编者按：2月23日曹律师去函Thompson检察官，从法理和案例证明梁警官案件审理试枪环节出现重大问题，希望检察官认真对待这一问题，同意陪审团以亲自试枪为判断基础已构成误判，并请求法庭宣布审判无效，重审此案。广大民众和媒体也要密切关注检察官的行动。

在编者采访曹律师时，他表示也希望这封信起到一个普法的作用。通过事实证据、法理和以前的案例证明陪审员断案不得当，这完全是一个法律问题，而不是请愿、抗议，也不带有任何族裔情绪。判案失误，检察官有义务主动提请法庭宣布判决无效。另外、向法官施加任何压力或者要求轻判都是没有用的。因为他相信美国司法独立不容任何人干预和干扰。

Saving Officer Liang — 我的行动

by 曹青桦（David Q. Cao）

梁警官一案判决后，10号陪审员Carlton Screen向媒体披露陪审团每人亲自试拉梁警官执勤手枪的扳机，断定扳机太难拉（“too hard to pull”），之后裁定梁警官不可能意外导致该枪击发。

从看到这个报道和视频的那一刻我就觉得陪审团审理过程出现了重大问题: 陪审员只能依靠专家证人（expert witnesses）证词的协助，而不可以通过自己试手枪扳机，来决定梁警官手枪击发是否“意外”（accidentally）击发这一重大事实问题。此后我的有关文章每一篇都提到这一点。

2016年2月20日我发文公开呼吁检察官Kenneth Thompson先生主动要求宣布判决无效。2月22号我根据一个纽约记者提供的E-mail地址，把下边这封信发给检查官办公室里一名工作人员，请他转发给Thompson检查官。

2月23号我又用Priority Mail将该函寄给了他。USPS Tracking Number: 9405509699939718865451（今天东部时间上午11:33已经送到）。我希望Thompson先生认真对待这一重大审理问题，同意陪审团以亲自试枪为判断基础已构成误判，并请求法庭宣布审判无效，重审此案。

我期待着Thompson检察官的答复。也希望大家和媒体有机会向他询问此事。

曹青桦

2016年2月25日

下面是曹青桦律师给Thompson检察官信函原文：

Dear Mr. Thompson,

My name is David Cao. I am an attorney in Houston Texas. I read and watched the media interview of juror Carlton Screen after the Peter Liang verdict. If the verdict had been reached as Screen described, I believe there had been a gross error with the jury, and injustice would occur unless the verdict be overturned. Here’s why:

According to Screen, all the jurors tried the pistol’s trigger, and decided that “it was too hard to pull.” Mr. Screen told the media, “It was 10 to two for conviction, but the two were a little bit doubtful,” but after the jurors tried the pistol one by one, all agreed that officer Liang had been guilty. (source: http://abc7ny.com/news/peter-liang-juror-speaks-out-about-conviction;-ex-officers-partner-fired-nypd/1197735/; http://nypost.com/2016/02/12/why-jury-believed-nypd-cop-was-lying-about-stairwell-shooting/)

The jurors’ testing of officer Liang’s service pistol was obviously instrumental to his conviction.

Whether the trigger was “too hard to pull” for officer Liang on November 20, 2014, under the conditions in the stairwell in the Pink House, should be determined by the jury with the help of expert witnesses, including at least physiologists and firearm experts, taking into consideration of Liang’s physical strength at the time, his prior training with that pistol, especially how many rounds he had fired through it, his muscle memory, the impact of his psychological condition in the allegedly dangerous stairwell, etc. It should not be determined by jurors using their own lay-person fingers, in a courtroom that was completely different from the Pink House stairwell. Further, according to the Screen interview report, most jurors had never held a gun.

To me, it is very likely a mistrial occurred. I respectfully urge that you look into this matter and request the Court to overturn the verdict if you agree the jury committed an error.

Fairness to the defendant is the bedrock of America’s criminal justice system. The government would not hesitate to do the right thing to the defendant. Five years ago, in People of New York against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the New York assistant district attorneys, upon finding their sole eyewitness, the complainant, had credibility problems, motioned to dismiss their own case, stating “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.” (see page 2, motion to dismiss, attached.) In 2009, after senator Ted Stevens had been convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations, the Justice Department found that the federal prosecutors had failed to provide certain information to the defendant to use at trial. It might not even have been a harmful error, but the Attorney General righteously declared to dismiss the indictment and not to proceed with a new trial. (Statement and source attached.) I believe you will follow their example if there was any error in the process of officer Liang’s conviction.

Respectfully yours,

David Cao

邮寄凭证：

本文由作者投稿，内容不代表《美国华人》立场。欢迎转发。其他媒体如要转载请联络我们。
《美国华人》(ChineseAmerican.org) ：一个立场中立的互联网新媒体。