有些同学围观了安东尼案的判决后，认为同样是胡搅蛮缠的的桑兰起诉方胜算大增。哥持不同意见。哥当年在新东方接受再教育的时候就曾学过，美国的司法系统是default innocent，除非你有足够的证据证明我犯了罪，否则我就是无罪。宁可放过坏人1000，也绝不冤枉一个好人。
其实辩方律师的辩护破绽百出，但是，由于检方确实没有强有力的证据证明安东尼真的杀了孩子（他们只能靠推理而没有直接证据），所以最后陪审团也不得不宣布无罪。所以辩方的胜利，实在是利用了美国这种司法系统天生的固有的缺陷，而非辩方律师有多么出色。如果辩方律师真的很牛的话，他应该把水搅浑，使围观群众如坠雾中不明所以，而不是象现在这样围观群众几乎一边倒地认为被告有罪。从这个角度来讲，他的辩护是灰常失败的。不是辩方胜了，而是检方败了。而检方的失败，可以说是系统注定了的。所以，看了这个案子之后，我认为桑兰案更没戏了。
另外，昨天看到一个法律专业人士的评论：
Doug Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, said popular opinion came to the conclusion the 25 year-old Miss Anthony was guilty, but that jurors must hold to a higher standard than the average citizen watching on TV.
That standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Prof Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability."
请注意最后一句，“...to have all the actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability.”。和着你美国的司法系统不是为了追求justice，而是all about acting，检辩双方就是两拨儿戏子，看谁能do the job to the best of their ability, justice在哪儿，who cares?
