Lawyer's character

Because the defendant Liang Yuncong retracted his confession in court, the evidence that directly proved the defendant's crime (the defendant's confession) was in an unstable state, and other evidence could not directly prove that the case was related to the defendant. Fang Yi felt a lot more relaxed. But even so, the lion still needs all his strength to fight the rabbit, and Fang Yi still dare not take it lightly.

During the cross-examination process, Fang Yi refuted the evidence in the case one by one, and Yu Wendong cooperated very tacitly.

"The facts of this case have been clearly investigated, the court investigation has ended, and now the court debate begins. The court debate mainly focuses on disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how the law should be applied based on the facts. The prosecutor will speak first," the presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: ...We believe that the defendant denied his previous confession in court, but was unable to provide a reasonable reason, and his denial cannot be established.

We believe that the facts of this case are clear and the evidence is conclusive. The defendant's behavior is extremely harmful to society and the nature of the behavior is extremely bad. We recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death. complete. "The prosecutor spoke.

"The defendant Liang Yuncong defended himself," the presiding judge said.

"I didn't kill Chu Ling, really..." Liang Yuncong repeatedly expressed his innocence to the presiding judge, but the presiding judge remained expressionless.

The presiding judge hears many criminal cases every year. Although not many confessions are reversed in court, it is not uncommon. He has long been used to it and is not surprised by it.

"The defendant's defender expressed his defense opinion." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

"Presiding judge, judge: The defender disagrees with the prosecutor's accusation. We believe that the existing evidence on record is not enough to prove the defendant's guilt and cannot eliminate reasonable doubt. The specific reasons are as follows:

According to the "Criminal Procedure Law", there are three standards for judging "evidence is reliable and sufficient": first, the facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence; second, the evidence on which the case is finalized has been verified to be true through legal procedures; third, comprehensive The evidence in the entire case has eliminated reasonable doubt on the facts found.

Based on the above standards, the defender believed that the evidence provided by the prosecutor in this case did not meet the standard of ‘reliable and sufficient evidence’:

1. In this case, except for the previous guilty confession made by the defendant Liang Yuncong, there is no clear physical evidence or verbal evidence.

According to the previous guilty confession made by the defendant Liang Yuncong, there should be Liang Yuncong's J spots on the scene or in the victim's body; there should also be the victim's blood stains on the sickle used by Liang Yuncong to cut the victim's neck and on the clothes he wore.

The evidence in the case shows that no J-spots on Liang Yuncong were found at the scene or in the victim's body, and no blood stains on the victim were found on the sickle at Liang Yuncong's home or on the clothes he wore.

Liang Yuncong always insisted in his guilty confession that he had sex during the rape. According to the defendant, there should be traces left on the scene and in the victim's body after he committed the crime. However, the prosecutor never mentioned this. We believe that this evidence is key. Sexual evidence, in the absence of such evidence, the case should not be arbitrarily concluded, at least not beyond reasonable doubt.

In addition, although there are many witnesses in this case, the testimony of these witnesses can only confirm the whereabouts of the victim before the crime and the discovery of the victim's body. None of them witnessed the crime with their own eyes, and there is no way to connect Liang Yuncong with this case.

2. Although defendant Liang Yuncong’s guilty confession is consistent with the location of the scene, some items left at the scene, the victim’s clothing and the state of the body, there are many doubts.

1. Liang Yuncong never confessed any hidden plot beyond the control of the investigation agency, and his detailed confession was inconsistent.

2. There are many contradictions between Liang Yuncong’s guilty confession and the on-site investigation records and corpse identification opinions.

(1) Liang Yuncong claimed that the victim was not wearing underwear at the time of the crime, but the on-site investigation showed that the victim was wearing underwear;

(2) Liang Yuncong claimed that he was sexually active during the rape, but the file did not reflect the detection of J spots in the victim’s body;

(3) Liang Yuncong claimed that he cut the victim's neck with a sickle, but there were two wounds on the victim's neck, one large and one small;

(4) Liang Yuncong claimed that he hit the victim’s crotch with a sickle, but the autopsy report did not show any contusion on that part of the victim’s body, and no DNA components were detected on the defendant’s sickle;

(5) Liang Yuncong claimed that he strangled the victim’s neck with a hemp rope and threw the hemp rope at the scene, but no hemp rope or other ropes were found at the scene;

(6) There were blood stains on the branches near the scene and traces of struggle on the ground, but Liang Yuncong did not make any confession about these circumstances.

3. Defendant Liang Yuncong’s guilty confession may have been obtained through illegal means.

Liang Yuncong retracted his confession in court and claimed that he did not rape or kill the victim, and that he was forced to fabricate his previous guilty confession because he could not sleep.

According to the materials in the volume, investigators interrogated Liang Yuncong seven times in total. The interrogation times are:

1. From 3:15 to 4:00 a.m. the day after he was arrested, the defendant Yun Cong denied committing the crime.

2. Two days later, between 20:10 and 21:20 in the evening, the defendant Liang Yuncong confessed to the fact that he raped and murdered.

3. Three days later, between 4:10 and 6:50 in the morning, the defendant Liang Yuncong confessed to the fact that he had raped and murdered him; the above three interrogations were all conducted at the police station.

4. From 15:00 to 18:30 on the afternoon of the 16th of the same month, the interrogation took place at the Criminal Police Brigade. The defendant’s confession was consistent with the previous one.

5. From 15:00 to 15:20 in the afternoon on the 18th of the same month, the interrogation took place at the Criminal Police Brigade, and Liang Yuncong was announced to be under criminal detention.

6. On the afternoon of the 20th of the same month, from 15:20 to 16:00, the interrogation took place at the detention center.

7. From 15:30 to 16:30 on the 15th of the following month, the interrogation location will be the detention center. During the last two interrogations, the defendant's confession was consistent with the previous one.

Judging from the above-mentioned interrogation times and locations, investigators conducted the first five interrogations of Liang Yuncong in places outside the detention center, and two of the interrogations took place in the early morning.

Although there is no direct evidence to prove that the relevant personnel in this case used illegal methods to collect evidence, the analysis of the time of the trial shows that Liang Yuncong's defense in court was relatively authentic, so the probative power of his guilty confession is low.

To sum up, the prosecutor accused the defendant Liang Yuncong of raping and killing the victim Chu Ling. Except for the guilty confession made by Liang Yuncong himself during the investigation stage, there is no other evidence that can directly prove that Liang Yuncong is related to this case.

However, Liang Yuncong recanted his confession during the trial, and the defense that he had obtained illegal evidence could not be completely ruled out. Therefore, the evidence in this case cannot be ruled out beyond reasonable doubt and did not meet the standards of clear facts and sufficient evidence.

The defender believes that there is insufficient evidence in this case to find the defendant Liang Yuncong guilty of murder and rape, and the facts are unclear. Please ask the court to rule the defendant not guilty according to law. complete. "Fang Yi expressed his defense opinion.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions." The presiding judge looked at the prosecutor's box.