A provincial law firm accepted the entrustment of the defendant Li in this case and appointed me as Li's defender to attend today's trial. After accepting the entrustment, the defender met with the defendant according to law and carefully reviewed the case materials. After analyzing the case, the defender believes that there are many procedural and substantive problems in this case, which is difficult to finalize. According to the facts and laws, we hereby put forward the following defense opinions:
1. There are serious procedural violations in the investigation stage of this case.
The victims in this case are policemen and defense team members of public security organs. Accordingly, the police station obviously has an interest in the parties to this case, and the investigators in this case are also policemen in our hospital, which obviously belongs to the situation of "having other relations with the parties to this case, which may affect the fair handling of the case" as stipulated in Item (4) of Article 28 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and should take the initiative to avoid it. If the investigators do not evade, the obtained materials cannot be used as evidence to determine the defendant's guilt.
Second, the defendant Li had no intention of obstructing official duties subjectively.
The subjective aspect of the crime of obstructing official duties must be intentional, that is, the perpetrator knows that the object of his infringement is the staff of state organs who are performing their duties according to law, and prevents them from performing their duties. That is, the actor knows that his behavior is enough to cause harmful results that hinder official duties, but hopes or lets such harmful results happen. If the actor doesn't know that the other party is a staff member of a state organ who is performing his duties according to law, or knows that it is not to hinder him from performing his duties but for other purposes, it can't constitute this crime.
Three, this case proves that the defendant Li constitutes a crime of obstruction of official duties.
1. The evidence of who "first" hit people is insufficient. It can be seen from today's trial and investigation volume (line X on page X of the investigation volume) that the police in this case first beat Liu in administrative law enforcement. According to the provisions of Article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the public security organ shall collect and obtain evidence of the criminal suspect's guilt or innocence, and the crime is light or heavy. Obviously, the investigation organ decided not to support the defendant Li's violent resistance to the law without collecting evidence fairly.
2. The evidence that the victim is a staff member of a state organ is insufficient. At present, there are only proof materials from the police station, but the police station has no personnel rights. The certification materials issued by it have no legal effect and cannot prove that the victim is a staff member of a state organ. In addition, the police and defense team members in this case are not officially established by the state, and their law enforcement actions are illegal in themselves.
To sum up, the first case is that the procedure in the investigation stage is illegal; Second, the defendant Li's behavior subjectively did not have the intention to hinder law enforcement officers from performing official duties. Although his behavior is improper, it does not constitute a crime; Third, it is difficult to identify the identity of the victim's state organ staff. Therefore, the defender believes that the defendant Li's behavior does not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of obstructing official duties. Please ask the collegial panel to acquit the defendant Li according to law.
Defender: I'm afraid the tiles will fall.
Published in a people's court on February 20, 2009.