Here is a template for your reference.
defence
Judge:
Hebei Tyco Law Firm accepted the entrustment of the relatives of the defendant Li in this case, and with Li's consent, entrusted our firm as Li's defender to participate in the trial of this case according to law. According to the facts ascertained in the investigation stage of our hospital and the relevant provisions of Chinese laws, we hereby put forward the following defense opinions for our reference when judging the case.
Defenders believe that the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, and the defendant Li does not constitute robbery. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant, perform the duties of defender, assist the court to correctly apply the law and make a fair judgment on the case, the following defense opinions are put forward according to the facts and laws, which are hoped to be adopted by the court.
1. There is no evidence to support that the defendant Li constitutes robbery.
Robbery is an act of forcibly seizing public or private property on the spot by violence, coercion or other means for the purpose of illegal possession. However, judging from all the evidence materials in this case and the facts ascertained in the court investigation stage, there is no direct evidence to prove that Li's behavior constitutes robbery.
Two, the defendant's behavior does not meet the constitutive requirements of robbery.
1, the defendant subjectively did not intend to rob.
First of all, Li Laiyongqing's purpose is not robbery. Li was found by another defendant. He said, "You go to Yongqing, and the elder sister calls him and asks him to call her personally." Li doesn't know who he hit, why he hit this person, and neither does Li, the woman who told them to hit people. Transcript of Sun's interrogation 17 Page: Sun said. . So I called Li Hezhou and asked them to go to Yongqing County with me. I asked them to follow me to Yongqing County to ask someone for money. The man owes some money. They asked me how much I could give them to get the money back. I told them how much money I would refund. Of course I didn't, but I won't lose us. From beginning to end, Li did not commit robbery subjectively, but only took the victim of this case to a nearby park.
Secondly, in the fighting event, Li also thought it was a scene. He is responsible for watching Yu, and the other two are responsible for carrying the victim into the car. On page 62 of Zhou's interrogation record: Q: Did you take anything from him when you stabbed him? A: No Q: How did the stabbed man get his wallet? Sun said that his sister gave it to him. I don't know how it came from. Sun's interrogation transcript is on pages 32 and 33: I said that Yu went to Dacheng the day after the murder and gave me a card package. Actually, that card package was not sent to me by Yu. When we hit the man, I picked up the card bag on the ground. I didn't tell Li and Zhou about the 900 yuan money in card pocket. I keep the money for myself. If I let them know, it will be too boring for me. So at that time, I didn't tell the truth to the two, just saying that Yu gave it to me. I didn't tell you the truth at that time, which is why I was afraid that Li and Zhou would know the truth.
Finally, during the trial, Sun confessed in court: I went to Dacheng to find me, and she said that someone owed her money and asked me to help her. This needs money. Sun's understanding is: help to ask for money.
The defender asked Sun in court whether he had spoken to Li, Zhou and Zhou. . . The money is ours and the card is surplus. " Sun replied: I can't remember clearly. When asked the same question about Li and Zhou, both said they had never told them about it.
2. The defendant did not commit robbery objectively.
Although the defendant used violence against the victim, the purpose was not to rob, but to take the victim to a nearby park and give it to Yu. And objectively, there is no act of forcibly robbing property. It can be seen from the interrogation transcripts and court confessions of the three defendants that there was no robbery.
Therefore, judging from the constitutive requirements of robbery, the defendant Li does not constitute robbery.
Li and his relatives have actively compensated the victims.
Although Li's behavior did not constitute robbery, it still caused harm to the victim's body. To this end, Li and his relatives have made financial compensation to the victim, and the victim has also issued a letter of understanding for Li, indicating that he understands Li's harmful behavior and will not be investigated for criminal responsibility.
It is not established for the public prosecution agency to accuse the defendant of robbery only by the victim's statement. Defenders believe that the public prosecution agency accused the defendant Li of committing robbery, with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The defendant should be declared innocent according to law.
law firm/office
lawyer
date month year