The verdict that "a son-in-law family of three was killed by his father-in-law" was announced. What is the defense focus of this case?

Personally, I think there are only two main defense points in this case. The first is whether the letter of understanding is valid; The second question is whether there is an obvious motive for killing Zhang Zhijun.

Next, let's talk about it from these two angles (personal thinking, for reference only):

1. Letter of Understanding

In this case, the initial focus is whether the letter of understanding presented by the victim's family is valid. This is put in other circumstances, and there is no such problem. The reason for this problem in this case is that the only family member of the victim is the daughter of the murderer Zhang Zhijun, which means that the victim's family members are related to the murderer, which is why the victim's family members show the letter of understanding so easily. In cases with letters of understanding, the death penalty is basically not imposed, because the legal bottom line of our country is that the death penalty can be avoided as much as possible. However, because of the blood relationship, the letter of understanding presented by the victim's family was not recognized by the court, so it was useless for the defense lawyer to say anything.

2. Does the murderer have an obvious motive?

This question is more important than the letter of understanding. Because the murderer has no obvious motive, then this case is manslaughter; If the murderer has obvious motive, then this case is intentional homicide. The difference is two words, but the judgment is quite different. Therefore, Zhang Zhijun's lawyer has always stressed here that there is no obvious motive for killing Zhang Zhijun, because Zhang Zhijun immediately asked the residential property to call 120 to save people after the incident. But the victim's defense lawyer also argued that this so-called? Killing someone and apologizing? There is no obvious motive for killing. It's total nonsense. Finally, the court also agreed with the victim's defense lawyer that it was not important whether the murderer had an obvious motive for killing, and then the court found that the murderer had an obvious motive for killing.

Generally speaking, I personally think that the audience's defense focuses on these two points, because these two points are the only basis for determining the final trial result.