Complainant: Wu * *, male, born on June 23rd, 197 1, Han nationality, from Haikou City, Hainan Province, with high school education and no job, lives in Yusha Village, Haikou City. On June 5438+February 65438+July 2007, Haikou Intermediate People's Court sentenced him to fixed-term imprisonment 10 year for intentional injury and deprived him of political rights for one year. Now in Haikou No.2 Detention Center.
The complainant refused to accept the criminal judgment of Haikou Intermediate People's Court (2007) Haizhongfa Criminal Zi No.78 and filed a complaint.
Requested items:
1. The criminal judgment (2007) No.78 of Haifa Criminal Chu Zi of Haikou Intermediate People's Court of Hainan Province was revoked according to law;
2. The complainant was acquitted according to law.
Facts and reasons:
First, the final judgment found that the complainant:? Deliberately damaging the health of others and causing the victim to die after being rescued? . This is completely untrue.
(1) The witness identification transcripts provided by the public security organs were all made in natural light, but no one directly identified the complainant as the perpetrator of this case. Of the four witnesses involved in the judgment related to the complainant, Lin Zhiyou, Song Hongmei and Yan Fu were all there that night? When I saw the defendant Wu Xueli and the defendant Wu Xueli playing cards, I saw the defendant Wu Xueli! This inevitably raises questions: you can't tell who is the perpetrator during the day, but can all three people be in the dim light at night? Do you see it? The complainant's beating behavior? This obviously goes against common sense. The correct statement of the testimony of these three witnesses in the judgment should be? Then guess that the defendant is Wu Xueli, and guess that the defendant is Wu Xueli, how about that? When playing cards, the defendant Wu Xueli speculated.
(2) During the second trial of this case, the complainant provided two statements to the court successively, the contents of which were quite different. In his statement on July 29, 2007, he denied kicking the victim Huang Guiwen, which he had always held before. However, in the statement of June 365438+1October 3 1 day, 2007, he suddenly changed his attitude and admitted that he kicked the victim's leg while chasing the victim. The reason is that the complainant wrote this statement involuntarily, that is, after his defense lawyer wrote it in advance, the complainant only copied it. The evidence comes from two aspects: first, the lawyer's meeting record on May 9, 2008; Secondly, in essence, just kicking the thigh does not lead to the death of the victim. This common sense needs no explanation, and the complainant is naturally clear. Then why did the complainant? I am willing to pay compensation for Huang Guiwen's death. I hope your hospital will reduce my punishment according to law? And then what? Obviously, this is copied from others under the pressure of the outside world, which is not their true will at all.
Second, the final judgment? The testimonies of witnesses Lin Zhiyou, Hu Qiuping, Song Hongmei and Yan Fujun all confirmed that they (the complainants) chased and pushed the victim and hit him with more than two feet? Is wrong. In fact, the testimony of these four people is not enough to prove that the complainant kicked the victim.
(1) Has Lin Zhiyou, the witness recognized in the final judgment, met the complainant? Wear leather shoes? Kicked the victim in the back? Where was he then? Three meters away from them? The place where the complainant wore slippers proved that it was impossible to be 3 meters away from the crime scene; If so, what kind of shoes can the complainant wear to see clearly, which also shows that he saw the complainant? Kicked the victim in the back? Not credible.
(2) Hu Qiuping, the second witness confirmed in the final judgment, said? It seems that the fat man kicked that man, and they couldn't see the specific action clearly? ,? I didn't see it clearly when they played, but I saw it clearly when they played later? . Judging from the testimony of witness Hu Qiuping, he did not prove that the complainant kicked the victim. Besides, Hu Qiuping was standing? Chongqing restaurant? In front of the hotel. At that time, the light was too dim to see a lot of things clearly? .
(3) Song Hongmei is the third and key witness. Did she see it? Defendant Wu Xueli pushed the victim down and kicked him in the chest. This statement is untrue. Where is she? Fill in the report at Chongqing Hotel? Did you hear someone shout? Catch a thief? Looking out of the window, I saw a middle-aged man pushing down the thief and kicking him in the chest. The above is illogical. At that time, the position where she stood could only be? Chongqing restaurant? At the entrance of the hotel, when the lights are dim, it is about 100 meters away from the crime scene. She can clearly argue that one person kicked another person in the chest, which is obviously impossible, because at the same time and place, another witness, Hu Qiuping, said? I didn't notice any other features. It's too dark? I hit my body with my fist, but I can't see clearly where I hit it. ,
(4) The testimony of Yan Fujun, the third witness identified in the judgment, is also doubtful. Who did he say was chasing the thief and calling the police? The same person? And identify the latter? Wear a short-sleeved dark coat? Obviously, he mistook me for someone else, because the complainant was naked. The above proves that the testimony of these four witnesses lacks authenticity. Moreover, because the public security organs can't find these four people, the procuratorial organs and the courts can't verify their testimony, so they can't be directly used as the basis for finalizing the case.
Three, the legal documents of the procuratorate and the court have determined that the facts of this case are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. For the second supplementary investigation returned to the public security organ, the public security organ did not make any substantial supplement, but only did some irrelevant investigation and evidence collection.
(1) In the supplementary investigation items submitted to the public security organ on February 7, 2007, the procuratorate clearly stated the reasons for the return: after examination, our court found that the facts of this case were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, the most important of which was the first item: Can we rule out the possibility that the suspect who beat the victim to death was someone outside Wu Xueli? . Unfortunately, the public security organs did not provide evidence to rule out later, that is, the third person may also be the person who beat the victim to death.
(2) On April 23rd, 2007, among the supplementary investigation items issued by the procuratorate to the public security organs, it was raised again? Upon examination by our hospital, the facts of this case are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. For the same reason, the public security organs did not conduct further substantive investigation and evidence collection on the five items put forward by the inspection organs. This case? The facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient? The fact still exists. In this case, the procuratorate still brought a public prosecution to the court.
(3) In the letter from Haikou Intermediate People's Court to Haikou Municipal People's Procuratorate, it is also proposed? Our hospital believes that there are some problems in the facts and evidence of this case, which are the same as those identified by the public security organs, and the procuratorial organs have not made further supplementary verification. This case? There are certain problems? Still up in the air. Also in this case, the court still found the complainant guilty on the grounds of intentional injury.
To sum up, the judgment of Haikou Intermediate People's Court in this case is wrong, and the evidence that the plaintiff intentionally injured is insufficient and the facts are unclear. In view of this, according to the provisions of Article 203 of China's Criminal Procedure Law, I hereby appeal to your hospital, asking you to retry the case and fairly declare the complainant innocent.
I am here to convey
Haikou Intermediate People's Hospital
plaintiff
May 23(rd), 2008
Complainant of intentional injury (2) Complainant (defendant in the original trial): Zhang Moumou, male, Han nationality? Year? Month? Date of birth and place of residence?
The complainant refuses to accept Shishou People's Court (20 12). 00 145 criminal judgment on the case of suspected intentional injury, and now a complaint is filed according to law.
Requested items:
Request your hospital to revoke the criminal judgment of Shishou People's Court (20 12) E Shishou Chu Zi No. 00 145 according to the provisions of article 242nd of the criminal procedure law, the case was retried according to law and the complainant was acquitted.
Facts and reasons:
I. Basic facts of the case
On August 8th, 20 12, at 9: 00 am, the complainant asked an electrician to repair the shop because of a circuit problem. Due to maintenance, the victim Li Moumou not only disagreed, but also cursed the complainant and accused him of not turning off the switch. After the complainant had a dispute with Li Moumou, he told Li Moumou that he would go his own way in the future, and Li Moumou would not go to the complainant and the complainant would not go to Li Moumou. After listening to Wang, he rushed to the complainant's booth to fight with him and threatened? Lao tze insisted on going? So the complainant beat the kitchen knife in his hand at his booth and cut the thousand-layer cake twice, trying to scare Wang Moumou and others. Unexpectedly, Wang Moumou began to push and hit the complainant, and the complainant threw the knife next to his booth (roadside, note: the complainant's store was in the middle, Li Moumou's store was on the left, and the bakery store was on the right. The complainant was facing Li's store. Li was in his booth, with a knife in his right hand and a road on his right. 5 meters, the booth was placed outside the facade, about 2 meters away from the road, so the complainant threw away the knife, and the kitchen knife fell on the side of the road or on the booth), hitting Wang's back with a shelf with a thousand layers of cakes, and then Wang's family of six people beat the complainant and his wife. Wang hugged the complainant's head and Wang grabbed the complainant's testicles. The complainant's shirt and shorts were torn and his face was discolored. The complainant's lover Zhou Moumou wrestled with Li Moumou and his daughter and niece. After the complainant struggled to break free, he saw a smelly boy rushing from the opposite side. In desperation, the complainant picked up the handle of his own sun umbrella and threw it at the nearest Li Moumou. Then Master Gao stopped the complainant and saw Li sitting on the ground with his legs in his arms, and his legs were injured.
According to witnesses Chen and Zhou, there were at least two kitchen knives at the crime scene (Chen confessed that there were two, one with blood and one without blood, Zhou confessed that there were three, one with blood and two without blood, and the plaintiff's kitchen knife without blood).
Second, the court of first instance found that the facts of the case were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and there were many doubts.
1, as the key material evidence in this case? Chopper? The wound of the victim Li Moumou has no trace identification.
In this case, according to the confessions of witness Chen and complainant's wife Zhou, there were three knives at the crime scene, one with blood and the other two without blood. So, in this case, there are three doubts: (1) How did these three knives get to the scene? The complainant threw one knife at the scene by himself, so how did the other two knives get to the scene? There is no evidence to prove this in the original judgment, which is also a procedural error of the investigation organ. (2) Whose are these three knives? We can be sure that one of the knives belongs to Zhang Moumou, but whose are the other two knives? There is no evidence to prove such an important fact in the original judgment. (3) Which knife caused Li's leg injury? According to the facts of the case, there were three knives at the scene, only one of which was bloody, but the complainant's kitchen knife was bloodless. Obviously, Li's leg injury was not caused by the plaintiff's knife, so which knife hurt Li? In the original judgment, there was no comparison between the wound and the kitchen knife, and there was no trace identification. Obviously, it is not clear which knife caused Li's wound, but the original judgment arbitrarily thought that it was caused by the complainant's knife, which was so hasty.
In the original trial, the investigation, public prosecution and judicial organs did not have sufficient evidence to prove this part of the facts, which violated the investigation, review and prosecution procedures and the judgment was inconsistent with the facts. The case did not rule out reasonable doubt and failed to reach the only standard of proof for finding a crime.
2. The leg wound of the victim Li Moumou was not caused by the complainant.
According to the site investigation and the complainant's confession, the complainant's shop is in the middle, with Li's shop on the left and the cake shop on the right. The complainant was facing Li's shop, and Li was also in his booth. If the victim and witness Liu said that the plaintiff threw a kitchen knife at Li is true, then the kitchen knife should be left by Li's shop. According to witness Zhou's statement, he picked up a kitchen knife by the roadside and put it on the shelf of the cake shop. According to this statement, the kitchen knife should have been on the complainant's side at that time. It is reasonable for Zhou to pick it up and put it on the shelf of the cake shop next to him. This further shows that the complainant did not throw the kitchen knife at Li Moumou, but just threw it next to his booth. If, according to the victim, Zhou picked up the kitchen knife at Li's side, then bypassed the complainant's shop and put it on the shelf of the cake shop, is this reasonable? Obviously, the victim's statement is inconsistent with the facts and is suspected of perjury.
3. The complainant also gave the knife to Li Moumou, which was unreasonable.
According to the facts of this case, when Wang pushed the complainant and fought with him, the complainant threw away the kitchen knife and fought with Wang. At this time, Li was selling vegetables at his booth, but there was no dispute with the complainant. What reason does he have to throw the kitchen knife at Li Moumou? Is this reasonable? According to common sense, the complainant should directly return the knife to Wang Moumou. Moreover, in the whole process, the complainant has been fighting with Wang and his son and has no time to contact Li. How could his injuries be caused by the complainant's knife?
At the same time, in this case, the complainant had thrown away the kitchen knife before fighting with Wang Moumou, and did not throw it away again in the subsequent fight. If the victims Li Moumou and Wang's father and son are true, Li Moumou should have been injured before the fight began. After he was so badly hurt, he didn't even know it, but he continued to participate in the fight as if nothing had happened. Is this reasonable? Since he was injured before the fight, why didn't all the interrogation transcripts in this case mention Li's leg injury during the fight? Since he was injured before playing, why did Li sit on the ground and shout after playing? This series of doubts were not clearly verified by the original investigation, public prosecution and judicial organs, and they were rashly convicted for dereliction of duty and perverting the law.
4. The evidence of the original judgment is insufficient and the probative force is insufficient.
1. It is determined that the facts of this case mainly depend on the testimony of witnesses, and due to the lack of other evidence, it is impossible to objectively restore the truth.
(1) According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, attention should be paid to evidence and investigation when determining the facts of a case. In this case, the facts of the case are only based on the testimony of witnesses, and there is no other material evidence to support it. As we all know, witness testimony has great randomness and subjectivity, which is easily influenced by external factors such as witness's memory and description, thus affecting the objectivity of witness testimony. For the complainant in this case, whether it constitutes a crime has a great influence on his future life and destiny. Therefore, it not only violates the provisions of the criminal procedure law, but also violates the basic legal principle of people-oriented.
(2) The witnesses in this case, Wang Moumou and Wang, are influential people in this case and have strong legal relations with the victims in this case. Their testimony cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case alone. Witness Chen's testimony is contradictory. On the one hand, he said that he didn't see clearly where the knife was cut on the victim; On the other hand, he also said that the victim's leg injury was caused by the complainant throwing a knife, which is obviously contradictory. At the same time, at the trial of this case, all the witnesses who can prove the facts of the case did not appear in court for cross-examination by the public prosecutor, the defendant and the defender. It is so hasty to rely on only a few written witness statements to determine the facts of the complainant's crime.
(3) The plaintiff in this case never admitted that he had hurt the victim's leg. According to the complainant's statement, when Wang rushed to fight with the complainant, he threw the kitchen knife on the side of the road instead of throwing it at the victim Li Moumou, only when Li Moumou shouted? Chopped someone? At that time, the complainant found that Li had a leg injury, and the complainant only had? Think? The victim's injury was caused by his umbrella, not by admission. Moreover, when the complainant was interrogated by the public security organs, he also asked the police handling the case: Was the injury suffered by Li Moumou a knife injury or an umbrella injury? Because the police officer told him it was a knife wound, we can see how surprised and puzzled he was about Li's injury, which further proves that he didn't hurt Li.
Three, the original judgment found that the evidence of facts is illegal and should be excluded.
1, the complainant's interrogation record is to extract confessions by torture and induce confessions, which should be excluded.
The complainant was interrogated by the public security organs for six hours. During this period, the complainant asked the investigators to send him to the hospital for treatment because testicular pain was unbearable. Despite the complainant's entreaties, the investigators never agreed. During the interrogation, the complainant told the public security organ what happened, but the director of the police station, Tang Moumou, thought that the complainant was lying and told the complainant that both Wang and Li Moumou had identified the complainant as the perpetrator and told him not to quibble. But the complainant still told the interrogators that he didn't hurt Li with a knife, and Director Tang shouted angrily? Why not drag it to the interrogation room and cuff it? , the complainant as a simple person, how to bear such threats. Afterwards, the investigator asked the complainant to sign the printed interrogation record, but the interrogation record was completely different from his statement. Before signing, the complainant reported the situation to the police handling the case and asked for a new interrogation record, but the police handling the case refused. The complainant refused to sign, but director Tang knocked on the complainant's head with his hand and threatened? If you are dishonest, you will be sent directly to the detention center to kill you, and you can go out if you sign it? . Faced with the threats, intimidation and temptation of these vicious investigators, the complainant was very afraid that he would never leave and even be killed. In desperation, he had to sign against his will, thinking that nothing would happen again. How did the investigator know that he would continue to hold the complainant accountable?
At the same time, the interrogation record of witness Chen Moumou was prepared by investigators in advance, and Chen Moumou was found in the middle of the night and asked for signature. Chen made it clear that the contents contained in the transcript were untrue and refused to sign. The investigator then threatened Chen, as a simple and timid ordinary person, how could he be threatened? Under pressure, he had to sign the written record.
According to Articles 50 and 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the investigation organ shall collect evidence according to legal procedures, and shall not extort confessions by torture, induce confessions or threaten witnesses to commit perjury. The evidence collected in this way shall not be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case and shall be excluded. Therefore, the confession of the above-mentioned complainant and the testimony of the witness Chen should be excluded and cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case.
2. The sources and forms of interrogation and interrogation transcripts based on by the court of first instance are illegal and should be excluded.
According to the provisions of Articles 120, 124 and 125 of the Criminal Procedure Law, when the investigation organ interrogates the criminal suspect, witness and victim, the investigator shall sign the interrogation record and interrogation record. Meanwhile, Article 82 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Supreme Court? If the interrogation record has the following defects, it can be adopted after correction or reasonable explanation; If it is impossible to make corrections or make reasonable explanations, it shall not be used as the basis for finalizing the case: (1) interrogation time, interrogators, record takers, legal representatives, etc. There are errors or contradictions in the interrogation record; (2) The interrogators did not sign; (3) The transcript of the first interrogation fails to record the relevant rights and legal provisions of the interrogated person. However, the interrogation and interrogation record as evidence in this case were not signed by the investigators. Obviously, the source and form of evidence are illegal, and the investigation and public prosecution organs have not made any corrections or explanations. Therefore, the complainant's confession record cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case and should be excluded.
4. The complainant has new evidence to prove that the victim's injury was not caused by the complainant.
(1) According to the new testimony of witness Chen Mou, the witness testimony he provided to the public security organ in the investigation stage was prepared by the investigation organ in advance, and Chen Mou was found to sign it in the middle of the night for confirmation. Witness Chen had no choice but to sign, and the evidence was obviously suspected of forgery. The new testimony clearly stated that the complainant did throw a kitchen knife at that time, but it did not hurt Li Moumou. The kitchen knife should be picked up by Zhou and put on the shelf of the cake shop.
(2) The testimony provided by witnesses Wang Momei and Fan Mouwen proves that the complainant did throw the knife at the time of the incident, but he did not throw the knife at the victim Li Moumou and did not hurt Li Moumou. Li was not injured at the scene, but the complainant just threw a knife and fought with Wang and his son.
(3) According to the testimony of Yang Moumou, a witness on the spot, at the time of the crime, he was buying thousands of cakes in the street and saw the complainant fighting with Wang Moumou, but he didn't see the complainant holding a kitchen knife to hurt people. The complainant's kitchen knife didn't hurt anyone, there was no blood at the crime scene, and there was no bleeding in Li's leg.
(4) According to witness Zeng Moumou, at the time of the incident, he bought spicy food at Li Moumou's booth and saw Wang Moumou fighting fiercely with the complainant. The complainant threw away the kitchen knife and wrestled with Wang Moumou. Li Moumou rushed over and overturned the complainant's booth, and then Li Moumou wrestled with the complainant's lover. After the two were pulled apart, Li Moumou ran angrily, cut his leg with his own knife, and then shouted to kill someone. Therefore, according to these four new evidences, the complainant did not hurt Li Moumou with a knife, and the original judgment found that his guilt was inconsistent with the facts, which was obviously an unjust case.
To sum up, according to Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law? In sentencing all cases, we should attach importance to evidence, investigation and research, and we should not trust confessions. If only the defendant confesses and there is no other evidence, the defendant cannot be found guilty and punished; If there is no confession from the defendant and the evidence is true and sufficient, the defendant may be found guilty and punished. If the evidence is true and sufficient, the following conditions shall be met: (1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are proved by evidence; (2) The evidence on which the final decision is based has been verified by legal procedures; (3) According to the evidence of the whole case, the ascertained facts have been beyond reasonable doubt. There are many doubts in this case, and the evidence is contradictory. The evidence itself is illegal and reasonable doubt cannot be ruled out. According to the standard of evidence in criminal cases, all evidence to confirm the facts of a case must point to a unique result, otherwise it cannot be regarded as a crime. At the same time, according to the legal principle of respecting and guaranteeing human rights in criminal proceedings, anyone who has no evidence or insufficient evidence shall not be deemed to constitute a crime. Moreover, in this case, there is sufficient evidence to prove the complainant's innocence. Accordingly, the complainant requests your hospital to revoke the original judgment, reopen the case and declare the complainant innocent according to the provisions of Article 242nd of the Criminal Procedure Law.
I am here to convey
Shishou people's court
Complainant: Zhang Moumou.
Authorized Agent: Wu Facai.
Hubei sanding lawyer office
201September 4 12