Tianda unjust case "Xu Jingxiang case"
March 15, 2005 is a memorable day for Xu Jingxiang, who is serving his sentence in Kaifeng West Hospital, the First Prison of Henan Province. On this day, the Luyi County Procuratorate of Henan Province, under the supervision of the Henan Provincial Procuratorate, read Xu Jingxiang a decision not to appeal, and Xu Jingxiang was released from prison and regained his freedom. At this point, the first innocent protest case in Henan Province finally settled.
Previously, during the Spring Festival this year, Xu Jingxiang, who was detained for 13 years, received a criminal ruling from the Provincial High Court. According to the ruling, the fact that the original judgment found the crime of robbery and theft was unclear, and it was decided to send it back to Luyi County Court for retrial. What deserves people's attention is that the Henan Provincial Procuratorate, which lodged a protest against this case, was not guilty of the protest.
Wearing old clothes bought at a stall, he became a suspect in a serial robbery.
To clarify the thinking of this innocent protest case, we have to start with the serial burglary case that shocked Henan Province four years ago.
199 1 After the Spring Festival, there were more than a dozen robberies in Yanghukou Township, Luyi County, Zhoukou City, Henan Province. The modus operandi is very similar: entering the room in the dead of night with masks, holding sharp knives, guns and iron bars, and robbing madly. Because the exploration work has not made great progress, the local people are in panic.
But soon, the appearance of a green wool vest made the case have a breakthrough "turning point". 1February, 1992, Wei, a villager from Xiaoqiao Village, Yanghukou Township, and Xu Jingxiang, a villager from Yanxuzhuang Village, were drinking together and found that Xu Jingxiang had taken off his coat, revealing a green wool vest. He recognized that this wool vest was knitted by his wife and sister, who was one of the victims of these dozens of robberies. This clue caught the attention of the police in Luyi County. The police immediately summoned Xu Jingxiang and put him in criminal detention on April 1 that year.
After being taken to the criminal police, Xu Jingxiang initially said that he did not know. But a few days later, he admitted: "This was done by me and people like Qinglong, Green Dragon and Black Dragon brought by Liang Xiaolong. The five of us have done several masked house robberies together."
1992 April 13, Xu Jingxiang was arrested by the Luyi County Procuratorate, and the serial robbery case was "solved".
Xu Jingxiang said that in fact, the key evidence, that is, the green wool vest that he wore on himself, was the old clothes that he and his fellow villagers bought in the autumn of 199 1. This defense was not confirmed until 1997 was reviewed by Henan Provincial Procuratorate. As for why he admitted burglary, Xu Jingxiang said it was the result of extorting a confession by torture. "The night I was arrested, several people from the Public Security Bureau tied me up, first hit my foot with a stick, and then stepped on my ankle with my foot in leather shoes, which made me unconscious. They tortured me for three days and nights, and they also used melted plastic sheets to drip on me, on my back and ass, which hurt terribly ... "So far, Xu Jingxiang's right ankle bone is still deformed.
Xu Jingxiang said that at that time, he had to accept the crime of "unwarranted" according to the instructions of the criminal police investigators.
Until now, the "several accomplices" Xu Jingxiang confessed have not been brought to justice. 1At the end of 992, the police arrested a man named "Liang Xiaolong" in Shandong, but "Liang Xiaolong" denied that he had robbed with Xu Jingxiang, not to mention the so-called "Three Dragons". Later, it was verified by the police that this "Liang Xiaolong" did work in Jining City, Shandong Province at the time of the serial burglary.
The police handling the case was suspected of committing a crime and the case was once again questioned.
After Xu Jingxiang was arrested, the case was handed over to the pre-trial unit of Luyi County Public Security Bureau for trial, and Li Chuangui, the second-level police inspector, was in charge of the case.
At that time, Li Chuangui carefully reviewed all the *** 15 1 page materials that found Xu Jingxiang guilty of theft, and found many problems. He believes that with the existing evidence, it is impossible to identify the fact that Xu Jingxiang robbed.
Xu Jingxiang shouted injustice at the first arraignment and denied his burglary.
Li Chuangui told his superiors that Xu Jingxiang's criminal facts could not be confirmed and the case could not be transferred to prosecution for the time being. He suggested that Liang Xiaolong and four other accomplices should be arrested as soon as possible.
Later, the Luyi County Public Security Bureau transferred Xu Jingxiang to the county procuratorate on suspicion of robbery. Luyi County Procuratorate and Zhoukou City Procuratorate Branch (now Zhoukou City Procuratorate) have returned for supplementary investigation seven times, but after four years and four months of supplementary investigation, Luyi County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Xu Jingxiang on 1996 12 13 without ascertaining the facts and coordinating with relevant departments.
After Xu Jingxiang was detained for nearly five years, Luyi County Court publicly heard Xu Jingxiang's burglary case. During the trial of the case, Xu Jingxiang shouted in court.
1On March 7, 1997, the Luyi County Court found Xu Jingxiang guilty of robbery and theft at first instance, and sentenced him to 15 years and one year's imprisonment respectively, and decided to combine them with 16 years' imprisonment.
After getting this result, Xu Jingxiang chose silence and was sent to the First Prison of Henan Province to serve his sentence. In this regard, he explained that he was threatened and was afraid of being "killed" in Luyi County Detention Center. He would appeal when he thought of prison.
On July 1993, Li Chuangui was reported to have deliberately transferred Xu Jingxiang's materials and concealed criminal evidence. In June of the same year 165438+ 10, Li Chuangui was prosecuted for allegedly bending the law for selfish ends. After hearing the case, Luyi County Court held that the accusation made by the procuratorate against Li Chuangui was unfounded and acquitted. Luyi County Procuratorate immediately protested, and Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment with 1995 on August 28th.
In June1997165438+10/0, Li Chuangui's case was transferred to Henan Provincial Procuratorate according to the trial supervision procedure. After carefully examining all the files of Li Chuangui's case, the Henan Provincial Procuratorate seized the files of Xu Jingxiang. Finally, not only did Li Chuangui not constitute a crime, but also that there were major problems in the robbery case that Xu Jingxiang did not appeal.
Since then, the case of Xu Jingxiang has surfaced.
13 After five trials, the defendant was released after protests.
On May 27th, 20001year, Zhoukou City Procuratorate, under the instruction of Henan Provincial Procuratorate, considered that Luyi County Court had made an error in the judgment of Xu Jingxiang's case and lodged a protest of innocence with Zhoukou City Intermediate Court.
On June 7th of the same year, 165438, Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court made a retrial decision on this case, instructing Luyi County Court to organize a collegiate bench to hold another hearing.
In April 2002, Luyi County Court upheld the original judgment. On May 8 of that year, Xu Jingxiang appealed, but on March 25, 2003, Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance ruling and upheld the original judgment.
/kloc-in October/June, Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court made two completely different decisions and rulings on the same fact and evidence: the first decision was that "Xu Jingxiang constituted a crime, the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient"; However, in the absence of new facts to be further ascertained and new evidence, the second instance ruled that "Xu Jingxiang's criminal facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive" to maintain the guilty verdict of the first instance. This is really puzzling.
It has been 13 years since the case of Xu Jingxiang was committed, and it has been 8 years since the Henan Provincial Procuratorate discovered the problem, but the case has not yet been finalized. On May 12, 2003, the Henan Provincial Procuratorate considered the case as a wrong case. In order to protect the legitimate interests of citizens, he protested not guilty and protested to the Henan Provincial High Court.
On June 16, 2004, the Henan Provincial High Court held a public hearing to hear the case of Xu Jingxiang taking bribes. Jiang Hansheng, the procurator of the Henan Provincial Procuratorate who undertook the case, believed that Xu Jingxiang and others had robbed the house eight times after being found by the court. So far, none of the so-called four accomplices has been found out; Sharp knives, guns, iron bars and other identified weapons have not been found; None of the 35 items found in Xu Jingxiang's home can be confirmed as stolen goods; Neither the confession of the defendant nor the facts stated by the victim can be consistent with each other. The so-called eight cases of burglary are crimes without evidence.
On June 5438+1October 10, 2005, the Henan Provincial High Court made a final ruling, revoked the guilty verdict of the courts of first and second instance on Xu Jingxiang, and sent it back to Luyi County Court for retrial on the grounds that the facts of Xu Jingxiang's robbery and theft were unclear. On March 15, 2005, under the supervision of Henan Provincial Procuratorate, Luyi County Procuratorate read Xu Jingxiang a decision of no great complaint, and Xu Jingxiang was released from Henan No.1 prison on the same day.
Defense lawyers reflect on Xu Jingxiang's case
As a legal aid worker, Tang, a lawyer of Henan Yatai Law Firm, is the defense lawyer of Xu Jingxiang's robbery and theft case. He believes that the procuratorial organ as the public prosecutor and the defense lawyer as the defendant were originally opposing sides, but now they are expressing the same opinion-Xu Jingxiang is not guilty, which is the first time in his lawyer career.
Lawyer Tang believes that Xu Jingxiang's case lasted 13 years, and the fifth trial of the third-level court failed to be final, which shows that there are certain problems in China's judicial trial.
According to the provisions of Articles 189 and 191 of the Criminal Procedure Law, one of the cases sent back for retrial is that the facts of the original judgment are unclear or the evidence is insufficient, and the other is that the trial by the court of first instance violates legal procedures. In Xu Jingxiang's case, both phenomena exist. This case violates the procedural provisions: if Xu Jingxiang's case is regarded as a series of burglary cases, according to the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation, if a serious criminal offence with such a bad nature can be sentenced to life imprisonment or more, it should be tried by the intermediate court, but it is not normal for Xu Jingxiang's case to be tried in the county court.
Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that if the evidence is insufficient and the defendant cannot be found guilty, he shall be acquitted. In the case of Xu Jingxiang, the procuratorial organ held that the fact that the defendant was found guilty by the court of first instance was unclear, and the so-called burglary was a crime without evidence, and there were doubts that could not be ruled out. If the evidence is still insufficient after the trial, the court should confirm his innocence and should not send him back for retrial. In this case, it is not in line with the criminal justice concept of "no doubt, no presumption of innocence" in the new criminal law.
There are serious violations of the law and overtime work in Xu Jingxiang's case. According to relevant legal procedures, the longest period from investigation to judgment of first instance shall not exceed 1 year and 6 months. However, from1April 1992 when Xu Jingxiang was arrested to1March 1997 when the Luyi County Court ruled in the first instance, the case lasted four years and zero months from prosecution to trial. What is the reason? Lawyer Tang believes that extended trial brings extended detention, which leads to the violation of the defendant's basic rights. These are all questions that we reflect on from this case.