The court will not recognize this understanding if the results are explained in advance. The main reason is that the victim's wife and the murderer Zhang Zhijun are father and daughter and related by blood. In any case, with this relationship, the letter of understanding presented will inevitably make people disapprove. The defense lawyers of both sides first argued on this issue. The defendant thinks it is valid and the plaintiff thinks it is invalid, because this letter of understanding is the key point to decide whether to execute the death penalty. So the focus of the first wave of trials began. This last letter of understanding is definitely not recognized, because it is definitely problematic for the victim's wife to show it. If it was produced by the victim's family, it is hard to say that it was produced by the murderer's daughter.
2. Does the murderer have obvious motive?
Just like explaining the result in advance, the court held that the murderer had obvious motive. Because the killer's injury is fatal, every knife is fatal. However, the defendant's defense lawyer did not take this as a fact. The defendant's defense lawyer believes that the murderer asked the property to dial 12 after hurting the victim, so there is no obvious motive for killing. If there is an obvious motive for killing, he should not ask for calling 12 to save people after hurting others. The plaintiff's defense lawyer also raised objections to this. If there is no obvious motive for killing, why is the knife deadly? Why not call 12 to save people in person, but let the property personnel call 12 to save people. The plaintiff's defense lawyer raised these two points, and the court basically knew whether there was an obvious motive for killing, and it didn't need to look at it to know it existed.
Generally speaking, these are two controversial points in this case, because they can decide the life and death of the defendant. Therefore, both sides have raised objections to these two controversial points.