the chest and neck, and subsequent examination established that the bullets had been fired from a .25 calibre Colt revolver.

The crime aroused the utmost indignation and local organizations offered a reward of $8,000 for the identification and conviction of her murderer, the dark man wearing tortoiseshell spectacles who drove a Ford car and owned a 25 Colt revolver, a combination of conditions which could be fulfilled by one man only, the murderer himself.

It did not take Harry Hoffman long to realize that the description of the wanted man fitted him almost exactly. He was dark-skinned; he often wore tortoiseshell spectacles; he owned a Ford Sedan and he possessed, quite legitimately, a Colt revolver. He had no alibi for the afternoon of 25 March. Hoffman panicked. He sent his gun to his brother with a letter telling him to keep it in a safe place and he set out to manufacture alibis for the fatal afternoon.

Nor did it take the police long to realize that Hoffman, the local man, fitted the description of Mrs. Bauer's killer. On 17 April they came to see him. Police Patrolman McCormack, he was told, had identified him as the driver of a Model T Ford he had seen at 4:25 pm, fifteen hundred yards from the scene of the crime, coming from the direction of South Avenue on the afternoon of 25 March.

Barbara Fahs had identified him from a photograph as the driver of the car into which Mrs. Bauer had stepped. The police reminded Hoffman that he was the licensed owner of a .25 calibre Colt. He said he had given the gun to his brother on 1 February, weeks before the crime. The police checked. Hoffman's brother admitted he had received it three days after the crime. Invited to account for his movements on the afternoon of 25 March, Hoffman stated he had been in New York City, where he had called on his broker. This statement was easily disproved when the broker denied seeing Hoffman that afternoon, and it took on a sinister significance when the broker told the police that Hoffman had telephoned, asking him to vouch for his presence at his office that afternoon.

Hoffman was charged with Mrs. Bauer's murder. At his trial the evidence against him was overwhelming. He had been identified near the scene of the crime as the man into whose car the dead woman had stepped. His attempts to fake an alibi exposed his guilty conscience. His Colt revolver was identified as the murder weapon by a famous ballistics expert of the New York Police Department.

When sentence of "twenty years to life" was pronounced upon him, Hoffman screamed at District Attorney Fach, "Go split the reward with your lying witnesses." He was led away to serve his sentence in prison.

A new trial started in March 1928, but ended two weeks later when Hoffman's attorney collapsed with a heart attack. Six months later another jury disagreed. He had now served five of his twenty-year sentence. There didn't seem much hope in going on. But Hoffman refused to give up. There was still one card to play—Samuel Leibowitz, an attorney who had saved many innocent people from conviction. To him Hoffman appealed.

Leibowitz came to see Hoffman. He was impressed by his determination to fight on for his innocence, and by the fact that Hoffman realized that, in demanding yet another trial, he was gambling with death. Leibowitz agreed to take the case. Straight away, District Attorney Fach offered to accept a plea of guilty of manslaughter. Hoffman rejected it, adding that he wanted complete vindication or nothing.

Hoffman's fourth trial started on 6 May 1929. As with all great attorneys, Leibowitz's power lay in the meticulous preparation he gave each case. Carefully he studied the records of Hoffman's previous trials. Three pieces of evidence pointed to Hoffman's guilt: his identification at the scene of the crime in company with the dead woman, the opinion of an acknowledged expert that his revolver was the murder weapon, and the apparent "consciousness of guilt" in his attempts to fake an alibi.

This evidence must be overcome if Hoffman was to be freed. Leibowitz went himself to Staten Island and made discreet inquiries. He learned that besides Hoffman, a local man, Horatio Sharrett, a real-estate dealer, the brother of the Republican district party leader, had been identified near the murder spot on the afternoon of 25 March. Like Hoffman he was dark-complexioned, wore tortoiseshell spectacles, and drove a Ford Sedan. And, Leibowitz discovered, the police had been told to lay off Sharrett by District Attorney Fach.

Hoffman, Leibowitz became convinced, was the victim of a chain of faulty circumstantial evidence and fabricated evidence of identification, exactly the sort of testimony which can result in a miscarriage of justice, and especially in the conviction of a man who, knowing the apparent strength of the case against him, sets out to fabricate an alibi.

Slowly and carefully Leibowitz picked a jury from the hundred and fifty talesmen. In his opening address he referred, quite casually, to the presence of Horatio Sharrett near the scene of the crime, and from Police Patrolman Cosgrove he drew the information that he had seen a Ford car nearby driven by Horatio Sharrett.

Sharrett, Leibowitz pointed out, was a heavy-set man who wore horn-rimmed spectacles and otherwise fitted the description of the man seen to have given Mrs. Bauer a lift in his car. Sharrett, he admitted, could have had a legitimate reason for being at that spot, for he was directing workmen on a nearby construction job. "Did you tell Mr. Sharrett that a woman had been murdered?" Leibowitz asked Patrolman Cosgrove. He had, Cosgrove said, and Sharrett had replied "Is that so?" without expressing further interest. District Attorney Fach leaped to his feet indignantly objecting to the inference that Sharrett was Mrs. Bauer's murderer. "I suggested no such thing," Leibowitz blandly replied. Mildly, he pointed out that Sharrett answered the description of the driver of the car in which Mrs. Bauer had been driven away.

Police Inspector Ernest Van Wagner took the stand. "Did Mr. Fach ask you to lay off Mr. Sharrett and give him a clean bill of health?" asked Leibowitz. "Objection," shouted Fach, springing to his feet. Judge Humphrey ordered Leibowitz to rephrase his question. "Did he tell you he had interrogated Sharrett and Sharrett was OK?" questioned Leibowitz. Wagner agreed he had.

Leibowitz's probing questions forced District Attorney Fach to put Horatio Sharrett on the stand.

He testified he was in the vicinity of South Avenue on the afternoon of the murder. He said he was looking over some work that was being done on his property nearby. He admitted ownership of a Ford Sedan and he said he drove into the service road which formed a semi-circle with both ends on South Avenue, and after remaining in the road for a few minutes, returned by the same route as he had entered. Then he drove up South Avenue towards Travers Avenue where he was overtaken by a motorcycle policeman who asked him for his licence and told him of the murder.

By his adroit questioning Leibowitz had established the presence near the scene of the murder of someone who fitted the description of the man whom witnesses had positively identified as Harry Hoffman — wrongly identified, Leibowitz suggested. What was the strength of the identification of Hoffman, he asked the jury?

In cross-examination Leibowitz forced Barbara Fahs, now a girl of eighteen, to admit that when she saw the driver of the car she was standing behind the car and could only have seen him side-on. Yet, she had identified the man as Hoffman from a photograph which showed him full face. She admitted, too, that when she had been asked to identify Hoffman in person, she had told the police "that is not the man," and only after several visits to the police station had she become convinced that he was the man she had seen. Leibowitz questioned her at length regarding her memory of dates and events in her life.

She could not remember the address of her former home, the number of one of her schools, the date of the first trial in which she had testified, the description of the detective who had questioned her, or the distance between her and the automobile. After considerable prodding by Leibowitz she finally fixed the distance at ten or twelve feet.

Police Sergeant Matthew McCormack was given a rough time by Leibowitz. In direct examination he said he was standing at the intersection of Travers Avenue and Victory Boulevard, fifteen hundred yards from where the body was found, when he saw Hoffman driving a Ford Sedan. He hailed the driver for a ride home but received no response. From the witness Leibowitz extracted the damaging information that McCormack had come forward with his identification only after the $8,000 reward had been offered. But Leibowitz did not leave it at that. He forced McCormack to admit that he had been instructed by the District Attorney to identify Hoffman, and he showed from the record of the previous trials that McCormack now lied when he tried to deny it. But Leibowitz still wasn't satisfied. He demonstrated from official weather reports the vital fact which he had tested himself: that on 25 March 1924, at 4:25 pm, McCormack could not have recognized anyone driving a Ford car in that direction, for he would have been blinded by the reflection of the sun from the car's windscreen.

Leibowitz had stood on that crossing five years later to the day and observed it for himself.

The two cinema reel-boys, Whittet and Etkins, received short shrift. Leibowitz forced Whittet to admit that he had been convicted of spying on a woman undressing in her home. He had only told the police of his conversation with Hoffman, in which he alleged that Hoffman had asked about a "lovely road to take a girl," after his own conviction and he had then been put on probation only, clearly, Leibowitz implied, as a reward for his assistance.

In a lively cross-examination, Etkins admitted he had told the police he had seen Hoffman's tortoiseshell spectacles hanging in the projection booth on the afternoon when he had been identified wearing them. He said that District Attorney Fach had struck him on the head with a ruler when he refused to change his testimony. He agreed he did not remember driving with Hoffman down the lonely lane, as he had said.

On 18 May the State rested its case, now considerably less strong than it had appeared at Hoffman's earlier trials. But there was still a long way to go, as Leibowitz well knew. Hoffman needed to persuade the jury that his suspicious actions were the result, not of guilt, but of fear. His suspicious behaviour in faking alibis and getting rid of his gun, were, Hoffman explained, caused by a sort of hysterical reaction to his friends' raillery about his resemblance to the described murderer.

He had set out to manufacture an alibi and he had succeeded only in incriminating himself. He had never fired his revolver, he said, because he was left-handed and the complicated safety catch on it made it too unwieldy for effective use by a left-handed man. "I have never fired a shot out of that gun, so help me God. I never did," Hoffman stated, leaning forward in his chair and addressing his words to the jury.

There still remained Hoffman's gun, which the famous expert had identified positively as the murder weapon. Now he repeated his opinion that the fatal bullets had been fired from Hoffman's .25 Colt. This was supported by Colonel Roy Jones, an official of the Smith and Wesson Arms Company.

Leibowitz put three equally famous experts on the stand to rebut this damaging testimony. All three gave their opinion that the bullets that had killed Mrs. Bauer had not been fired from Hoffman's gun. The marks on the fatal bullets did not correspond with the rifling of that particular gun, as disclosed by test bullets, they all stated. To make sure that the jury would be convinced by their testimony, Leibowitz invited one of them to set up his comparison microscope, in which one of the murder bullets and a test bullet could be observed together. Each member of the jury in turn walked to the table, inspected the bullets, and returned to his seat.

To clinch the matter, Leibowitz reminded the jury of Hoffman's left-handedness and he pointed out that all the experts, those called both by the State and by the defence, agreed that the fatal shots had been fired by a right-handed man.

The jury, after hearing summations from both Leibowitz and District Attorney Fach, and the judge's charge, retired to consider their verdict at 4:40 pm on Wednesday 22 May. They returned to court at 8:25 pm. An instant later Hoffman was brought in, leaning on Leibowitz's arm. He seemed in danger of collapse. His face was pallid, his lips trembling. Three times he had chanced his luck. Now came the moment of truth. He could be acquitted, returned to prison for life, or sentenced to die in the electric chair. "If those in court will agree to make no demonstration when the verdict is announced I will permit them to remain," announced Judge Humphrey. In complete silence Reginald Thomas, foreman of the jury, a tall, distinguished figure, rose to his feet. "We find the defendant Not Guilty," he announced. Complete silence reigned in the courtroom. Leibowitz and Hoffman embraced each other. There were tears in Hoffman's eyes as he thanked his attorney.

参考译文——哈利·霍夫曼

哈利·霍夫曼

鲁珀特·弗诺

1924年，斯塔恩岛的电影放映员哈利·霍夫曼被指控为谋杀莫德·鲍尔的凶手。市民们认为霍夫曼的运气不错，因为陪审团对他的宽容有些不可思议，仅仅给他定了个二级谋杀罪，宣判为无期徒刑，而不是坐电椅的死刑。只有霍夫曼自己抗议说，这是另外一个与他非常相似的人犯下的罪行。这是误判。他要求重新开庭审判。霍夫曼的律师警告他说，这将会让他面临可怕的危险：他仍然可能会被判犯有一级谋杀罪而被处以死刑。但是霍夫曼仍拒绝接受判决结果。

霍夫曼被判刑有很多明显的、压倒一切的铁证，看起来判他有罪没有任何值得怀疑的地方。

1924年3月25日鲍尔夫人驾车来到了这里。在离开纽约州斯塔恩岛的南大街后，鲍尔夫人驾车驶入了莫雷尔大道，汽车因打滑驶离了公路，车轮陷入泥浆中。于是，鲍尔夫人下车寻求帮助。她拦下了一位驾驶福特轿车经过这里的男子的车。附近有几个孩子在玩耍，他们看到鲍尔夫人进入了车内，然后离开了。13岁的芭芭拉·法斯是其中的一个小孩。根据她后来的描述，司机的皮肤是黑色的，头发是掠色的，戴着一副玳瑁眼镜，穿着一件棕色大衣，还戴着一顶帽子。

半小时后，鲍尔夫人的尸体在一条偏僻的车道上被发现了。她中了两枪，一枪打在胸部，另一枪打在颈部。随后的检验证明，子弹是从一只0.25口径的柯尔特左轮手枪中打出来的。

这种罪行引起了极大的愤慨。当地机构提供了8000美元的酬金，来指认和判决杀死鲍尔夫人的凶手：一名黑皮肤、戴着一副玳瑁眼镜、开着福特汽车、拥有一只0.25口径的柯尔特左轮手枪的男子。可以满足所有组合条件的只能是一个人，那就是凶手本人。

哈利·霍夫曼没有花费多长时间就意识到，自己与该通缉犯的描述几乎完全吻合。他皮肤黝黑，经常戴着一副玳瑁眼镜，拥有一辆福特轿车，而且还合法拥有一只柯尔特左轮手枪。他没有3月25日下午的不在场证明。霍夫曼惊慌失措。他把他的枪邮寄给了他兄弟，并写了一封信告诉他把它存放在一个安全的地方。他还着手伪造了那个致命下午的不在场证明。

没过多长时间，警察也意识到，本地人霍夫曼与杀害鲍尔夫人的凶手的描述相吻合。4月17日，他们找到了霍夫曼。他们告诉他，巡警麦科马克已经确认他就是自己在下午4点25分时看到的那辆福特T型轿车的司机。25日下午，麦科马克在距离犯罪现场1500码的地方，看见那辆车从南大街方向迎面开来。

芭芭拉·法斯也已根据一张照片确定，他就是鲍尔夫人搭乘的那辆车的司机。警方提醒霍夫曼，他合法拥有一只0.25口径的柯尔特左轮手枪。霍夫曼说，他已经在2月1日，也就是犯罪发生前的几个星期，把他的枪邮寄给了自己的兄弟。警察对此进行了核实。但霍夫曼的兄弟承认说，他是在犯罪发生后的第三天收到枪的。3月25日下午，霍夫曼被传讯，要求他对他的行为予以说明。他解释说，他一直在纽约市，还在那里拜访了他的经纪人。而经纪人否认他在那天下午见过霍夫曼，于是这种解释很轻易地就被证明是虚假的。而且，致命的是，那位经纪人还告诉警方，霍夫曼曾给他打电话，要求他证明自己那天下午待在他的办公室里。

霍夫曼被指控谋杀了鲍尔夫人。在案件审判中，对他不利的证据具有压倒性的优势。他已经被确认当时出现在犯罪现场附近，那位死去的女士坐进了他的汽车。他试图伪造不在场证明暴露了他的负罪感。他的柯尔特左轮手枪被纽约警察局一位著名的弹道学专家鉴定为杀人的凶器。

当被判处“20年有期徒刑”时，霍夫曼朝地区检察官法赫大喊道去和撒谎的证人们瓜分奖金去吧。”他被带走了，送到监狱去服刑。

1928年3月法庭再次并庭进行了审理，但两周后，霍夫曼的律师因突发心脏病死了，审判也因此中断了。六个月后，另一个陪审团拒绝重新开庭。20年的有期徒刑，霍夫曼已经服刑了五年。看起来似乎没有什么希望存在了。但是霍夫曼仍不放弃。他还有一张牌可出——塞缪尔·莱博维茨。作为一名律师，莱博维茨已经挽救了许多无辜却被定罪的人。霍夫曼恳求他予以帮助。

莱博维茨来见霍夫曼。他非常钦佩霍夫曼为了自己的清白而坚决斗争的决心。事实上，霍夫曼明白，如果要求再次审判，他将和死神赌博。莱博维茨同意接下这件案子。很快地，地区检察官法赫提出，可以改判其为过失杀人罪。但霍夫曼拒绝了。他说他要么证明自己彻底无罪，要么什么都别做。

1929年5月6日开始了对霍夫曼案的第四次审理。正如所有伟大的律师一样，莱博维茨的影响力在于他对每个案子的精心准备。他非常仔细地研究了霍夫曼以前的庭审记录。有三项证据表明霍夫曼有罪：他被指认在犯罪现场和受害者一同出现，他的手枪被资深专家鉴定为凶器，以及他企图伪造不在场证据体现出的明显的“负罪感”。

如果要使霍夫曼获得自由，这些证据都必须要被推翻。于是，莱博维茨亲自去了斯塔恩岛，进行了谨慎的调查。他获悉，除了霍夫曼，当地还有一名叫霍雷肖·夏雷特的房地产经销商，他是共和党选区政党领导人的兄弟，也被指认3月25日下午在谋杀地点附近出现过。像霍夫曼一样，他的肤色黝黑，戴着一副玳瑁眼镜，开着一辆福特轿车。而且，莱博维茨还发现，地区检察官法赫告诉警察不要打搅夏雷特。

莱博维茨确信，霍夫曼是一连串错误的间接证据和伪证的牺牲品，是那种完全可以导致正义流产的证据，尤其是那些要判定一位曾着手伪造不在场证据的人有罪的证据，因为他很明显地知道案件对他极其不利。

莱博维茨从150个候补陪审员中小心谨慎地挑选了出一个陪审团。他在开场白中很随意地提到，夏雷特也曾出现在犯罪现场附近。而且，他从巡逻警察科斯格罗夫处了解到，科斯格罗夫曾在附近看见夏雷特驾驶过一辆福特汽车。

莱博维茨指出，夏雷特是一位体格魁梧的人，戴着角质边框眼镜，符合对那位让鲍尔女士搭便车的男子的描述。他承认，夏雷特出现在那个地方是有合理的理由的，因为他在附近指挥工人们的建筑工作。莱博维茨问巡警科斯格罗夫：“你告诉夏雷特先生说有一个女人被谋杀了吗？”科斯格罗夫说是的，而且夏雷特还回答说“是吗？”，没有表现出进一步询问的兴趣。地区检察官法赫愤怒地跳起来，极力反对这种夏雷特是谋杀鲍尔夫人凶手的推断。莱博维茨温和地回答道：“我没有这么暗示。”他委婉地指出，夏雷特符合对那位搭载鲍尔夫人离开的司机的描述。

警局的督察欧内斯特·范·瓦格纳也站在了证人席上作证。莱博维茨问法赫要求你不要打扰夏雷特先生，并给他一份清白的证明了吗？”法赫突然跳起来，大声喊道：“反对。”法官汉弗莱要求莱博维茨重新组织他的问题。莱博维茨问道：“他有没有告诉你，他已经询问过夏雷特，而且夏雷特与此事无关？”瓦格纳说是这样的。

莱博维茨的寻根究底的问题迫使地方检察官法赫让霍雷肖·夏雷特站在了证人席上。

他作证说，在谋杀案发生的那天下午他的确在南大街附近。他说他在附近察看他的房子的建设工作。他承认自己拥有一辆福特轿车，也在南大街的便道上停留过，那是一个两头开放的半圆形区域。在那里停留几分钟后，他又按照驶入时的路线原路返回了。然后他驱车沿南大街朝特·弗斯大街开去，在特·弗斯大街上被一辆骑摩托车的警察拦下，要求他出示他的驾驶证并告诉他发生了谋杀案。

通过巧妙的提问，莱博维茨已经确定有人出现在谋杀现场的附近，而且该人与目击者所明确确认的有关哈利·霍夫曼的描述相吻合——所以，莱博维茨暗示这是错误的举证。他向陪审团问道，是什么力量让他们认定凶手是霍夫曼呢？

莱博维茨在质询中迫使芭芭拉·法斯（此时是18岁的女孩）承认，在看见那辆汽车的驾驶员时，她正站在汽车后面，只能看到他的侧面。然而，她却从一张霍夫曼的正面照片中确定凶手就是他。她还承认，当她被要求面对面来辨认霍夫曼时，她曾经告诉警察说不是这个人。”只是在多次被要求去警察局后，她才深信他就是她所看见的那个人。莱博维茨详细地询问了她一生中对于重大日期和事件的记忆情况。

她记不起她以前的家的地址、她所上过的某所学校的电话号码、第一次审判时她作证的日期、曾经询问过她的侦探的描述、她和汽车之间的距离。经过莱博维茨多次的刺激提示，她最后才确定距离为10或12英尺。

莱博维茨没让警佐马修·麦科马克好受。在直接提问时，他说，当他看到霍夫曼驾驶着福特轿车经过时，他正站在特拉维斯大道和胜利大道的十字路口处，距离尸体发现现场有1500码。他向司机打招呼，要求他送自己回家，但司机未回应。莱博维茨从证词中得到一个致命的信息，麦科马克是在当地悬赏8000美元之后才站出来作证的。但莱博维茨并未就此停下。他迫使麦科马克承认自己是受地区检察官的指使指认霍夫曼的，而且他还根据之前的审判记录说明，麦科马克现在试图否认它的时候是在说谎。但莱博维茨仍不满意。他依据官方的天气报告证明了一个重要的事实，而且他对此亲自作了测试：1924年3月25日下午4点25分，麦科马克在那个方向上不可能认出任何一位驾驶福特汽车的人，因为从汽车挡风玻璃上反射过来的太阳光会使他的眼睛看不清楚。

五年以后的同一天，莱博维茨曾经站在那个十字路口，亲自检验过这一点。

电影院的那两个放映员，怀特和艾特金斯，也没能逃过一劫。莱博维茨迫使怀特承认，他曾因偷窥一个女人在家里脱衣服而被定罪。在被定罪后，他才告诉警察自己与霍夫曼的谈话，他在其中声称，霍夫曼曾询问“有没有适合带女孩去的偏僻小路”。所以，莱博维茨很明显地暗示，把协助当作一种奖励，怀特才能被判以缓刑。

在现场的质询中，艾特金斯承认他曾告诉警方，在已经确定了霍夫曼那天下午戴着一副玳瑁眼镜后，他还曾看到霍夫曼的玳瑁眼镜挂在放映室里。他说，当他拒绝改变他的证词时，地区检察官法赫就用一把尺子敲击他的头。他还说，正如他先前说的那样，他不记得与霍夫曼一起驾车去过那条偏僻的小道。

5月18日这个州自动停止了对该案件的讨论。与先前对霍夫曼的审判相比，现在的强度要小得多。但莱博维茨很清楚，仍然有很长的路要走。霍夫曼需要说服陪审团，他的可疑行为是恐惧的结果，而不是内疚的结果。霍夫曼解释说，他伪造不在场证明和丢弃枪的可疑行为，是对朋友们所开的玩笑的过激反应。朋友们说他与杀人犯极度相似。

他着手伪造了不在场的证明，却只是成功地把自己变成了罪犯。他说，他从未开过自己的枪，因为他是个左撇子。枪的保险栓很复杂，这使得一个左撇子用起来很不灵便。霍夫曼在椅子上把身体向前探了探，向陪审团陈述道：“我从未用它开过一枪，确确实实没有。我从来没有。”

但霍夫曼的枪仍存有疑问，那位著名的专家已经明确确认其为杀人的凶器。现在他重申其观点，那两颗致命的子弹的确是从霍夫曼的0.25口径的柯尔特左轮手枪中射出的。史密斯和威臣军火公司的一名官员、上校罗伊·琼斯也支持这种说法。

莱博维茨请来了三名同样著名的专家，站在证人席上反驳这一致命的证词。三位专家都认为，杀死鲍尔夫人的子弹并不是从霍夫曼的枪中射出的。他们都表示，正如子弹测试所披露的那样，那两颗致命子弹的轨迹与那把枪的膛线不吻合。为了让陪审团的成员相信他们的证词，莱博维茨邀请他们中的一员架起了比较显微镜，在其中可以同时观察到谋杀案中的一颗子弹和一颗测试子弹。陪审团中的所有成员都轮流走到桌前，观察了子弹，然后返回到自己的座位上。

为了真正推翻之前的证据，莱博维茨提醒陪审团霍夫曼是个左撇子，并指出，这些由国家和国防部认命的专家们都一致认为，致命的子弹是由一名男性用右手发射出来的。

5月22日周三下午4点40分，陪审团在听了莱博维茨和地区检察官法赫的综述以及法官的陈述之后，宣布休庭来考虑裁决。晚上8点25分，他们重返法庭。随后不久，霍夫曼被带了进来，斜靠着莱博维茨的手臂。他似乎处在崩溃的危险中。他脸色苍白，嘴唇颤抖。他已经碰了3次运气。现在关键时刻就要到了。他可能被无罪释放、可能回到监狱去继续服刑，也可能会被判处死刑，坐在电椅上。法官汉弗莱宣布说在宣布判决时，如果法庭上的人同意不需再作证明，我将允许他们有所保留。”法庭陷入了完全的沉默中，陪审团主席雷金纳德·托马斯，一位高个的杰出的人，站起身来宣布道：“我们认为被告无罪。”整个法庭上鸦雀无声。莱博维茨和霍夫曼紧紧地拥抱在一起。霍夫曼饱含眼泪，向他的律师表达了深深的谢意。

Key Words:

committed [kə'mitid]

adj. 献身于某种事业的，委托的

trial ['traiəl]

adj. 尝试性的; 审讯的

n. 尝试，努力

evidence ['evidəns]

n. 根据，证据

v. 证实，证明

overwhelming ['əuvə'welmiŋ]

adj. 势不可挡的，压倒的

guilt [gilt]