Lawyer's character

Seeing this, Yun Qiao hurriedly took a few bottles of Arctic Ocean from the refrigerator in the corner and handed them to Du Yong and everyone: "There are still more in the refrigerator, everyone go and get them. Lawyer Du, moisten your throat before talking."

"Look, it's our Lawyer Yun. Lawyer Yun, do you still have any stock? I'm hungry." Zhou Ying said with a smile.

"There are all kinds of newly bought snacks in the cabinet over there." Seeing Zhou Ying rushing towards the cabinet next to the refrigerator like a hungry wolf, Yun Qiao immediately stretched her neck and reminded: "Save some for me, don't eat them all. .”

Seeing the two of them like this, everyone suppressed laughter. After Zhou Ying distributed the snacks to everyone, there was a sound of tearing the plastic packaging bags.

Du Yong drank Beibingyang, ate snacks, and cleared his throat: "Let me continue. In this case, the victim Hu Haidan strongly requested that Ge Xinggen be held criminally responsible for robbery. If the facts stated by Hu Haidan meet the characteristics of robbery, and naturally , complete, and can be confirmed by other evidence on record. Even if Ge Xinggen denies it, the judge will definitely confirm the criminal fact of robbery.

However, Hu Haidan's statement has some doubts and cannot be confirmed by other evidence, while Ge Xinggen's confession is relatively stable. In this case, the victim's statement is unconvincing.

Let’s first look at the statement of the victim Hu Haidan:

The victim Hu Haidan's statement about his robbery was inconsistent and obviously contradictory. Hu Haidan made six statements in total, three during the investigation stage and three during the trial stage.

During the investigation stage, the contradictions in the victim’s statement are reflected in:

1. The location of the crime was inconsistent. In her first statement, the crime took place on the avenue next to the shopping mall, but in her second statement, it was at the entrance of a kindergarten.

In order to verify the facts of the case, Cheng and I both went to the scene to have a look. The two locations were more than one kilometer apart. It was obvious that there were inconsistencies in the victim's statements.

2. The victim initially stated that Ge Xinggen left after "checking" her belongings, but the third time stated that Ge Xinggen watched Lan Shantai snatch her belongings.

3. The victim did not mention in her first statement that she was beaten by Lan Shantai’s knee on her abdomen, but she mentioned this in her second statement.

4. In the first statement, the victim stated that her bag was snatched away, but in the second statement, she said that the perpetrator first dragged her to a deserted place and then snatched her bag.

5. In her second statement, the victim stated that a man said there was writing inside her ring, but this was not mentioned in the previous statement.

Later, the victim’s attorney submitted three transcripts of the defendant’s statements, supplementing and changing his statements during the investigation phase:

The first transcript records: Two men took out the passbook from her bag and asked for the password. After she refused, the two men put the passbook back into her bag.

The second transcript records: Two men dragged her to a deserted place because they could not take off the ring from her hand. One man said that the ring was inherited from his family and there were words inside, so he asked her to take it off and return it. give him.

The third transcript records that two men pressed his abdomen hard and hit his forehead with a brick. His forehead was bruised and his head, waist and pelvic cavity were all injured.

We reviewed the evidence in the case and found that not only was the statement of the victim Hu Haidan not corroborated by other evidence, but there were also many contradictions with the evidence submitted by him. Specifically reflected in:

1. Hu Haidan claimed that his waist was injured at the time of the incident, but according to the medical records he submitted, he went to the hospital that day and complained that his waist was sore for more than a month and had worsened for two days. The doctor diagnosed that the pain in his waist was aggravated by exertion and was due to lumbar muscle strain. Therefore, the medical records cannot prove that his waist was injured due to this case.

2. Witness Nong Yinhua said that she and Hu Haidan reported the case to the public security organ together. She saw Hu Haidan's forehead being injured. Hu Haidan himself also said that there were bruises on his forehead at that time.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the two men informed the public security organs that their foreheads were injured when they reported the crime. The medical record of Hu Haidan's visit to the hospital on the afternoon of the incident did not record this situation, and there was no other evidence to confirm that Hu Haidan was injured on his forehead.

3. Although witness Nong Yinhua said that Hu Haidan was robbed and suffered injuries to his forehead and waist, the witness was not at the scene of the crime at the time and did not witness the incident. His testimony was all from Hu Haidan and was made during the review and prosecution stage. Testimonial transcript produced by Hu Haidan's litigation attorney. "Du Yong explained.

"Oh! It seems that there are indeed problems with the victim's statement, and there are many contradictions." Zhou Ying nodded.

"In addition, part of the statement made by the victim Hu Haidan is not in line with common sense in daily life. Specifically reflected in:

1. The time of the incident was around 11:30 in the morning. The incident occurred in a remote place where no one passed by. Hu Haidan said that he was dragged by two men on the road, but no one noticed him.

Moreover, Hu Haidan claimed during the investigation stage that his bag was thrown against the wall and was not taken away with other property. This does not conform to the characteristics of general robbery crimes.

2. If Hu Haidan suffered a robbery crime, there would generally be no plot where the perpetrator claimed that the victim's ring had writing on it. The perpetrator would indiscriminately rob all valuable items he could see.

This plot just shows that the purpose of the perpetrator's words is to trick the victim into taking off the ring from his hand. This is exactly the usual tactic in "throwing objects to defraud" cases.

3. Among the three Ge Xinggen trio, Lan Shantai and Wu Wanzhong have been sentenced for the crime of "throwing objects to defraud". It is more likely that the three will commit crimes again by using the same method.

4. Defendant Ge Xinggen’s confession is relatively stable. According to his confession, he and the other two perpetrators first obtained Hu Haidan's bank card password through fraud, and then secretly stole Hu Haidan's bank card, cash, mobile phone, ring and other property while Hu Haidan was not paying attention, and then used Hu Haidan's bank card Go to an ATM to withdraw money.

Ge Xinggen made a total of four confessions during the investigation, review and prosecution stages. The main contents of the confessions, including the method of crime, the number of people committing the crime, the tools of the crime, the object of the crime, the property involved and the amount of the crime, were basically the same.

And when we went to the detention center to meet him, Ge Xinggen explained why he put Hu Haidan's bag on the ground by the wall. He was mainly pretending to verify who the ring belonged to, so he temporarily placed the bag in a place where Hu Haidan could not easily take it away. , but Bao was watched by Hu Haidan at the time and did not escape her control.

Through the above evidence, the credibility of the victim Hu Haidan's statement is lower than that of the defendant Ge Xinggen. In this case, Ge Xinggen's confession should be accepted based on the principle of reliability of evidence.

Because the crime of robbery is a felony compared to the crime of theft and fraud, when there is doubt, accepting Ge Xinggen's confession is more consistent with the principle of "the doubt is in favor of the defendant".

Therefore, we believe that the defendant Ge Xinggen in this case should be charged with theft rather than robbery. "Du Yong continued to explain.