Is Zhang Koukou insane?
I. Zhang Koukou's second-instance judgment
Zhang Koukou's case was pronounced in the second instance, and the Shaanxi Higher People's Court upheld the original judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced Zhang Koukou to death for intentional homicide.
There is no disagreement between the prosecution and the defense on Zhang Koukou's crime of intentional homicide, but there are differences in sentencing, mainly focusing on Zhang Koukou's criminal responsibility when committing the crime.
Before the trial of the second instance, Zhang Koukou's family found three domestic forensic experts on mental illness to prove whether he had mental disorder when he committed the crime. The conclusion is that Zhang Koukou suffers from acute stress disorder and has the ability to limit criminal responsibility when committing crimes.
Lawyer Yin, the defender, issued the full text of the Review Opinion of Forensic Psychiatrists, saying that the review date was from February 24 to March 18. According to the (international) classification of mental and behavioral disorders 10, Zhang Koukou met the diagnostic criteria of paranoid personality disorder.
In the opinion of public prosecution, the prosecutor of the second instance analyzed and demonstrated that Zhang Koukou's family had no history of mental illness, and was familiar with Zhang Koukou's witness testimony, the process of committing crimes and the performance after being brought to justice. Zhang Koukou's ability to identify and control is complete, which is unnecessary and should not be evaluated for mental illness. This paper refutes the examination opinions of three domestic forensic psychiatrists entrusted by Zhang Koukou's family from the aspects of form, basis, object, scope and procedure. The conclusion is that the conclusion drawn from the documentary evidence review is unscientific and cannot be used as the basis for the defender to apply for starting psychiatric appraisal.
Second, the evidence standard of Zhang Koukou's case
According to Article 5 of the Provisions on Evidence in Handling Death Penalty Cases, in handling death penalty cases, the defendant's criminal facts must be true and sufficient. The evidence is true and sufficient: (1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are proved by evidence; (2) The evidence of each final judgment has been verified by legal procedures; (3) There is no contradiction between evidence and evidence or between evidence and facts of the case, or the contradiction can be reasonably eliminated; (4) In the same criminal case, the position and role of the defendant have been ascertained; (5) The process of ascertaining the facts of a case according to the evidence conforms to the laws of logic and experience, and the conclusion drawn from the evidence is the only one.
In handling death penalty cases, the following facts must be proved to be true and sufficient: (1) the occurrence of the alleged criminal facts; (two) the time, place, means and consequences of the defendant's criminal act; (3) affecting the status of the defendant's conviction; (4) The defendant has criminal responsibility; (5) The defendant is guilty; (six) whether * * * and the defendant's position and role in the crime of * * *; (7) The fact that the defendant was given a heavier punishment.
It can be seen that the defendant's criminal responsibility ability in death penalty cases must be ascertained, the evidence must be really sufficient, and reasonable doubt must be ruled out.
The modern concept of rule of law requires that the handling of death penalty cases should be based on excluding reasonable doubts. What is reasonable doubt? The chain of evidence cannot reach a unique conclusion, and there are other possibilities for conviction and sentencing.
Third, the strategy of Zhang Koukou defender
As a defender of Zhang Koukou, as a professional legal person, it is impossible not to know that the review opinions issued by three experts are flawed in form and content, but the real purpose of the defender is not to let the court of second instance directly adopt the conclusions of the review opinions, but to apply to the court for psychiatric appraisal of Zhang Koukou.
The defender's logic is that since the court says that the form and content of the defense's evidence do not meet the requirements of criminal cases, please ask the court to entrust a professional psychiatric appraisal institution to do it according to formal standards.
The conclusion of Zhang Koukou's psychiatric review has been made public. People sympathize with Zhang Koukou, but now I hear that Zhang Koukou may be mentally ill. For a time, public opinion almost completely turned to Zhang Koukou. In today's judicial environment, the influence of public opinion on the judiciary is real. The defender's skill is very clever. No matter how the prosecution answers, we can't ignore the basic fact that the prosecution doesn't have the qualification and technology of psychiatric expertise, which is not enough to overturn and deny the expert opinion of the defense from a professional level. This is a beautiful preconceived move, which will produce such a view in the eyes of the public. Experts said that Zhang Kou was mentally ill, but prosecutors and judges said no, and then directly sentenced Zhang Kou to death. Even people with common sense of criminal law will think so. Although there are opinions on the Internet that support the public prosecution of the second instance and do not support the voice of applying for psychiatric appraisal, it is really reluctant and cannot stand scrutiny.
In fact, the ultimate goal of defense is not to change the sentencing of Zhang Koukou in the second instance. The defense is actually very clear that the Hanzhong Intermediate People's Court must have reported to the Shaanxi Provincial High Court in handling such a major death penalty case, and the Shaanxi Provincial High Court must have given guidance to the Hanzhong Intermediate People's Court. In fact, the second trial and the first trial are the same thing, and the second trial cannot directly overturn the judgment of the court of first instance. So what is the ultimate goal of defense? The answer should attract the attention of the death penalty review court in the Supreme People's Court.
Fourth, Zhang Koukou's pre-judgment of death penalty approval
Since the power of death penalty review was reverted to the Supreme People's Court, the policy of the Supreme Law on death penalty cases has determined whether it can be killed or not, and the evidence is in doubt and resolutely refused to be approved. On the one hand, it is to prevent the recurrence of unjust, false and misjudged cases that have been exploding in recent years, on the other hand, it is indeed an objective requirement for the progress of judicial ideas and the progress of the times.
When reviewing Zhang Koukou's death penalty case, the Supreme People's Court will definitely see the review opinions of three experts provided by the defense in the case file. The defense made by the prosecution can not refute the defense from the professional and technical level of psychiatric appraisal, which will inevitably question Zhang Koukou's mental state and criminal responsibility ability when committing the crime, and the case with such high attention must be convinced by evidence. It is an inevitable choice not to approve the death penalty, and at the same time, Shaanxi High Court is required to make a psychiatric appraisal of Zhang Koukou.
In this way, there will be a chance to buckle and the purpose of defense will be achieved.
Professional matters should be handed over to professional people, and the prosecution only needs to find a professional appraisal institution to conduct psychiatric appraisal on Zhang Koukou. Because there have been three expert comments before, even if it is overturned, it will go through many twists and turns. If not, it will leave a tail for the case and be questioned by the public.
Five, the procuratorial organs should reflect.
Even if the death penalty is finally approved by the Supreme Law, the public has preconceived it. The prosecution used unprofessional knowledge to deny the review opinions made by psychiatrists, which was unprofessional and not rigorous. From a technical point of view, the case was not beautiful.
If the Supreme Law does not approve the death penalty, then a problem arises. The box is over there. The defender has been asking about Zhang Koukou's criminal responsibility from beginning to end. Why didn't the prosecution conduct psychiatric appraisal on Zhang Koukou during the review and prosecution stage or the first trial stage? But ultimately under the supervision of the Supreme Law. Whether the prosecution has deviated from the objective and fair position that the legal person should have, and even has the suspicion of irresponsible disregard for human life.
Conclusion of intransitive verbs
Everyone is very concerned about the final result of the Zhang Koukou case. This article is just some speculation and deduction I made as a criminal legal worker, which is purely superficial academic discussion.