徹底研究十二人の怒れる男』(その2)    

Twelve Angry Men
中央大学教授米国NY州)弁護士 博士(総合政策、中央大学) 平野 晋

Susumu Hirano; Professor of Law, Graduate School of Policy Studies, Chuo University (Tokyo, JAPAN) ; Professor, Faculty of Law, Meiji University (Tokyo, Japan) ; Member of the New York State Bar (The United States of America) . Copyright (c) 2008 by Susumu Hirano.   All rights reserved. 但し作成者の氏名&出典を明示して使用することは許諾します。もっとも何時にても作成者の裁量によって許諾を撤回することができることとします。当ページ/サイトの利用条件はココをクリックTerms and Conditions for the use of this Page or Site. 当サイトは  「研究『12人の怒れる男』」の上級編です。関連ページは、アメリカ等の法律学に於ける学際的分野「法と文学」(Law & Literature)、および「法と文化研究」(Law & Cultural Studies)です。

目次

十二人の怒れる男」(1957年、MGM/United Artists、ヘンリー・フォンダ主演)

 

はじめに――作品製作の背景等

I. 冤罪の防止

II. 正義を担保する仕組み ――「公正な裁判」、「偏りの無い陪審裁判」、そして「熱心な擁護者」 一.作品では陪審以外の司法制度(判事、検察・警察、弁護人)が適正に機能していない?! 二.「公正な裁判」  三.「偏りの無い陪審裁判」 / 四.「熱心な擁護者」  五.証拠法

以上、「徹底研究『十二人の怒れる男』(その1)」のページ。
________________.

以下、当ページ。

III. 証拠に基づく評価と偏見の除去  / 一. 「証拠法」と「偏見・先入観」 / 二.偏見を示唆する様々な場面
___________.

以下、「
徹底研究『十二人の怒れる男』(その3)徹底研究『十二人の怒れる男』(その4)徹底研究『十二人の怒れる男』(その5)に続く。


IV.
「説示」と陪審制  /一.「beyond a reasonable doubt  / 二.陪審団の構成員――多様性  三.裁判に於ける陪審の役割、独立性、および秘密性  四.「jury nullification / 五.全員一致の原則  六.その他、陪審制度に就いて

V. 投票が先か議論が先か? / 一.「評決に駆られた評議」対「証拠に駆られた評議」 / 二.投票が先 / 三.対話の必要性――「熟議民主主義」

VI.misconduct」――法廷外証拠の陪審による検討等

VII. 証人・証言のリスクと回避策と『藪の中』 / 一.「宣誓」の意味に就いて / 二.「demeanor」を観察することの重要性に就いて / 三.芥川龍之介の『藪の中』と黒澤明の「羅生門」 / 四.「人は自ら見たいと望むものを見る」問題―「自己奉仕偏見」

VIII. 凾ヘ有罪だったかも…?

参考文献

III. 証拠に基づく評価と偏見の除去

一.証拠法と「偏見・先入観」(prejudice)

l 『連邦証拠規則』は「偏見」等を排除すべきと以下のように規定している。

Rule 403.  Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

  Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403 (emphasis added).

 

l         性格や犯罪記録の扱いに関する原則的ルールと代表的例外は以下。

Rule 404.  Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct: Exceptions; Other Crimes

  (a) Character evidence generally. ? Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

  (1)  Character of accused. ? In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404(a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution;

  (2)  Character of victim. ? In a criminal case, subject to the limitations imposed by Rule …, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or …;

  (3) Character of witness. ? Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Rule ….

  (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. ? Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.  It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that … the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance ….

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404 (emphasis added).

 

l規則404(a)本文は、行為を立証する為の証拠としては行為者の性格(character trait)に関する証拠を認容しない原則を規定。∵あいつは「悪い奴」(“bad man”)だから当該行為を犯したに違いないと云ったprejudiceprobative valueよりも実質的に上回ると解されて来たからである[1]

l上の例外として認容される場合を同規則404(a)(1)(3)が規定。特に関連するのは(1)が規定する、剔、自身からは[良い]性格(good character evidence)を証拠提出することが認容されることと、その場合には検察側も反論(rebuttal evidence)の為に[悪い]性格(bad character evidence)の証拠提出が認容されると云う規定[2]。―証拠法の権威に拠れば、この反論のダメージが大きい為に剔、は良い性格証拠の提出を躊躇すると云う[3]。―  更に重要な例外は(3)に規定され、剋ゥ身が証言する場合には証人の信憑性を弾劾する為に検察側から[悪い]性格に関する証拠提出が認容されると規定[4][(2)は被害者の性格に関する証拠を状況に関する証拠として認容する旨を規定[5]]

l同規則404(b)は、行為者の性格を証拠認容できない原則の一部・小分類として、犯罪歴や過去の悪行を証拠として認容できない原則を規定[6]

l上の例外として認容される場合を例示列挙(排他的包括列挙では無い)しているのが404(b)内の同最後のセンテンスであり、行為を立証する目的以外であれば犯罪歴・悪行歴が証拠認容されると規定しているので「抜け道」の虞があるけれども、正しい解釈は、そのような例外的場合でも規則403に拠って偏見の虞の方がprobative valueよりも高ければ認容されないと解すべき[7]

l更に例外的に犯罪歴・悪行歴の証拠を認容する場合であっても、以下に基づく説示を判事が陪審に対して行うことが望ましいとされる[8]

Rule 105.  Limited Admissibility

When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 105 (emphasis added).

 

l  しかし現実的には陪審が説示を無視して推認を働かせてしまう虞が在る[9](それを知っている検察は犯罪歴・悪行歴の証拠を陪審に聞かせたがる―聴かせ勝ち?! [10])

l  「十二人の怒れる男」に於ける陪審員達も、凾フ過去の犯罪に就いて聞かされるべきではなかった[11]

 

目次に戻る

二.偏見を示唆する様々な場面

l       激情型の#10 Jurorが、凾嘘吐きだと決め付けて騒ぐシーン…. [偏見が表れている。]  DVD at ch.3.0:14:4014:48, Rose at 9 (emphasis added).

 

10th Juror ….  (He rises and looks around at the others.)  Look, we’re all grown-ups here.  We heard the facts, didn’t we?  Now, you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is.  Listen, I’ve lived among ’em all my life.  You know that.  I mean, they’re born liars.

_____________.

 

l10th Jurortrialに於いて見聞きしたことに基づいて判断しておらず全てのプエルトリコ人に就いて当てはまると信じているところに基づいて凾死罪だと決め付けようとしている[12]。 →  このような偏見の強い陪審員はそもそも候補者の段階で排除されるべきという指摘に就いては、後掲「IV.『説示』と陪審制」「六.その他、陪審制度に就いて」内の「陪審員の適格性・選別―予備審問」参照。

O       3rd Jurorも喧嘩別れして家出した息子を罰したい思いから凾有罪にしたいという偏見に左右されていて、その関係性に自身が気付いて初めて誤謬に気が付くのである[13]

l一人だけ無罪票を投じた8th Jurorを皆で説得しようとして、#7(被告人)を札付きと決め付ける。[犯罪歴と本件殺人を結び付ける。]  DVD at ch.4.0:20:1620:40, Rose at 14 (emphasis added).

 

7th Juror    Me?  …. This kid is oh for five.  Look at his record.  He was in Children’s Court when he was ten for throwing a rock at his teacher.  At fourteen he was in Reform School.  ….

_____________.

 

l一人だけ無罪票を投じた8th Jurorを皆で説得しようとして、#4(被告人)を犯人と決め付ける。[環境と本件殺人を結び付ける。]    DVD at ch4.0:22:19, Rose at 15 (emphasis added).

 

4th Juror    I think we’re missing the point here.  This boy, let’s say he’s a product of a filthy[汚れた] neighborhood and a broken home.  We can’t help that.  We’re here to decide whether he’s guilty or innocent of murder, not to go into reasons why he grew up this way.  He was born in a slum.  Slums are breading grounds for criminals.  I know it.  So do you.  It’s no secret children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.  Now I think ….

….

Foreman (to the 5th Juror)    Now, let’s be reasonable.  There’s nothing personal.  ….

5th Juror (loudly)    There is something personal !

_____________.

 

l階下の老人がドアを開けに行く迄には41秒も掛かった実証実験の結果にいらだって3rd Jurorが食って掛かって来たことに対して… []   DVD at ch.9.0:58:1559:19, Rose at 47 (emphasis added).

 

8th Juror    Ever since we walked into this room you’ve been behaving like a self-appointed public avenger.

3rd Juror    I’m telling you now!  Shut up!

8th Juror    You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts.

3rd Juror    Shut up!

8th Juror    You’re a sadist!

3rd Juror    Shut up, you son of a bitch!  [3rd8thに飛び掛ろうとすると、他の陪審員が3rdを取り押さえて、3rdが以下のように叫ぶ]… God damn it!  I’ll kill him!  I’ll kill him!

8th Juror    You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?

_____________.

 

l        [凾ヨの偏見に基づかずに事実に基づいて判断すべき] 投票結果が66に割れたのを受けて揉めつつ。 DVD at ch.10.1:03:15, Rose at 50 (emphasis added).

 

10th Juror  Six to six!  I’m telling you, some of you people in here are out of minds.  A kid like that.

9th Juror   I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it.  The facts are supposed to determine the case.

10th Juror   Ah, don’t give me any of that.  I’m sick and tired of facts.  You can twist’em any way you like.  Know what I mean?

9th Juror     That’s exactly the point this gentleman (indicates the 8th Juror) has been making.  I mean, you keep shouting at the top of your lungs ….

_____________.

 

l       有罪にしたい#3が冷静な株仲買人の#4に同意を求める場面に於いて... [意見が対立しつつも、感情ではなく、証拠とリーズナブルな評価に基づく推認を#4は表している。]  DVD at ch.10.1:08:00, Rose at 52-53 (emphasis added).

 

3rd Juror     Listen, that business before, ….  Listen, I’m a very exciting person, y’know.  So where does he get off and call me a public avenger and a sadist and everything?  Anybody in his right mind’d blow his stack, wouldn’t he?  He was just trying to bait me.

4th Juror     He did an excellent job. (He moves to the towel.)  Excuse me. (He dries his hands.)

[以下、映画では削除]

[3rd Juror    Okay, mabe he did.  I told you, I can’t help that kind of thing.  I’m a certain type of person.  I get moved by this.  But let me tell you, I’m sincere.

4th Juror      Fine.  We all are.]

_____________.

 

【注: 以下の台詞は映画からは削除されていて、台詞本にしか存在しない。】

l       精神科医(psychiatrist)が、凾ヘparanoid tendenciesを有していると指摘した事実の評価に関する論争に於いて...。 [Foremanはその凾フ性格を殺人行為に結び付けようとするが...]  DVD at [n.a.], Rose at 58-59 (emphasis added).

 

Foreman       What I was gonna say was, the psychiatrist definitely stated that the boy had strong homicidal tendencies.  I mean, that he was, what d’ya call it capable of committing murder.  He described all those tests, inkblots[インクの染みによるロールシャッハのようなテスト] and all that stuff, and he said the kid is definitely a killer-type.  Am I right?

12th Juror   Check.  I think he said something about paranoid tendencies if I’m not mistaken.

Foreman       Right.  Whatever that is, he said it.  Let’s not forget, we’re talking about a boy who’s always had murder on his mind.

….

11th Juror   ….  It’s the way I was brought up.  (He turns to the others.)  In discussing such a thing as the murder potential we should remember that many of us are capable of committing murder.  But few of us do.  We impose controls upon ourselves to prevent it.  The most these psychiatric tests can accomplish along these lines is this:  they can tell us that some day a particular person may commit a murder.  That’s all.  They prove nothing.

4th Juror     Then how come they’re admitted in evidence?

11th Juror   They have many uses, of course.  In this case they added to the general impression the prosecution was trying to create.  Perhaps we would find that if we twelve men took the same tests, one or two of us might be discovered to have unconscious desire to kill, and the potentiality of carrying them out.  Yet none of us has.  To say that a man is capable of murder does not mean that he has committed murder.

10th Juror   But it can mean it.  Listen, if they said the kid is capable of killing, he could’ve killed couldn’t he?

【注: 以上の台詞は映画からは削除されていて、台詞本にしか存在しない。】

_____________.

 

l       無罪投票が9票に至って、激怒した#10陪審員が立ち上がりつつ演説を… [以下、映画内では大きく台詞が変更・省略されている。]   DVD at ch.13.1:17:4221:13, Rose at 64-67 (emphasis added).

 

10th Juror      I don’t understand you people.  I mean, all these picky little points you keep bringing up.  They don’t mean nothing [sic].  […..]

4th Juror    I We’ve heard enough.  Now, you just stop all this sit down and don’t open your mouth again.

(Long silence.)

8th Juror    It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this.  And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth.  Well, I don’t think any real damages has been done here.  Because I don’t really know what the truth is.  No one ever will, I suppose.  Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we’re just gambling on probabilities.  We may be wrong.  We may be trying to return a guilty man to the community.  No one can really know.  But we have a reasonable doubt, and this is a safeguard which has enormous value in our system.   No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure.  We nine can’t understand how you three are still so sure.  Maybe you can tell us.

_____________.

 

l       有罪票側の最後の一人になった3rd Jurorが自説を展開する最終場面に於いて DVD at ch.15.1:32:00, Rose at 74 (emphasis added).

 

3rd Juror    ….  /  The phrase was “I’m gonna kill you.”  That’s what he said.  To his own father.  I don’t care what kind of a man that was.  It was his father.  That goddamn rotten kid.  I know him.  What they’re like.  What they do to you.  How they kill you every day.  My God, don’t you see?  How can I’m the only one who sees?  Jeez, I can feel that knife goin’in. (Tearing up a picture depicting the 3rd Juror and his son, the 3rd Juror begins crying.)

8th Juror     It’s your boy.  He’s somebody else.

3rd Juror     Not guilty.

________________.


目次に戻る

[1] Graham, supra, §404.3, at 97.

[2] Id.

[3] Brian J. Foley, Until We Fix the Labs and Fund Criminal Defendants: Fighting Bad Science with Storytelling, 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 397, 406 (2007)(rebuttal evidenceは「the penalty against the introduction of good character」であるとコーネル大学Ross教授が呼称していると紹介).

[4] Graham, supra, §404.3, at 97.

[5] Id. §404.4, at 98.

[6] Id. §404.5, at 98-99.

[7] Id. at 99-100.

[8] Id. at 101, §105.1, at 22-23 (申立が無くても裁判所自身がこの説示を行うことも可能と説明している).

[9] Foley, supra, at 406.

[10] See id.

[11] Michael Asimow, 12 Angry Men: A Revisionist View, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 711, 714 n.15 (2007)(quoting Fed.R.Evid. 404).

[12] Marder, A Portrayal, supra, at 891;  Marder, Introduction, supra, at 563.

[13] Marder, Introduction, supra, at 563.

目次に戻る

トップページに戻る