As a Lawyer, You Sent the Judge In?

Chapter 359: No evidence? Apply directly for judgment!

Chapter 359 No evidence? Apply directly for judgment!

In Wan Xiangdong’s statement, direct evidence is required.

According to his meaning, that is.

If Huang Xuemei does not explain the specific details of this case.

Then this case cannot prove that Huang Xuemei is a criminal.

But in fact, what the prosecutor adopted was side evidence.

That is, the source and destination of chemical poisons, as well as various side facts, to accuse them.

Su Bai raised his hand to indicate that he wanted to supplement his accusation, and after getting the consent of the presiding judge.

Su Bai looked at the defendant's lawyer's seat and the defendant's client.

“According to the statement of the lawyer appointed by the defendant, the confessions of Huang Xuemei and Zhu Yun’s roommates cannot be used as a condition for determining intentional subjectivity in this case.”

“The chemical poison that Huang Xuemei stole from the laboratory cannot be used as the main evidence for prosecution.”

“Then I would like to ask the defendant Huang Xuemei about this whole act.”

“Why did you steal the highly toxic chemicals from the laboratory?”

Huang Xuemei was silent for a few seconds, her eyes calm, without any panic.

“I stole the highly toxic chemicals from the laboratory because I wanted to do experiments.”

“Doing experiments? What experiments are you doing? Is there any finished product you can show?”

“No, I took the chemicals out of the laboratory and accidentally lost them on the way to campus.”

“I don’t know why I can’t find it.”

In response to Huang Xuemei's answer, Su Bai continued: "It was lost in your statement."

“But the surveillance on campus showed that you put the chemicals into your backpack. Through surveillance and time calculation, you brought the chemicals directly into the dormitory.”

“And...the corresponding chemical components were detected in Zhu Yun’s cups and toiletries.”

“How do you explain this?”

Facing Su Bai’s question, Huang Xuemei shook her head:

“I don’t know, and I don’t know what happened. The first time I returned to the dormitory, I saw that the chemicals in my schoolbag were missing.”

“To be honest, all the suspicions about poisoning are on me, but I didn’t do it.”

“I can’t explain this.”

“Is it because you don’t know how to explain it, or is it because you did it and you don’t want to admit it?”

Faced with Su Bai’s inquiry, Huang Xuemei retorted directly:

“This cannot be an injustice to me!”

“I don’t want to admit it, I just want to say that I didn’t do it.”

"Moreover."

“Is there any coincidence in this? There is definitely a coincidence.”

“Just because I took the chemical from the laboratory does not mean that I used the chemical to poison myself.”

“Perhaps someone else was jealous of Zhu Yun and put these things in her cups and toiletries.”

“You can’t just put this crime on me, right?”

"If there is evidence, I can plead guilty, but there is no evidence now!"

"What you said are all speculations, but there is no actual evidence to prove that I was the one who poisoned me."

"Although the relationship between Zhu Yun and I is not good, I also admit that I am a little jealous of her."

“But jealousy is jealousy, I can’t poison her just for this reason, right?”

“This makes absolutely no sense...”

"And the above evidence cannot prove that I was the one who poisoned the person."

“Did anyone see me poisoning Zhu Yun’s toiletries?”

"not at all!"

“So I think the questions you asked, Zhu Yun’s attorney, are not necessary for me.”

“I have not done these things, and I will not admit that I have done these things.”

“Presiding judge, I advocate for the defendant’s legal rights and request Zhu Yun’s attorney to stop questioning me.”

I have to say that Huang Xuemei responded very quickly, and her opposition measures were also very fierce.

From the point of view of the statement just made, Huang Xuemei’s statement makes some sense.

In criminal law, prosecutors and public prosecutors present relevant evidence, and criminal suspects cannot be allowed to prove their innocence.

Huang Xuemei’s statement just now is also based on the fact that she cannot prove her innocence on her own.

To put it bluntly—it is better to seize the key point that there is no direct evidence to refute.

It can be said.…

Huang Xuemei’s statement can be fully defended by herself.

Or.…

Huang Xuemei had already read the relevant provisions of the domestic criminal law before poisoning and was prepared to exonerate herself from the crime of poisoning.

after all.…

As a student of Beidou University, I learned certain legal knowledge very quickly.

Although it is said that one cannot be proficient, one can still understand the interpretation of a certain crime.

In fact.

Huang Xuemei had already prepared a way to deal with it when she first decided to poison.

Otherwise...it is impossible for the inspector to fail to investigate direct evidence.

It is also impossible for her to always prove her innocence during the interrogation by law enforcement and prosecutors.

Even if all suspicions of crime are pointed at her, she has expressed one point of view: innocence.

Why?

Because she also knew very well that if she did not plead guilty, she would have the possibility of being exonerated.

If you plead guilty, it is very likely that you will receive a suspended sentence.

After Huang Xuemei finished speaking, she glanced at Su Bai.

The two looked at each other.

Su Bai could see that there was an inexplicable and indescribable psychology in Huang Xuemei's eyes.

　　It seems that this trial cannot convict her.

Current clues and evidence, all suspicions point to Huang Xuemei.

But how can we judge without direct evidence?

Side evidence is that Huang Xuemei stole chemicals from the laboratory and brought them into the dormitory.

The whereabouts of the chemicals left behind, whether it was the poisoning carried out by Huang Xuemei.

There is no intuitive objective fact to prove this point. So is there any other way?

There are also some!

“Presiding judge, I do not agree with Huang Xuemei’s application to reject.”

“I did not infringe upon the defendant’s legal rights, so the defendant’s rejection of the application has no factual basis.”

On the bench seat, Sun Zhengping looked up at Su Bai and then at Huang Xuemei.

In fact...Sun Zhengping also knew it very well.

Judging from the current defense situation, it is difficult to accuse Huang Xuemei of committing a crime through direct evidence.

Especially when the defendant and the lawyer appointed by the defendant refuse to plead guilty.

And has been using direct evidence as a reason for evasion to dismiss the prosecution's charges.

but.…

Huang Xuemei’s application to Su Bai not to question her has any legal basis.

Can be rejected directly.

The hammer of law was struck, and Sun Zhengping spoke: "The defendant applied to reject the statement and inquiry of the lawyer appointed by the prosecution."

“The lawyer appointed by the prosecution did not violate any legal provisions during the questioning.”

“Therefore, the defendant’s application is rejected.”

“The prosecution has appointed a lawyer. Is there anything else you would like to make a statement?”

Facing the presiding judge’s question, Su Bai spoke:

“Yes, the presiding judge.”

“I would also like to ask the defendant, do you think you did not poison yourself, but now all the evidence points to you.”

“You refuse to plead guilty, don’t you?”

Huang Xuemei didn’t have much experience with the presiding judge’s rejection and said calmly:

“It’s not that I refused to plead guilty, but that I didn’t poison Zhu Yun at all.”

"OK."

Su Bai nodded and looked up at the judgment seat: "Presiding Judge."

“According to the current situation of this case, Huang Xuemei refuses to admit that she poisoned Zhu Yun.”

“But based on the confession of his roommate and the evidence currently available.”

“Our analysis of the current situation is as follows:”

“According to the confession of her roommate, Huang Xuemei once said that she wanted to kill Zhu Yun.”

"Whether this is a joke or not, it already shows Huang Xuemei's hostility towards Zhu Yun."

“There is another thing in this case that the prosecution has not stated.”

“That means Huang Xuemei and Zhu Yun submitted their positions to the same company.”

“Zhu Yun was admitted, but Huang Xuemei was not admitted, from this point of view.”

“Will Huang Xuemei have a deeper grudge against Zhu Yun?”

"definitely will!"

“Because this is what a normal person would think. If someone he hates gets his position, he will definitely have some complaints.”

“This is normal legal reasoning.”

“Another point is that not long after Zhu Yun was admitted, Huang Xuemei went to the laboratory and stole the chemical poison.”

“According to Huang Xuemei, she did it for her own experiment.”

“But Huang Xuemei did not specifically state what experiment to do or how to do it.”

“As a member of the laboratory, Huang Xuemei doesn’t know how harmful the experiments with highly toxic chemicals are?”

“Highly toxic chemicals can pose a huge threat to your health if you are not careful during experimental operations.”

“As a member of an institution of higher learning and a person in a laboratory, Huang Xuemei should know this very well.”

“Is it necessary to do experiments without the protection of the laboratory?”

“There is absolutely no need for this.”

“What’s more, if you want to conduct experiments privately, you can also apply to the school.”

“So from this point of view, the possibility of Huang Xuemei lying is huge.”

“Another point is that Huang Xuemei said that the highly toxic chemicals were lost by her.”

“The loss of highly toxic chemicals has a huge impact, and the school is likely to hold individuals accountable.”

“Huang Xuemei first stole highly toxic chemicals from the laboratory, and then stated that she had lost them…”

“She knew the effects of highly toxic chemicals and the dangers to personal physical harm. Why didn’t she search for them as soon as they were lost?”

“Or why not report it to the school?”

“Judging from the above, there are various logical problems in Huang Xuemei’s statement.”

“It cannot be confirmed from legal reasons or objective facts.”

“Its self-justifying statement cannot be objectively confirmed.”

"based on above."

“Whether it is from the objective facts or the subjective legal situation, it can be shown that Huang Xuemei stole the highly toxic chemicals in the laboratory not for experimental purposes.”

“It’s just an excuse in its own right.”

“In this regard, I apply for a judgment to reject Huang Xuemei’s statement.”

At the trial, although Huang Xuemei could not be allowed to prove that she had not committed any crime.

However, her confession may not be accepted by the court.

According to Huang Xuemei’s confession just now, she said she lost the chemicals she brought out from the laboratory?

Is it logical?

It does not conform to the relevant logic!

Relying on the proof of directness of time and monitoring from laboratory to dormitory.

It can be directly determined that the chemicals in Huang Xuemei’s bag were not lost, but were brought to the dormitory by Huang Xuemei.

As for Huang Xuemei...she can still insist that the chemicals are lost.

But she has no evidence.

So on this point of determination, the presiding judge can definitely determine that Huang Xuemei brought chemicals into the dormitory.