It was verified by Jiangbei District Procuratorate that: 1. In the process of serving as a defender, he lured and instigated Gong to fabricate the confession made by the public security organ to extort a confession by torture, and read the confession of his accomplice to him, instructing Gong to shirk his responsibility; 2. In order to make Gong's fabricated confession of extorting a confession by torture accepted by the court, he lured many witnesses to commit perjury and asked them to testify in court; 3. Instructing another defender, Wu Jiayou, to pay bribes to the public security organs, and perjury for Gong being tortured by the public security organs.
In my opinion, Article 306 of China's Criminal Law stipulates that in criminal proceedings, if an agent ad litem of a defender destroys or forges evidence, helps the parties to destroy or forge evidence, and threatens or induces witnesses to change their testimony of facts or commit perjury, it constitutes the crime of "defender forging evidence and obstructing testimony". Therefore, according to the above-mentioned three allegations of the procuratorate and some facts of the case disclosed by the media before, it is really difficult for lawyer Li Zhuang to constitute this crime.
1. Under the temptation, Gong Gangmo was instigated to make up false statements.
First of all, the facts are hard to ascertain. Whether the lawyer "induced" or "instigated" can only be proved by Gong's testimony or the audio and video recording of meeting Gong. Now Gong's lawyer's request for access to the video has not been approved, but how can we prove that Zhuang has induced or instigated "blinking" only based on Gong's allegations? Even if he did blink, could it be Gong's own romance or fantasy? Secondly, even if the defendant is really induced, it does not constitute this crime. It is common sense that the defendant is different from the witness, and inducing the defendant to retract his confession or make false statements is of course different from inducing the witness to commit perjury. In fact, it is an obligation for defense lawyers to advise the parties to admit or deny a certain fact. If this also constitutes a crime, then lawyers need to mobilize the defendant to plead guilty. Are such lawyers still like defenders? If the defendant refuses to plead guilty himself and the court finds that he did commit a crime, is it necessary to sentence another defendant to "perjury"? As for reading the confession of the co-defendant, it is not a crime. The defendant must cross-examine all the evidence in court. If the lawyer didn't read the evidence to him in advance, how could he cross-examine it in court? Thirdly, an application for injury identification was put forward, which further showed that he really believed that the confession was obtained by torture and did not intentionally instruct Gong to fabricate facts. Otherwise, wouldn't it be difficult for Zhuang Li to let an uninjured person do the injury appraisal?
Two. On inducing multiple witnesses to commit perjury.
If Zhuang Li really lures many witnesses to commit perjury, it really constitutes the behavior of "defenders obstructing testimony". But the key is when, where and how did he seduce those witnesses? The prosecution did not explain. On the contrary, according to the defender's lawyer, no witnesses have been seen on whether Gong was tortured to extract confessions, so there is no question of luring witnesses. According to the prosecution, the purpose of luring the witness to perjury is to convince the court that Gong was indeed tortured to extract a confession, so he only lured the witness to the police who participated in the trial or took care of him. According to the facts disclosed so far, we haven't seen which policemen Li Zhuang lured to take care of or interrogate Gong Gangmo.
About instructing my friend's lawyer to bribe the police to commit perjury.
"Bribery" is actually a way of seduction, called inducement. If you really instigate Wu Jiayou to bribe the police to commit perjury while knowing that Gong was not tortured, it certainly constitutes a crime. However, according to the facts disclosed in this case, firstly, if it is really believed that Gong was extorted by torture, there is no criminal intent; Secondly, if Li Zhuang didn't explicitly instruct my family which policeman to bribe, it wouldn't be a crime. At best, it can only be called "expression of intention". If a person shouts "I want to kill" without specifying the object, we can't call him a murderer. Third, this lawyer Wu Jiayou put 950,000 yuan in his pocket on the one hand, and publicly published a "repentance book" or "apology book" on the other. How credible is this testimony?
Four. Views on Gao Zicheng's three-point defense of innocence
According to reports, lawyers are interested in defending innocence for three reasons: first, there is no subjective motivation to falsify evidence and hinder testimony, and all their actions are only to defend Gong; Second, it is believed that Li Zhuang's falsification of evidence or obstruction of testimony is not true. Judging from the behavior of applying for Gong's injury appraisal, it shows that he does not want to falsify evidence; Third, Li Zhuang has not violated normal judicial activities. Now Gong Gangmo's case has not been heard, so it is far from violating the trial order of the court. Li Zhuang's behavior has no criminal object. In my opinion, it may be that the media's summary of lawyers' opinions is not comprehensive enough, or it may be that the time for expressing opinions is not clear enough. These three reasons are relatively thin. First of all, motive, criminal motive and purpose are not necessary elements of most crimes. A person's "noble" motive of "killing for the people" still constitutes a crime. Even if Zhuang Li is really only for defensive purposes, as long as he does falsify evidence or hinder testimony, he can't deny his crime. Secondly, whether there is any violation of the normal judicial order, "lawyer perjury" is a behavioral crime, not a consequential crime. As long as Zhuang Li really commits forgery or obstruction, and the circumstances are serious enough, it constitutes a crime, and there is no need to eventually cause some consequences. Gong's failure to appear in court can only show that there are no consequences, but the object of crime and the harmful result are not the same concept. Let's talk about behavior. It's ok to use Li Zhuang's application for injury identification to show that he didn't intentionally falsify evidence subjectively, but it's impossible to prove whether he has carried out some actions objectively.
Therefore, although I have heard about lawyers and believe in Gao's criminal defense experience, as far as the three defense reasons reported by the media are concerned, if Gao really wants to make a strong defense for his innocence, he still needs to think twice.