What are the common views on cross-examination of confessions in bribery cases?

1. What are the common views on cross-examination of confessions in bribery cases? The common evidence materials that the prosecution has defects in cross-examination are: (1) confessions obtained by investigators from defendants and their accomplices by illegal methods such as extorting confessions by torture, threats, inducement and deception, which violate Article 43 of the Criminal Procedure Law and Article 18 1 of the Opinions on Several Issues on Implementation issued by the Ministry of Public Security and the Supreme People's Court. Interrogation of deaf-mute suspects did not involve people familiar with deaf-mute gestures; When interrogating a criminal suspect who does not understand the local language, there is no interpreter; These all violate the provisions of Article 182 of the Procedural Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security. (3) There is no signature or fingerprint of the defendant (criminal suspect) at the place where the interrogation record is modified, corrected or altered, which violates Article 184 of the procedural regulations of the Ministry of Public Security. (4) The defense and counter-evidence of the defendant's confession in the investigation stage were not carefully checked in time and dealt with according to law, which violated the provisions of Article 168 of the Procedural Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security. We should clearly point out the illegality of the above-mentioned evidence obtained by extorting a confession by torture or threatening, luring, cheating and other illegal methods, and deny it as the basis for finalizing the case according to the provisions of Article 58 of the Interpretation of the Supreme Court. Second, cross-examine the confessions of the defendant and his accomplices in court. 1, cross-examine the defendant's statement in court. In the cross-examination of court trial, the defendant's confession can be divided into the following situations: First, the defendant's confession has always confessed to his own criminal facts, and the confession at the court trial is consistent with the confession at the investigation and prosecution stage, and there are other evidence materials to confirm each other; Second, only other circumstantial evidence proved that the defendant was guilty, and the defendant never admitted his guilt during the investigation and prosecution stage; Third, the confession changed greatly in the investigation and prosecution stage, and other circumstantial evidence materials were difficult to confirm. In view of the above three situations, defenders should adopt different methods in court cross-examination. In the first case, if the prosecution's allegations are true, the defender should perform his defense duties according to facts and laws, instead of cross-examining for the sake of cross-examination, and deliberately ask questions in the way of proof and cross-examination in the trial to achieve the apparent balance between the prosecution and the defense; In the second and third cases, the defender should seize the opportunity and make full use of the skills of questioning and cross-examination in court to achieve the goal of eliminating the false and retaining the true. When the defendant refuses to explain the crime charged in the indictment from beginning to end, as a defender, he must not give up asking questions or refuse to cross-examine just because there are evidence materials proving the defendant's guilt in other evidence materials provided by the prosecution. It should be noted that these circumstantial materials cannot be directly used as conviction evidence without cross-examination by the court. Therefore, the defender's duty is to make full use of the right of cross-examination given to the defender during the trial investigation and dig out the reasonable elements that the defendant refuses to explain. For example, if the defendant refuses to admit the fact that he participated in the affray, then it is necessary to ask the defendant whether there are other witnesses or circumstantial evidence to further prove whether there are other interests between the defendant and other witnesses and evidence to prove his participation in the affray. Only in this way can the truth of the case be made clear one by one through questioning and cross-examination in court, instead of not asking questions or even accusing the defendant of having a bad attitude of pleading guilty or asking the defendant to plead guilty at the cross-examination stage. Similarly, in the case of the defendant's retraction or unstable retraction, the defender should not only pay full attention to whether the defendant's retraction has reasonable elements, but also closely follow the relevant facts to further clarify the favorable elements of the defendant's retraction through inquiry and cross-examination. Especially when the defendant has confessed the facts of the crime in the past, but the confession is relatively unstable, the defender must fully grasp the right to ask questions and cross-examine in court, and fully explore the reasonable components of the defendant's confession and the inconsistencies between the original confession and the facts. 2. Cross-examine the confession of the accomplice in court. Because there is a certain interest relationship between the accessory and the defendant, the defender should be suspicious of his confession used to prove the defendant's guilt, in addition to being consistent with the defendant's confession. Especially when the defendant refuses to plead guilty and the accomplice proves that he is guilty, it is even more necessary to ask questions and cross-examine in court to fully expose the untrue side of the accomplice's confession. For example, in the same affray case, if an accomplice testifies against the defendant, we should make full use of court interrogation and cross-examination. Through interrogation and cross-examination, the confession of the accomplice is denied, and its contradictions are found from the confession of the accomplice, so as to seize the defense materials in favor of the defendant, and at the same time, the public prosecution organ can be required to reinforce the evidence. Therefore, its content is not to provide you with a specific model essay here. When general lawyers cross-examine confessions, they will cross-examine them from the following aspects: threats and inducements from staff, or questions about illegal procedures when making confessions. Cross-examination opinions can also be regarded as one of the defense skills of defense lawyers.