? Authorized Agent: XXX, practicing lawyer of Jiangsu Huai 'an XXX Law Firm.
? Because of the rape case of defendants Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou, the complainant refused to accept the criminal ruling of a county people's court (20 15) No.32 criminal judgment and a city intermediate people's court (20 16) Huai 9.
? Requested items:
? 1. The criminal ruling of Huai Shao Xing Zi (No.32 of a county people's court (20 15) and No.9 of a city intermediate people's court (20 16) was revoked.
? 2. Defendants Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou were acquitted.
? Facts and reasons:
? First, the original trial found that the defendants Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou committed rape and gang raped the victim Zhang Moumou. The facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.
? The original trial lacked sufficient evidence to prove that Liu and Shao raped Zhang Moumou by violence, coercion or other means, and the theory of gang rape could not be established. The specific reasons are as follows:
? 1, the report materials of Zhang Moumou's relatives and the interrogation record of Zhang Moumou himself by the public security organ cannot prove that the two defendants raped Zhang Moumou. The verbal evidence is exaggerated and false, which makes people have reasonable doubts, and there is no other legal evidence to support it. It cannot convince people that Liu raped Zhang Moumou and Shao raped Zhang Moumou by violence, coercion or other means. Having sex with Zhang Moumou violated Zhang Moumou's will and violated Zhang Moumou's personal rights.
? 2. The confessions of the defendants Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou in the public security organs are contradictory, especially in the basic fact that who had sex with Zhang Moumou first and who had sex with Zhang Moumou later, the statements of the two defendants are completely opposite. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support it, the original first-instance judgment wrongly determined that Liu Mouxian and Shao Mouxian raped Zhang Moumou, and the second-instance judgment hastily upheld the first-instance judgment, which belongs to unclear basic facts.
? 3. The so-called Liu's face was bitten and the window glass was smashed in the confessions of the two defendants. There is no physical evidence or documentary evidence to prove that the public security organ has not collected and fixed the corresponding evidence. In the absence of other direct evidence to support it, whether there was a dispute between Liu and Zhang Moumou at the place where the crime occurred, because there was a dispute, it can't be concluded that Liu raped Zhang Moumou. Shao Moumou and Zhang Moumou are familiar with each other in advance, and there is a love relationship between them. Even if it is determined that Shao Moumou had sexual relations with Zhang Moumou, there is no evidence that Shao Moumou took violence, coercion or other methods, which went against Zhang Moumou's will. There is no evidence of forced adultery in the investigation file, and Shao's confession in court is the result of blind obedience to court interrogation at a young age.
? There is no "consultation" in advance, and there is no accomplice in the matter. . . . . .
? 5. The truth of this case is. . . . .
? Second, there is sufficient evidence to prove that Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou were tortured by the police handling the case during their detention, and specifically identified the situation of extorting confessions by torture. Verbal evidence obtained by illegal means cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence and should be excluded.
? 1, extorting confessions by torture and extorting confessions by torture in disguised form are almost common in investigation practice, but this phenomenon is becoming more and more hidden, and it is more and more difficult to obtain evidence, so it is difficult for criminal suspects and defendants in the weak side to save and obtain evidence. In view of this, Article 247 of the Criminal Law stipulates the crime of extorting confessions by torture and the crime of obtaining evidence by violence. Unwilling to testify against yourself is an essential requirement of human nature, but in this case, . .
? 2. The transcript of the interview between the attorney entrusted by the complainant and the defendants Liu Moumou and Shao Moumou in prison stated that the investigators of the investigation agency tortured the two defendants to extract confessions. . . . . This situation shows that the interrogation record belongs to illegal verbal evidence, which should be excluded and cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case.
? 3. The records in the investigation file show that the interrogation transcripts of the two defendants and the interrogation transcripts of the witnesses are all names filled in by the interrogators (interrogators) afterwards, and the handwriting filled in is completely inconsistent with the handwriting recorded in the transcripts, with obvious differences, including font, handwriting and ink color (the record of the transcripts is black, the signature filled in is blue and the handwriting is different). The complainant has reason to believe that these transcripts were not obtained by investigators, but were interrogated by others, who replaced their signatures. The subject of investigation and interrogation (interrogation) does not conform to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, and the source of evidence is illegal and should be excluded.
? 3. Shao was under the age of 18 when he was suspected of committing a crime, under the age of 18 when he filed a public prosecution trial, and just three days after his birthday at the trial. There was no legal representative and appointed defender at the trial, which violated legal procedures.
? 1. It is the contemporary criminal justice policy of our country to pay equal attention to combating crime and protecting human rights, and the lack of procedural guarantee is the biggest injustice. The Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on the Trial of Juvenile Criminal Cases" clearly stipulates that a defender shall be appointed and the legal representative of the minor shall be notified to appear in court and work accordingly. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law on prosecution and trial, the complainant believes that the trial should begin when a county people's court receives an indictment from a county people's procuratorate, not from the date of the trial. At the beginning of the trial of this case, the defendant Shao was under the age of 18. A county people's court informed Shao's legal representative to appear in court and appointed a defender for Shao. The trial should not be deliberately delayed until Shao reaches the age of 18. However, Shao Moumou just celebrated 18 birthday on the day of the trial of this case. The complainant has reason to believe that the county people's court deliberately chose to hold the trial just after Shao's birthday 18 in order to avoid the provisions of the law and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, thus damaging Shao's legitimate rights and interests. Because Shao was under the age of 18 before the trial, the court of first instance had to do a lot of work for him, such as informing the legal representative, appointing a defender, meeting Shao before the trial, conducting social investigations and so on. If the trial is held after Shao reaches the age of 18, these tasks can be omitted. The work of the court of first instance was neglected, and Shao's legitimate rights and interests were damaged. The court is the embodiment of national will, fairness and justice, and the court should protect the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant as much as possible, which is in line with the principle of criminal procedure that all countries in the world give priority to protecting the rights and interests of the defendant.
? 2. Because the judgment of the first instance violated the legal procedures, it damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant Shao Moumou. Shao Moumou, who was young, fearful, lonely and helpless, admitted the accusation in principle during the trial, cooperated with the court, and pleaded guilty with a good attitude, which brought trouble to the defendant Liu Moumou. A felony rape case like this, let alone a minor Shao Moumou, is an ordinary adult. In the face of powerful public security organs and solemn courts, he had to be nervous and afraid, and he could only "honestly confess and have no regrets." . . . Therefore, the first-instance judgment and the second-instance ruling violated legal procedures and should be revoked.
? To sum up, the first-instance judgment found that the facts were unclear, the main evidence was insufficient, and the legal procedures were violated. The second-instance judgment was neglected to review and was wrongly maintained. Please find out the facts, apply the law correctly, have a fair retrial, and decide that the defendants Liu and Shao are not guilty.
? I am here to convey
? City Intermediate People's Court
Complainant: XXX
? 20 17 April 18