華裔富家女李凡尼（Tiffany Li）在2016年被控涉嫌殺害前男友凱斯·格林（Keith Green），案件一度引發廣泛關注，原因不僅在於案件本身的暴力與謎團，更因為李凡尼的背景和財力，使整個案件的審理過程充滿輿論討論與爭議。這宗案件在2019年由聖馬刁縣（San Mateo County）陪審團做出判決，結果是李凡尼在刑事指控中被判無罪。然而，這並不代表案件就此結束；後續的民事訴訟和解，反而讓整個事件的影響延續至2022年。

在刑事審判中，陪審團最終做出無罪判決的原因，主要在於檢方提出的證據未能形成足以排除合理懷疑的直接證明。儘管警方在李凡尼的車內發現血跡、在車庫找到火藥殘留物等證據，這些材料看似能夠指向犯罪行為，但在法庭上被認定為間接證據，無法直接證明李凡尼參與或策劃謀殺。陪審團在長達12天的審議後，認為檢方未能建立起完整且連貫的犯罪動機與行為鏈條，因此無法達到刑事定罪所需的「排除合理懷疑」標準。

此外，李凡尼的辯護策略也在此案中發揮關鍵作用。她的律師團隊將案件的罪責轉移至另一名被告阿德拉（Olivier Adella），後者被指控負責棄屍。辯方主張格林的死亡是一起失敗的綁架案所致，而非李凡尼下令或參與的謀殺。這一策略的核心在於「讓陪審團相信案件中存在其他可疑的行為人」，使檢方的證據鏈條出現裂縫，進而動搖對李凡尼的指控。

在審理過程中，檢方原本倚賴的關鍵證人阿德拉，卻因違反法庭指令而失去證人資格。據報導，阿德拉在庭前私下聯繫辯方證人，試圖提供有利於辯方的訊息，這一行為被法庭視為干預審判程序，最終導致其成為「污點證人」的資格被取消。對檢方而言，這一打擊極為致命，因為阿德拉的證詞本是建立檢方論述的重要一環。失去這位關鍵證人後，檢方難以在法庭上形成足以說服陪審團的完整敘事。

同時，李凡尼的家境與財力也成為外界關注的焦點。雖然律師團隊堅稱無罪辯護與金錢無關，但不可否認的是，李凡尼能夠支付破紀錄3500萬美元保釋金，並聘請頂級律師團隊進行全方位辯護。這些因素使得她在審判中擁有更完整的法律資源，能夠更充分地質疑檢方證據、提出反駁、並將焦點引導至證據的間接性與不確定性。

然而，刑事審判的無罪並不等於民事責任的免除。案件在2019年後仍延伸至民事訴訟，受害者家屬於2022年與李凡尼達成和解。根據和解內容，李凡尼同意向凱斯·格林的兩名女兒支付總計1000萬美元的賠償金，以換取撤銷對她的過失致死指控。這項和解顯示，即便刑事案件未能定罪，民事領域仍可能因「低於刑事標準的責任認定」而對被告提出金錢賠償或責任承擔。

整體而言，李凡尼案件之所以在刑事審判中被判無罪，並非因為外界質疑的「有錢就能逃脫」這類簡化論述所能概括。事實上，陪審團的判決主要建立在證據不足、關鍵證人失去資格，以及檢方無法形成連貫犯罪鏈條的基礎上。另一方面，民事和解則反映出受害者家屬仍希望透過法律途徑獲得某種程度的補償與正義，讓整起案件在公共記憶中留下更長久的影響。

The Tiffany Li Case: From Criminal Acquittal to Civil Settlement

In 2016, Tiffany Li, a wealthy Chinese-American woman, was charged with the murder of her ex-boyfriend Keith Green. The case drew widespread attention not only because of its violent and mysterious nature but also because Li’s background and financial resources made the legal process highly controversial and widely discussed. In 2019, a jury in San Mateo County ultimately found Li not guilty on criminal charges. However, the case did not end there. A civil lawsuit followed, and the dispute continued until a settlement was reached in 2022.

In the criminal trial, the jury’s decision to acquit Li was mainly due to the prosecution’s inability to provide direct evidence that met the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Although bloodstains were found in Li’s car and gunpowder residue was discovered in her garage, these pieces of evidence were deemed circumstantial and did not directly prove Li’s involvement or orchestration of the murder. After twelve days of deliberation, the jury concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of evidence linking Li to the crime, and thus could not meet the high burden required for a criminal conviction.

Li’s defense strategy also played a crucial role in the case. Her legal team shifted the responsibility to another defendant, Olivier Adella, who was accused of disposing of the body. The defense argued that Green’s death resulted from a failed kidnapping attempt rather than a murder orchestrated by Li. The core of this strategy was to create reasonable doubt by suggesting the existence of another plausible perpetrator, thereby undermining the prosecution’s narrative.

During the trial, a key witness for the prosecution, Adella, lost his credibility and was disqualified due to violating court orders. Reports indicated that Adella contacted defense witnesses privately before the trial, attempting to provide information beneficial to the defense. This act was considered interference with the judicial process, and as a result, he was disqualified as a “tainted witness.” This was a severe blow to the prosecution, as Adella’s testimony was essential to their case. Without him, the prosecution struggled to form a compelling narrative that could persuade the jury.

At the same time, Li’s wealth and resources became a focal point of public attention. Although her legal team insisted that the defense was not influenced by money, it is undeniable that Li was able to post a record-breaking $35 million bail and hire a top-tier legal team to mount a comprehensive defense. These resources allowed her to challenge the prosecution’s evidence more thoroughly, raise doubts, and emphasize the circumstantial nature of the case.

However, a criminal acquittal does not automatically absolve a person of civil liability. After the 2019 verdict, the case continued into civil court. In 2022, Li reached a settlement with Green’s family. Under the settlement, Li agreed to pay a total of $10 million to Green’s two daughters in exchange for the withdrawal of wrongful death claims against her. This agreement demonstrates that even if a criminal conviction is not obtained, a civil court can still require compensation based on a lower standard of proof.

Overall, the reason Li was acquitted in the criminal trial cannot be simplified as “money bought her freedom.” The jury’s verdict was mainly based on insufficient evidence, the disqualification of a key witness, and the prosecution’s failure to establish a coherent chain of criminal actions. At the same time, the civil settlement reflects the victim’s family’s desire for compensation and a form of justice, ensuring that the case continued to leave a lasting impact on public memory.