The confessions of witnesses Liang Shuxiang, Zhang Lizhen, Guo Pingkai and Yu Hongbin were also edited in the same way. Finally, the defense asked to edit Yu's testimony. The defendant's objection to the nature of the confession based on this video testimony will definitely fail.
Although the jury has a lot of testimony to see and hear the witness's reaction to the interrogation, especially in the case of witness and Yu's lengthy testimony, the defendant claims that there are technical problems that prevent the jury from observing the witness's behavior. However, as far as witness Yu Zhendong is concerned, these technical problems generally include short sentences omitted from the testimony, which were corrected by reading the testimony. These questions did not result in a plea for a mistrial.
Although the jury can see and hear the witness's reaction in the process of court review from many testimonies, especially the long testimony of two witnesses, Yu Zhendong and Yu Hongbin, the defendant still insists that due to technical problems, the jury did not see the attitude of the witness.
However, regarding the case of witness Yu Zhendong, these so-called technical problems only involve some short sentences omitted in the testimony, which have been corrected when reading the testimony; These questions are not enough for the defense to ask for a mistrial.
As mentioned in section A1above, according to Article 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in order to obtain relief based on these technical problems on appeal, the defendant must prove that there is obvious error. In view of the efforts made to correct these problems, the existence of these problems cannot be regarded as obvious mistakes. Even if these problems constitute obvious mistakes, the defendants can't prove that their substantive rights have been affected in the lengthy testimony, or they need to be corrected by revocation to maintain the fairness of the judicial process.
If the defendant wishes to obtain compensation on appeal on these technical grounds, he must prove that the judgment was obviously wrong as mentioned in Article 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as mentioned in section A 1 above. Although efforts have been made to correct these problems, they cannot be regarded as obvious mistakes. Even if these questions constitute mistakes, as far as this long testimony is concerned, the defendant cannot explain that his actual rights have been affected, or that the judgment needs to be revoked in order to safeguard the justice of the judicial process.
As for the defendant's claim that they were deprived of the opportunity to appeal against the government's failure to use video testimony as evidence, the proper procedure should be to seek to expand the record in the district court. The government pointed out that it would be able to provide all the testimony on disk because there were technical problems in reproducing the actual edited part played to the jury. At that time, the defense had no objection. The government is now trying to provide these CDs through its motion submitted at the same time to expand the record and provide CDs containing video testimony, and the relevant parts of them were shown to the jury at the trial.
As the government did not use video testimony as evidence in court, the defendants claimed that they were denied the opportunity of appeal and review. In this regard, the correct procedure should be to ask the local court to expand the recorded video testimony. The Government also pointed out that it was able to provide a CD-ROM recording of the complete confession, but due to technical problems, only the actual edited part was shown to the jury. However, the defendant did not raise any objection at that time. At present, the government has expanded these testimony records by applying at the same time, trying to provide CDs containing video testimony, and the relevant parts of the video have been played to the jury during the trial.
These records are complete testimony, including the part edited due to the district court's ruling on the disagreement between the two parties (reflected in the archived testimony records) and the part deleted as mentioned above, so that the defense can evaluate what the jury did not see or hear, and if necessary, seek permission to submit a supplementary briefing on the testimony. The added records show that in fact, the jury has ample opportunity to listen to the lengthy examination of the overturned witnesses and evaluate their credibility. Accepting these video testimonies is in line with the defendant's right to a fair trial.
These records are testimony, including the edited part ruled by the local court because of the opposition of both parties (reflected in the recorded testimony record) and the deleted part mentioned above, so the defense can evaluate what the jury did not see or hear; If necessary, you can seek approval for supplementary testimony. This extra record proves that during the long court review, the jury actually had enough opportunities to listen to the testimony of witnesses and evaluate their credibility. The adoption of these video testimonies is in line with the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Note: The mistakes in the original text have also been corrected for you. The article is too long, get extra points! !
English niurentuan