The presiding judge and judge:
Henan Yang Xia Law Firm accepted the entrustment of defendant Kong xx according to law and appointed me as the first-instance defender of defendant Kong xx. After interviewing the defendant for many times, consulting the case file and attending this trial, the defender pleaded not guilty to Kong xx for the crime of "trespassing on the house" in combination with relevant facts and laws. The specific defense opinions are as follows:
I Kong xx should not be the defendant in this case.
The name of Kong xx did not appear in the criminal investigation file with the case number: A 411628050002012080066. In addition, the name of Kong xx did not appear in the decision of Luyi County Public Security Bureau (20 12)No. 1529. Therefore, the decision to file a case can only prove that the case of illegal intrusion into the house was filed, but the criminal suspect in the case was not indicated, so Kong xx is not a criminal suspect. Therefore, Kong xx should not be the defendant in this case.
Second, there is evidence in the criminal investigation file that Kong xx is not at the crime scene.
On pages 3 1 to 35 of the criminal investigation file, Kong xx himself admitted that he did not take part in collecting dowry at X's home in Kong Ling. Wu's confession on pages 44-47 of the file also proves that Kong xx did not participate in the bride price of the X family, and that Kong xx was recovering from severe burns at home at that time. Files 1 17 to 120, 120 to 124, 125 to 128, and 138. In the file, from 129 to 132, Kong X's testimony, from 137 to 140, Zhao X 'an's testimony, from 14 1 to/kloc-. So Kong xx was not at the crime scene.
Three, the relevant records in the file can not be used as evidence.
There are 29 to 30 pages of interrogation records in the file. It is not clear from the written record which organ this transcript belongs to, so it cannot be used as evidence. The investigation record of Xu Xiaomin on pages 48 to 50 of the file is illegal in procedure, and there should be more than two investigators, so the investigation record cannot be used as evidence. From page 52 to page 54 of the file, we can't see which organ made the interrogation record of Xu Xiaomin, so it can't be used as evidence, so the relevant records in the file can't be used as evidence.
The statute of limitations of this case has expired.
According to the file, the case occurred on 1995 1 month 15, but the public security organ did not file a case and Xu Xiaomin did not report it to the public security organ. According to the provisions of China's criminal law, this case has passed the limitation of prosecution.
Verb (abbreviation for verb) This case is not a criminal case.
According to the file, the marriage dispute between X and Xu V in this case led to the X family pulling a dowry. After the incident, the public security organ did not file a case, which fully proved that the case was a civil case, not a criminal case. Kong Ling X authorized his mother Huang xx to go to her house to get her dowry back. Because X and her ex-husband Xu X were not separated from their father Xu X, Huang xx could not tell the ownership of the property and pulled back a part. This case belongs to property infringement in civil law at most, so it is not a criminal case.
The above defense opinions are for consideration and adoption by the collegial panel.
Defender: lawyer Liu Jianfeng.
2065438+March 2, 2004