Alan. Dexiaoweici: letters to a young lawyer (Introduction)

　　 Alan. Dexiaoweici, lawyer, law professor, writer. The 28 year old is a professor of law at the Harvard University's youngest. Acting as agent of many major cases, including the Simpson case, Tyson case, the secret of The Pentagon papers case, Clinton impeachment and American presidential election and other famous cases, known as "the most successful in the history of America lawyer". This book embodies the author at Harvard and lawyers 37 years of life experience and experience, to extract the 37 advice, content involves many aspects of life, experience, success and failure, gain and loss, principles, occupation planning. 37 years, 37 for advice, just entered the job market and the fork in the road of life we.

In the preface, the author points out the suggestion is a risky behavior, most commentators just to show others how to become their own. The author believes that, the best way to imitate and not flattery of others, because the real individual is forever is unable to imitate. However, as long as you realize you have a dream, have the experience and assertive, out of the ordinary people, you can learn something from others. Don't just to "experience" as the reason to trust others (including me) advice, the best advice is always "retail", "tailor-made", and according to the specific person. The book consists of three parts: the first part, the life and career; between the second part, the outcome; the third part, do a good man. The first part is the focus of the book, the author puts forward 20 suggestions, is the author of 37 years of a career in life, is a concentrated experience and lessons. The second part mainly elaborated the defense skills, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, the jury to role analysis, and introduces "when ah" theory, cross examination, make tactical surrender of defending skills. The third part is a text. You will be what kind of law? You can associate oneself with undesirable elements and ubiquitous liar elite, or to the individual himself and occupation moral standard? Your character should be means to seek appropriate balance in the often conflicting interests. The author discusses the good, good lawyers, the law graduates, university graduates and puts forward some corresponding suggestions. Below I will of the three parts in detail.

　　A, life and career

In reality, many people have no more time for work and regret, these people are because of laziness or the wrong direction can not exert your potential. The reality of life on the road, and not what the eye-catching fork in the road, they are only in the people have not returned, can be expressed as the fork. Only in a few years later, we realized that I made what kind of choice, will focus on where to go, what is the road. Usually, the dream again back to the partly hidden and partly visible forks, re opened not choose the road already too late. Life is an adventure, not decreed by fate. We all make mistakes, as did or didn't do regret. The most anticipated is to learn from experience, not be the wrong choice.

Lawyers are more likely to worship heroes. But the author tells us no idol, also do not worship idols. You can have a respectable people admire, but to understand, everyone has flaws. The law is not a perfect professional, not to sacrifice some principles are often difficult to succeed, therefore, lawyers of all, and to the industry of most other people, it is not perfect. You may think that the lawyer qualification examination is your last special examination, in fact, the lawyer occupation is composed of a series of endless examination judge, jury, senior partner, parties scoring. Hone their will and repeated self doubt, ready to make their life must withstand the test, only the dead when the thing people do not evaluate you. If not withstand the pressure more than 20 years old when, how to face the future make partner increasingly heavy responsibility? After all, this is a need for continuous learning and competitive era, therefore, who can't be spoiled. If you want to rank among the world's most profitable occupation, then began to, stop complaining.

As a lawyer, do not let the dream of getting rich bound hand and foot. Money is very important, want to make a comfortable life, and not to worry about money is not bad. Unless you are strongly inclined to a high standard of living, otherwise don't let wealth prevent you from making poverty could sacrifice. So a good lawyer should be bad defense? That is the existence of absolute morality? The author of "role" interpretation of the word. When you play a role in the society, you have to give up some choice. Active defense is not to make you feel good about ourselves, or moral superiority, but in order to help the parties, with all the ethical and legal means to win. Go to all lengths in the range of legal and moral constraints, representing the view, it is the duty of the defense.

Of course, the author also pointed out the problem of corruption American judicial system, when you become a lawyer, you'll find out corruption in the side, everywhere in our legal system. The author is engaged in the criminal defense more than 20 years, the thirteen rule, called "the criminal justice rules of the game", most of the participants in the criminal justice system people can understand them.

Rule one: in fact, the majority of criminal defendants are guilty.

Rule two: all criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges to understand and believe in rules.

Rule three: violation of the constitution to be easier to be guilty defendants charged than abide by the constitution, sometimes does not violate the constitution to the guilty defendants convicted.

Rule four: in order to be guilty defendants offences, many policemen that did not violate the constitution.

Rule five: all the prosecutors, judges and lawyers are aware of rule four.

Rule six: in order to allow the guilty defendants offences, many prosecutors implicitly encourage police that did not violate the constitution.

Rule seven: all judges are aware of rule six.

Rule eight: most of the trial judge knowingly police lying, but pretend to believe them.

Rule nine: all the appeal court judges to rule eight, but many people pretend to believe those who pretend to believe that the trial judge police.

Rule ten: the majority of the judges do not believe the defendant of the constitutional rights are stated, even if they are telling the truth.

Rule Eleven: if the judges and prosecutors believe that the defendant is innocent in the charged with a crime, they will not deliberately will punish the defendant.

Rule twelve: rule eleven does not apply to organized crime, drug trafficking,The duty crimeOr potential whistleblowers.

Rule thirteen: no one really wants justice.

The author points out: the law on the entry that is a pack of lies: it advocated honesty, often engaged in corruption and reward. And points out the Countermeasures of the legal profession, the next task is to let ordinary people can more easily distinguish honest lawyer and attorney, to do this, we must have a peer evaluation of real and lawyer and public evaluation.

　　Two, the outcome

Where can learn defense skills? Quality legal education needs to find a balance between classroom, courts and law firms experience. Cases of success lies in the preparation in the library and the scene of the crime. Although have the gift of the gab, superb intelligence is very important for effective defense, but it can never replace the effective defense. Never underestimate the power of the adversary, let them be as at least as smart as you, in the assessment of the opposing counsel's wisdom, motivation and sense of justice, to assume that they are in advantage, over prepared than unprepared. Here I will focus on the defense skill is "aha" theory and cross examination.

(a) "aha" theory

"Aha" theory is used to match the jury's defense skill. That is not to let the jury that you are trying to persuade them to accept what. Let them get you want conclusions. The "origin of ah" a word: "aha" has become the Ringel family code, this is the formation of rhetorical question in defense Abel years of style. A joke Abe according to HASCO had spoken to him will be called a skill defense in. To a restaurant point of chicken soup to a Jewish every night. This time the waiter found that the customer has no meal, so he asked: "Is it right? Too hot?" No response. "Too cold?" No response. "There is a fly?" Still no response. Finally, the waiter feel helpless to say: "I see for yourself, see what the problem is." Want to taste the past him, but found no spoon. Customers have a look the waiter said: "ah ha!" Abe thinks, the jury as the waiter, they have found that the lack of what, then you can say: "ah ha!"

(two) the cross examination

The author gives a case of his agent, and the successful use of the cross examination. The author was a "Jewish Defence League" of young people to provide legal aid. In the bombing, he made bombs killed a woman. The party told the author, there was a policeman to its promises, if he reveals who installed the bomb he made, he would not be prosecuted or called as witnesses. He secretly recorded the conversation with the police many times. Author let him play the tapes, sure enough, the police repeatedly promised, if he can provide "information of other crimes Jewish Defence League", he would not be charged or as witnesses. But the parties did not record and the crime related conversation. He said, about other crimes talk in his car, he installed stealth recorder in the car, but about the criminal conversation occurs outdoors, he cannot be recorded. The existing recording support his claim, the author also believe his words. But the author knows, the judge will never believe his words but to doubt the police. Must let the police admitted that, he also to the case of crime made the same commitment.

Then the author after a over in one's mind and consulting experts, determined by the following three parts of the cross examination. First of all, the author asked the policeman a series on the promises of the general problem, do not suggest the existence of the tape. The police completely lying, denied the tape promise over and over again. Then, the author asked some conversations police he now repeated can let him remember something, then the author read some apparently recording the content. In fact, it is a tape content. When the policeman realized they had to record what he said, he began to worry about falling into the trap of perjury. The police earlier testimony some hesitation, admitted he had made some just now he no commitment. Finally, in the case did not reveal flaws, the author continued reading seems to tape recorded content. Now read the parties say about this crime commitment, actually does not have the commitment of the tape, but let the police mistakenly thinks that there are tape, the police did tell the truth about the crime, admitted he made a promise.

　　Three, do a good man

In this chapter, the author is good, a good lawyer, outlook on life, values are discussed, especially to law graduates, university graduates and puts forward some corresponding suggestions.

To law graduates, the author points out that you will enter a lack of ethics of the industry, the dangerous place generally did not sign, sometimes even error. The possibility of corruption will exist forever. If you are a clerk, you will see the judge to distort the facts, bending the law, make no exception to the law cannot, judgment with his political views, ambition and prejudice. If you become a prosecutor, you will see some senior you secretly help police perjury perjury to do more successfully. If you are a lawyer, you will see colleagues manipulate witnesses and relationship with judges and prosecutors. What you're going to be a lawyer? You can associate oneself with undesirable elements and ubiquitous liar elite, or to the individual himself and occupation moral standard? "Deuteronomy" in say: "justice, you want to pursue the justice." Critics ask why a word justice to be repeated, the authors explain, in order to let you know, when you give to others and do things for myself, the meaning of justice is not the same. Always remember Hillel's second commandment: if I just for myself, I will become what kind of person?

To university graduates, according to the situation of the USA, elaborated in the admission of students and faculty America employed, racial, ethnic, gender and other factors should be accounted for the great proportion of the controversy, the court also make people unable to agree on which is right. The authors call is: keep your pride but do not have the prejudice, keep your people a sense of belonging but don't have a sense of superiority, keep your cultural heritage and don't go. University of many problems is a foot bird standing in line side, the other foot on the other side. So, when you step into the society, I urge you, don't ever forget you inherited the heritage, always keep the question.