From June 5438 to February 2020, in the first trial of the old case, the prosecution accused the defendant of committing four crimes of intentional homicide, kidnapping and robbery in Nanchang, Jiangxi, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, Changzhou, Jiangsu and Hefei, Anhui (handled separately).
With the whole picture and details of the case of Rong Zhi Sr. gradually presented to the public, the sentencing problem of Rong Zhi Sr. once became the focus of the case.
After the death sentence was pronounced in the first instance, Rong Zhi Sr appealed in court.
Old Rong Zhi is the principal offender.
The Nanchang Intermediate People's Court found through trial that the defendant Lao and Faziying (handled separately) were lovers. From 1996 to 1999, the two conspired to divide the work, and Lao acted as an escort in entertainment places to find the target of the crime. France and Britain committed violence and successively committed robbery, kidnapping and intentional homicide in Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province and Hefei City, Anhui Province. After the incident, old Rong Zhi absconded under the pseudonym of "Shirley" and was arrested and brought to justice by public security personnel on 2019165438+1October 28th.
After trial, the court held that the defendant Lao Rong Zhi and others deliberately and illegally deprived the victim of his life, and his behavior constituted the crime of intentional homicide; For the purpose of illegal possession, it constitutes robbery to rob the victim's property by violence or threat; Kidnapping the victim for the purpose of extorting property has constituted the crime of kidnapping. Old Rong Zhi played a major role in the joint crime of * * *. As the principal offender, he should be punished according to all the crimes he participated in. After Rong Zhi was brought to justice, he truthfully confessed the fact that he was kidnapped in Changzhou, which was a confession. Old Rong Zhi deliberately killed five people; Robbery caused one death, and the amount of robbery was huge, which had the plot of burglary; Kidnapping caused one death and the ransom was more than 70,000 yuan. The circumstances of the crime are particularly bad, the means are particularly cruel, the subjective viciousness is extremely deep, the personal danger and social harm are extremely serious, and the consequences and crimes are extremely serious, so they should be punished according to law. Although there is confession, it is not enough to punish lightly. Old Rong Zhi committed several crimes and should be punished according to law. The above judgment was made.
The handling method of another case in this case: Yu, the attorney of that year, told China that the old death sentence had been expected long ago. He believes that the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court has no problem in determining that it is always the principal offender, because both Lao and France and Britain are planning crimes and have a division of labor. Old Rong Zhi was responsible for luring the victim, and France and Britain killed him by violence. The essence of this kind of behavior is the same crime, although the division of labor is different, but they all belong to the active implementation of criminal acts, so they are all principals.
Regarding Lao's repentance, Yu believes that from the first trial and judgment, Lao has no attitude of confessing and repenting. During the trial, he denied conspiring with Fa Ying Ying, but claimed that he was intimidated by Fa Ying Ying. In addition, although he apologized to the families of the victims with tears, he once said, "You can say that I am not good, but you can't say that I am not kind." "I am willing to pay compensation, but I only have 30,000 yuan in deposit.
Yu _ said that although Lao has the plot of being frank and lenient, it is not enough to be given a lighter punishment. The law protects old Rong Zhi's litigation rights, but unless there is something wrong with the evidence, as a matter of fact, the probability of changing the sentence in the second instance is almost zero.
Lao Shengqiao, the old second brother, told China Newsweek that he had entrusted Wu Danhong, director of the Difficult Evidence Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law and a part-time lawyer of Beijing AIA Law Firm, as the old second-instance defense lawyer.
Regarding the first-instance judgment of an old case, Wu Danhong believes that according to Article 16 of the People's Jury Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if a criminal case with great social impact may be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years, life imprisonment or death penalty, it shall be conducted by a collegiate panel of seven people's jurors and judges. However, a three-member collegiate bench was adopted in the first instance of the case.
Wu Danhong introduced that he had previously accepted the entrustment of the family of the old Rong Zhi as a defense lawyer in the first instance, but failed. When choosing lawyers entrusted by family members and legal aid lawyers appointed by the court, priority should be given to lawyers entrusted by family members.
"Before the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the family of Lao Rong Zhi contacted me and hoped that I could represent the second instance of this case." Wu Danhong revealed that Rong Zhi's family members were "dissatisfied" with the legal aid lawyer, and they questioned whether he defended due diligence during the trial and whether illegal evidence was excluded.
As for the case itself, it is believed that the evidence in this case is mostly confessions, and the physical evidence and tools of committing crimes at that time have been lost, and the accomplices in the crime should have been executed. No matter whether the old Rong Zhi is a principal or an accessory, he doubts himself.
The problem of evidence identification in old cases
Regarding the conviction of Rong Zhi Sr, Jin Lin, the former prosecutor and lawyer of Beijing Shi Jing Law Firm, believes that the case has been going on for more than 20 years, and there are no survivors in other cases except Changzhou case. In addition, due to the long time of committing crimes, it is impossible to extract objective evidence. Therefore, the evidence that can confirm the role and criminal performance of old Rong Zhi depends on the confessions of France, Britain and Rong Zhi. In this case, the lack of evidence makes it difficult for Rong Zhi Sr. to determine whether he committed murder or not and whether he can be identified as the evidence of the principal offender, which is also a common problem faced by the old case.
"Whether the old Rong Zhi actively participated, whether he was able to establish a principal offender, whether he made an irreplaceable contribution to the criminal behavior of Fa Ying Ying and the criminal consequences that eventually led to the death of seven people, all need to return to the evidence of the case itself." Jin Lin said.
She analyzed that in the first case in Nanchang, the old confession at the time of the incident, the telephone line of the victim Xiong's family and the neighbor's family was cut off, which was her idea for France and Britain. She also mentioned in the confession that "it is better to burn this family". Go to Xiong's house twice to ask for money; In the second Wenzhou case, two escort girls met Lao, who cheated their trust and later went to Liang's residence. Judging from Rong Zhi's confession, she tied the victim with wires, cloth and other things, and was also responsible for taking money to inform France and Britain that she had succeeded. In the third case in Changzhou, Lao threatened Liu during his solitary detention, and the victim also confirmed that when Liu went to the designated place to pick up the victim's wife, Lao told Faying that he would kill the victim if he didn't come back on time. The victim's testimony shows that the reason why France and Britain gave up the injury behavior was that Liu's wife begged and was not present, and France and Britain gave up the killing behavior. This also proves from the side that the victim's life and death have nothing to do with old Rong Zhi; In the fourth case, Lao not only lured Yin to his residence, bound and guarded him, but also bought a freezer. After Lu was killed, he put it in the freezer and pushed the freezer to the second bedroom with Faziying. What's more, on Yin's note, the words "I'll die if I lose a penny" and "his accomplices will definitely let me die faster than that man just now" were added.
"These detailed evidences can prove that Rong Zhi Sr. actively made suggestions on the four charges and cooperated with France and Britain on the charges." Jin Lin believes that from these analysis, the public prosecution agency believes that there is a * * * conspiracy between Rong Zhi Sr. and Fa Ying Ying, and distinguishes the principal and the accessory with Fa Ying Ying, and is responsible for the deaths of the seven victims. There is no problem.
Jin Lin emphasized that as far as this case is concerned, according to the disclosure of the details of the trial in relevant reports, the public prosecution agency accused Rong Zhi Sr. and Ying Ying Fa of conspiring to commit the crimes of kidnapping, robbery and intentional homicide, actively targeting the criminal object in the crime, and providing intellectual and physical help for the criminal facts, and they were the principal offenders.
Whether it is appropriate to apply the death penalty to old Rong Zhi for immediate execution, Jin Lin thinks that the legitimacy of punishment includes not only the retribution basis of catering to the public's feelings of "good and evil are rewarded", but also the criminal policy requirements of crime prevention, among which the necessity of special prevention is an important consideration. Old Rong Zhi's performance of not breaking the law and committing crimes for more than 20 years proves that her personal danger is small, there is no possibility of committing crimes again, and the necessity of special prevention is low. Then, whether it is necessary to sentence him to death for immediate execution is a question worthy of consideration.
"Although China has not abolished the death penalty, it has always emphasized the cautious use of the death penalty." Jin Lin introduced that Article 48 of China's Criminal Law also stipulates that criminals who should be sentenced to death may be sentenced to death with a two-year suspension if they do not require immediate execution. Therefore, even if the crime of Rong Zhi Sr. is extremely serious and the death penalty is applied to her immediately, we should also consider her realistic performance during her more than 20 years of escape.
"Although Rong Zhi Sr. has repeatedly stressed that he wants to return to society, earn money to compensate the families of the victims, and even raise money for civil compensation, his objective performance undoubtedly lacks sincerity." Jin Lin believes that during the trial, Rong Zhi Sr repeatedly stressed that he was coerced by France and Britain and had to help him commit crimes. No matter why Rong Zhi Sr. chose to commit a crime with Fa Ying, he was an outlaw, but his objective role in specific crimes, his treatment of victims and his repentance after committing crimes were not in tears in court, but in the first 20 years. The court is not only the end and starting point of the defendant, but also the end and starting point of the victim and the victim's family.