Lawyer's character

"The defendant Deng Junshan will defend himself." The presiding judge's voice sounded.

"Presiding judge, judge: I was wronged. I really didn't kill anyone. They framed me..." At this point, Deng Junshan shed tears and choked.

How many people can laugh and talk in the face of death? It is better to die than to live. After hearing the prosecutor's suggestion, Deng Junshan couldn't bear it.

The presiding judge gave the defendant a few words of advice to prevent the defendant's excitement from affecting the proceedings of the trial, and then his voice sounded again: "The defendant's defender expressed his defense opinions."

"Presiding judge, judge: The defender believes that there are many doubts in the evidence in this case, which has not yet reached a certain and sufficient level, and the charges charged by the public prosecution cannot be established. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. The key evidence for finalizing this case is the statement of the victim Jiao Shangying, Deng Junshan’s confession, the wooden stick as the murder weapon taken from the crime scene, and the wooden stick and gloves taken from Deng Junshan’s home.

However, Jiao Shangying's statements were inconsistent, contradictory, and unreasonable. There were significant differences in key details with Deng Junshan's confession, making it impossible to corroborate each other.

2. There are contradictions between the circumstances found during the on-site investigation and the victim’s injuries reflected in the autopsy conclusion, and the relevant circumstances reflected in Jiao Shangying’s statement and Deng Junshan’s confession.

Deng Junshan confessed that he used pliers to cut off the wires on the wall, and the on-site investigation recorded that the wires were torn; Jiao Shangying mentioned in his later statement that after the murderer beat Deng Lu with a wooden stick, he then used a knife to stab Deng Lu. Lu was stabbed in the head, and the autopsy concluded that the wounds on Deng Lu's head and face were caused by blows with blunt instruments such as sticks. There was no record of sharp injuries on Deng Lu's body.

Therefore, the circumstances discovered during the on-site investigation and the conclusion of the corpse identification cannot be corroborated with Jiao Shangying's statement or Deng Junshan's confession. Not only cannot relevant doubts be eliminated, but the objectivity and probative power of Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession have been further reduced. . It can be seen that the key evidence for the finalization of this case is obviously insufficient.

3. The burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the public prosecution, and the defendant does not need to ‘prove himself innocent’.

The defender believes that the standard of proof for a verdict of acquittal is not the same as that for a verdict of guilty. As long as the charging evidence does not meet the standard of proof for a guilty verdict, in other words, as long as there is a possibility that the defendant is innocent, it means that the proof of guilt at least does not meet the standard. The defendant should be found innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the core evidence relied upon by the prosecution is Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession. The contents of these two pieces of evidence are inconsistent and contradictory in key details, making them unable to be corroborated. The situation reflected by other evidence on record is obviously contradictory to the two pieces of evidence and cannot serve as a reinforcement. Especially after the defendant Deng Junshan retracted his confession, the evidence in the entire case could not form a complete chain of evidence. The possibility of Deng Junshan's innocence was far greater than the possibility of guilt.

To sum up, the defender believes that the defendant Deng Junshan is not guilty. complete. "Fang Yi expressed his defense opinions. Everyone in the auditorium had their own thoughts and complex expressions.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions." The presiding judge stopped the pen in his hand and looked up at the prosecutor.

"Regarding the defense of the defender, the prosecutor expressed the following views:

The defendant Deng Junshan confessed that he had conflicts with Deng Lu over issues such as family separation and building a house, and he always held a grudge and eventually vented his anger and killed someone. Jiao Shangying, Deng Junhai and their neighbors also confirmed that there were conflicts between the two, which just supported Deng Junshan's confession. Therefore, the defendant in this case had an obvious motive for killing and his confession was reasonable.

In addition, according to Jiao Shangying, when the case occurred, she wanted to protect her son Deng Junshan. Later, her mentality of killing her relatives took over, and then she reported the defendant for murder and robbery. Her psychological process was reasonable to a certain extent. This leads to inconsistencies in its previous and later statements, which is also somewhat reasonable.

The authenticity of the evidence in this case cannot be denied because of the inconsistencies in Jiao Shangying's statements caused by his inner changes. complete. "The female prosecutor responded.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's opinions," the presiding judge said.

“Based on the prosecutor’s defense opinions and response, the defender issued the following defense opinions:

1. According to the defendant’s confession in court, his relationship with his father Deng Lu had been repaired as early as the birth of his son, and the relationship between father and son was still good before the incident.

According to Jiao Shangying's statement, the murderer demanded money from him on the night of the crime and robbed him of 3,600 yuan. According to this, the murderer had an obvious motive for robbing money and it was not a revenge killing.

In addition, the defendant had doubts about whether some domestic conflicts many years ago could motivate the defendant to kill his biological father.

2. Jiao Shangying’s act of “killing relatives for righteousness” is questionable.

According to the evidence in the case, there was indeed a conflict between Jiao Shangying and Deng Junhai and the defendant Deng Junshan over the redistribution of jujube trees and alimony. This statement is consistent with what Deng Junshan stated in court. Therefore, Jiao Shangying's act of "killing relatives for justice" is questionable, and the possibility of revenge cannot be ruled out.

3. The defendant's criminal motive cannot be used as an important basis for determining the objectivity and rationality of his confession.

Whether the defendant's criminal motive is reasonable is an important basis for determining the objectivity of his confession and whether reasonable doubt can be eliminated, and even the unreasonable motive is directly regarded as reasonable doubt that cannot be eliminated. The defender believes that this understanding is biased.

The motive is the criminal's psychological activity when committing the crime and is part of the facts of the case. It mainly relies on the defendant's confession. If the defendant deliberately conceals it, it will be difficult to accurately identify his criminal motive.

Therefore, whether the motive can be ascertained has no direct relationship with whether the case constitutes an "iron case" or whether the criminal facts are clear. As for whether the motive is reasonable, it is a conclusion drawn by the investigators from the perspective of ordinary people. It is highly subjective and cannot be used as a reasonable basis for suspicion.

It can be seen that the criminal motive has no direct impact on whether the evidence in the final decision is reliable and sufficient. "Fang Yi's response was based on the situation at the court hearing. The previous defense opinion was drafted by Cao Yongzheng and revised by Fang Yi. It can be seen that responding in court tests the lawyer's adaptability and professional ability, as well as his understanding of the case. Analytical and understanding skills.

After hearing Fang Yi's response, Cao Yongzheng admired Boss Fang very much. After the prosecutor responded, Boss Fang responded immediately, which showed his quick response and deep professional skills.

…

The trial of Deng Junshan's intentional homicide and robbery case started at nine o'clock in the morning and was not adjourned until 1:30. The collegial panel did not pronounce the verdict in court.

Deng Junshan's daughter-in-law Chen Xiaoling left the courtroom wiping tears. Outside the court gate, Fang Yi and Cao Yongzheng comforted her for a while before returning to the law firm. (End of chapter)