From police to death row, and then from death row to police, Du has gone through the most bumpy road in his life. Although Du has been rehabilitated, his painful experience has to be thought-provoking. A careful analysis of the whole process of Du's unjust case can be made from the following angles:
1. Distribution of burden of proof
The burden of proof is the pillar of litigation. Although the theory of burden of proof is developed from the civil field, the distribution of burden of proof in the criminal procedure field is a problem worthy of attention. Although there is no clear burden of proof for the prosecution in China, according to the third provision of Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Law of China, the defendant must be fully found guilty with clear facts and evidence. Otherwise, the people's court will make a verdict of innocence in the case of insufficient evidence, that is, the prosecution will bear the consequences of losing the case, which shows that China has recognized the burden of proof in public prosecution.
However, during the trial of Du's case, the presiding judge not only turned a blind eye to Du's defense, but also repeatedly asked the defendant Du to show evidence that he did not kill anyone. This serious and obvious violation of the principle of burden of proof and shifting the burden of proof to the criminal suspect is an important reason for the injustice of the case.
No matter which country is democratic and ruled by law, no one will be allowed to testify against himself, and everyone has the right to defense and silence. Moreover, in public prosecution cases, criminal suspects are generally under control, lawyers are in a weak position in the whole case process, and it is difficult for criminal suspects to find evidence. Therefore, in criminal proceedings, the burden of proof must be clearly borne by the public prosecution.
Second: the evidence prohibition rule.
Evidence prohibition rules include the prohibition of evidence acquisition and the prohibition of evidence use. Prohibition of evidence collection is an act or omission of the investigation organ in the process of evidence collection, while prohibition of evidence use means that evidence obtained in violation of the prohibition of evidence collection should be excluded from the lawsuit. This requires the exclusion of illegal evidence, and it is forbidden to extort confessions by torture, induce confessions or cheat confessions. Article 43 of China's newly revised Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that it is strictly forbidden to extort confessions by torture and collect evidence by threats, enticements, deception and other illegal methods. Article 46 stipulates that evidence is more important than confession, and the relevant judicial interpretation in China has also established the rule of excluding illegal evidence.
However, in the case of Du Yi, according to Du's statement, he was brutally tortured by investigators, which exceeded the physical and psychological endurance of human beings, and he was forced to admit that he had committed a crime under torture. Even in order to gain the judge's attention and trust, he turned out his torn clothes in front of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and hundreds of spectators to prove that he was tortured to confess his guilt, and that all his past confessions were forced. Unfortunately, these were ignored by the judge, and the evidence obtained by torture was legal and effective, which was fully used in the judgment of the case. It can be seen that the violation of the evidence prohibition rule is the main cause of unjust, false and wrong cases.
Three: oral evidence ability
Throughout China's legal tradition of more than 2,000 years, the ideas of "a confession for one crime" and "a verdict without a confession" have always been the mainstream guiding ideology of criminal trials. Even in the field of criminal proceedings in a modern society ruled by law, there is still the shadow of "emphasizing confession over evidence". Under the influence of this thought, in order to obtain confessions, investigators often treat criminal suspects and defendants in some abnormal or even extreme ways, which leads to extorting confessions by torture and frequent misjudgments by enemies. It is under this misconception that Du's case was extorted by torture, and the judge believed the defendant's confession. In the absence of a murder weapon and a "July 7th" pistol, Du only made a determination based on the identification and analysis report of the long-sleeved police uniform shirt, the shooting residue on the shirt sleeve, the attached soil and the soil on the vehicle that committed the crime, and the evidence was obviously insufficient. In this case of insufficient evidence, it is inevitable to close the case hastily, resulting in unjust cases.
Four: the source of evidence and processing ideas
In order to eliminate the social influence, some judges in our country try to close the case quickly, usually trusting their own perceptual knowledge, preconceived, violating the principle of presumption of innocence and procedural regulations, seeking evidence through confession, and then fabricating evidence to prove the confession, so as to solve the case with such an argument. In Du's case, it is very obvious that the police handling the case detained Du first, then refused to let him sleep for three days and three nights to explain the problem, then took a polygraph, then extorted a confession by torture, fabricated evidence to prove that there were footprints on the "brake pedal" and "accelerator pedal" at the scene, and finally prosecuted and finalized. A set of procedures violates the basic principles and requirements of criminal investigation and the principle of presumption of innocence. Although we can quickly close the case and find out the real murderer, it is also easy to cause unjust cases.
In short, from the lessons of Du's unjust case, it is not difficult to draw a conclusion: if the public security, procuratorate, court and other organs can abandon the wrong ideas of "going ahead", "emphasizing confession over evidence" and "determining the crime from confession", adhere to the principle of presumption of innocence, clarify the burden of proof, prohibit extorting confessions by torture, exclude illegal evidence, and follow the due process stipulated by law, unjust cases can be prevented before they happen, and the law can achieve greater justice.