The rule of law weekend reporter Chen Xiaofa is from Beijing and Zhangzhou.
Working for many years, this is the first time that Beijing lawyer Xie Tongxiang has encountered such a novel way of death penalty review:
In the court of the local court, the prosecution and the defense sit together like a court session, with the judge in the middle and the witnesses present to accept questions from several parties.
No, this is not a trial, although it is very similar.
Yes, this is in the stage of death penalty review-a special procedure stage that was once considered to be the most difficult to disclose but life-threatening.
This is the most in-depth case in which both the prosecution and the defense participated in the death penalty review procedure since the Supreme Court resumed the right to review the death penalty, and it is also the first time that the Supreme Court has used this method to review the death penalty case.
This made Chen Guangzhong, a master of criminal procedure law, extremely excited: "I am very happy to see this attempt by the Supreme Court. This is the trend of future reform. The draft criminal procedure law has long been designed. "
Unprecedented procedure
Mr. and Mrs. Yang Jinming have been sitting in court for an hour. There was no hurry, no impatience or even confirmation that "this court is still open."
In fact, not to mention an hour, is to wait another day, a year, no matter how long, as long as there is hope, they are willing to wait.
A year ago, the Yang Jinming family has been waiting for the final verdict of fate since the first instance of Cangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced their son Yang Fangzhen to death.
17 On the afternoon of June 6, 2007, almost all the people who decided Yang Fangzhen's fate came to the court in Huanghua City, Hebei Province, except Yang Fangzhen. He is still being held in Haixing County Detention Center, waiting for his final news.
More than a year ago, the 23-year-old young man was accused of robbery. The procuratorate accused him of killing the driver while robbing a taxi and fleeing after dumping the body and burning the car.
The Cangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced Yang Fangzhen to death in the first instance, and the Hebei Provincial High Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance, and then submitted it to the Supreme Court for death penalty review.
According to the past practice, the Supreme Court will generally make a ruling on approving or not approving the death penalty after reading the examination paper in writing and interrogating the defendant. In case of difficult and complicated cases, the Supreme Court death penalty review judge will sometimes personally go to the local authorities to investigate and verify the case.
In the past practice, it is rare for procuratorates and lawyers to directly face the review of death penalty. Even after the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law this year, the Supreme Procuratorate can only "put forward opinions" to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court only needs to inform the Supreme Procuratorate of the results of the death penalty review. When making a request, the judge will listen to the opinions of the defense lawyer.
Therefore, Xie Tongxiang was surprised to receive a phone call from the Supreme Court Judge asking to participate in the evidence verification procedure attended by both the prosecution and the defense. He has worked for many years and done many death penalty review cases. He has never heard of such a procedure.
As Yang Fangzhen's defense lawyer, he has met with the Supreme Court judges before and talked about the case for nearly two hours. He clearly stated his views to the judge.
Equally surprised was the prosecutor who received the call.
"What procedure is applicable"
On the afternoon of June 17, the judge, the prosecution and the defense arrived at the scene and gathered in Huanghua City Court, but the procedure was delayed.
Yang Jinming heard what the prosecutor and the judge discussed. "The prosecutor said to the judge, you either approve or disapprove. How can this procedure still exist? I have never seen this procedure ... "At first, the prosecutor seemed to disagree with starting this procedure.
Claiming that he had never seen such a procedure, the prosecutor asked the judge: "What procedure is applicable? Is it a first-instance procedure or a second-instance procedure? "
The judge hesitated for a moment and answered him, "Nothing. It is neither the first trial nor the second trial. If you have questions about a few questions, check them out. "
The prosecutor thought for a long time and said nothing.
Yang Jinming suddenly felt that the air in the courtroom was a little tense. He heard the judge ask the prosecutor, "Will you appear in court or not?"
If the prosecutor can't explain clearly, he has to ask the leader for instructions. Turned around and went out. A few minutes later, he returned to the court: "The leader said that he would cooperate with the Supreme Court and make an exception."
After about an hour's running-in in the previous discussion, the plan was launched.
The witness summoned to court that day was Yang Fangzhen's roommate in the detention center. They were held in the same "cell". He is a new witness found by the defense, mainly to testify what he knows about Yang Fangzhen's torture.
After the witness arrived at the scene, the judge first verified his identity, and the prosecutor questioned his identity because he didn't bring his ID card. After the judge asked the witness, the defense lawyer asked him questions, and finally the prosecutor asked questions.
The witness testified that when he and Yang were held in the same "cell", he saw that Yang's legs and feet were swollen and he could not even wear shoes. He also saw many bruises on Yang's chest and lower back. Yang told him that he was beaten by the police when he was arraigned.
During cross-examination, the public prosecutor asked the witness to provide a written judgment or other written proof that he was detained in the same detention center at the same time.
The questioning of this witness lasted about half an hour.
According to Xie Tongxiang, another key witness in the case was summoned to testify, but when the judge summoned him again, he didn't answer the phone.
This key witness is the informant in the case of Yang Fangzhen. He claimed to have seen Yang after the crime and listened to Yang's statement about carjacking and murder. After breaking up with Yang, he called the police. However, according to Yang Fangzhen's statement when he met with his lawyer, this witness and he were at the crime scene at the same time, and * * * witnessed the killing process, and the real murderer was someone else.
This unprecedented special procedure of death penalty review involving trial, prosecution and defense ended.
The Supreme Court held a hearing in the death penalty review procedure, and the news spread rapidly in major media, becoming the hottest news in the field of criminal procedure law recently.
On the weekend of the rule of law, when the reporter asked the presiding judge of the Supreme Court to verify the matter, he said that he was unwilling to be interviewed, but he repeatedly stressed: "This is not a court session, it is by no means a court session!"
The presiding judge later responded to this special procedure through the defense lawyer: "(This is) the key evidence to verify the individual's conviction and sentencing, rather than the trial, which reflects the cautious attitude of the Supreme Court to death penalty cases, respects and protects human rights, and is very cautious about the death penalty."
Previously, this procedure was formulated in the draft proposal of the Criminal Procedure Law drafted by Chen Guangzhong, which can be used in cases involving major disputes or crimes or misdemeanors. This kind of hearing, which has the nature of litigation and openness, is helpful for the judge to understand the evidence and the case more truly, directly and comprehensively. The legal circle believes that this is a change from closed death penalty review to litigation death penalty review, which conforms to the trend of modern criminal procedure law.
He said that he was glad to see this innovative attempt by the Supreme Court.
The current Criminal Procedure Law 20 12 has just passed a major overhaul, in which the death penalty review procedure has made positive progress, such as stipulating that judges must interrogate defendants and listen to lawyers' opinions.
"It is very good to be able to go to the present law. We didn't expect to come to this step (that is, to turn the form of death penalty review into litigation). " Chen Guangzhong said.