Duchang county sentenced Zhang Sanduo to be a teenager?

This case was a major intentional homicide 17 years ago. In view of the backward investigation technology at the time of the incident, Zhang San was unable to obtain supplementary evidence before he was brought to justice, so it was difficult to defend the case. Zhang San stated that the victim rushed over with a knife before shooting, and his shooting was based on defense. There is no evidence to prove this fact except his own statement. Zhang San once made a statement against himself, and Zhang San admitted to reading it many times in the transcript. Based on the above difficulties, lawyers Liu Bin and Wang Bingbing, as Zhang San's defense lawyers, made the following defense work for Zhang San's efforts to change his sentence and reduce his sentence:

(1) Carefully review the file and sort out the doubtful points of evidence.

In the second trial, after careful and repeated reading, lawyers Liu Bin and Wang Bingbing found that the court of first instance had omissions in determining the facts of the case, and did not recognize the key facts such as Zhang San's statement that the victim was killed and Zhang San's confrontation with the victim. The photos in the Criminal Science and Technology Appraisal Report reflect that the victim was shot not only in the back, but also in the front and side of his body, which can prove the fact that the victim turned and fled at the moment when Zhang San shot. In addition, the video of Zhang San being interrogated by the police is quite different from the interrogation transcript. What is not truthfully recorded in the transcript is precisely Zhang San's statement about whether he saw the victim turn around when shooting. Therefore, lawyers Liu Bin and Wang Bingbing submitted detailed written defense opinions to the court of second instance on the above doubts.

(2) Be good at using the principle of never suspecting a crime, and emphasize the burden of proof for Zhang San's intentional homicide.

During the trial, the prosecution and the defense had a heated debate on whether Zhang San had defensive facts. Lawyers Liu Bin and Wang Bingbing put forward doubts in this case closely around the principle that doubts are beneficial to the defendant, and further emphasized that the prosecution should bear the burden of proof. The specific reason is that Zhang San has no obligation to prove his innocence, and there were no witnesses at the time of the incident. In the case of the victim's death, Zhang San's statement, on-site inspection and expert opinion are the key evidence for the conviction of this case. According to the witness's statement, many people were watching before the police arrived at the scene, and the victim's wife had the victim carried back. The scene environment has already been destroyed by onlookers. As for the on-site inspection on record, the police only took photos of the general environment, ignoring many details, including taking footprints, examining and analyzing ground traces, and unable to verify whether Zhang San had a confrontation or fight with the victim. In addition, the police also missed the key material evidence, and the hook knife mentioned by the witness many times was not seized as material evidence in this case. Therefore, the suspicion of facts in this case is caused by the flaws and gross negligence of the public security in obtaining evidence, and the prosecution has no evidence to show that Zhang San does not have the possibility of defense. Based on the principle that doubt is beneficial to the defendant, Zhang San's story should be accepted.

(three) actively communicate with the judge to persuade the judge to reach a * * * understanding of the facts and evidence of the case.

During the trial of the second instance, lawyers Liu Bin and Wang Bingbing, relying on their professional skills and special sensitivity to criminal cases, found doubts and flaws in the case in time, made full use of their right of appeal and experience to communicate with the judge repeatedly, submitted a lie detector application to the judge, and applied for a lie detector test on Zhang San, so as to restore all the facts of the case. Although the collegial panel finally disagreed with Zhang San's polygraph, in the judgment of the second instance, the judge still recognized the key fact that "Zhang San confronted the victim briefly at close range, Zhang San held a gun, the victim held a knife, and Zhang San could not control himself because of nervousness". In the end, the court of second instance adopted the lawyer's opinion that the sentence was too heavy and changed Zhang San's sentence from death to life imprisonment.

conclusion and suggestion

In criminal defense, specialty is the most important, and details are the most important. Lawyers should pay more attention to the careful study of evidence and carefully examine every piece of evidence in the case. In the case of Zhang San's intentional homicide, although the second-instance judgment did not adopt the lawyer's defense view that Zhang San constituted self-defense, the court of second instance still sentenced Zhang San to life imprisonment without adding mitigating circumstances, which is enough to reflect that the judge of second instance definitely questioned whether Zhang San was a self-defense homicide.