The procedure of Li Qinghong's case streaked.

First, on the grounds of involving state secrets, the defendant Pan Lixin was tried in secret for the crime of sheltering underworld organizations and accepting bribes.

The defendant Pan Lixin was charged with three counts: the crime of harboring underworld organizations, the crime of deliberately revealing state secrets, and the crime of accepting bribes. Among them, the crime of sheltering underworld organizations is closely related to the crime of organizing and leading underworld organizations by the defendant Li Qinghong, and has nothing to do with the crime of intentionally revealing state secrets, so it must be tried in public. However, Xiaohe Court held a secret trial on the defendant Pan Lixin's crimes of harboring underworld organizations and accepting bribes on the grounds of involving state secrets. President Yang Dating is a scholar-type judge. Don't you know that the bullshit reason of Xiaohe Court is totally untenable? Dean Yang Wanming was deaf and dumb, and let Xiaohe court run naked, which had nothing to do with Dean Yang's professional knowledge, so that he almost got on the plane and went to the Supreme Court to find a first-class justice, Vice President Zhang Jun.

Second, the police officer was not allowed to testify in the illegal evidence exclusion procedure.

In this case, more than 20 defendants stated in court the situation of extorting confessions by torture when the police handled the case. 10 people pointed their finger at police officers Pan Lixin and Yang Tao. After the court initiated the procedure of excluding illegal evidence, the scar on the back of the defendant Mei's foot still existed after four years of prosecution and defense.

Faced with such irrefutable evidence, lawyers such as Yang Jinzhu and Chen Youxi urged Pan Lixin and Yang Tao to testify in court. At this point, the prosecutor issued a certificate from Guiyang Public Security Bureau as a shield. In the certificate, Guiyang Public Security Bureau stated two reasons why the police were not allowed to testify in court: First, all police officers handling cases handled cases according to law and handled cases in a civilized manner, and no one extorted confessions by torture; Second, the current witness protection system is not perfect. In order to avoid retaliation against the police and protect their personal safety, all police officers are not allowed to testify in court.

Xiaohe case has become a landmark case before the implementation of the new criminal procedure law next year, and the illegal evidence exclusion procedure has been formally written into the new criminal procedure law. However, public security bureaus all over the country have followed the example of Guiyang Public Security Bureau and produced such a piece of bullshit proof that the illegal evidence exclusion procedure of the new criminal procedure law has been completely abolished, making lawyers have martial arts and heroes useless. In this way, the national laws have completely become a child's play, which is particularly annoying, so he especially wants to fight with President Yang Dating.

Three, the court for more than a week, did not see a prosecution witness to testify in court.

On the first day when the prosecution presented the evidence, the defense lawyer strongly requested the prosecution witness to testify in court, and the presiding judge replied in court: "The collegial panel replied after studying." However, this research is far away and there is no news for more than a week.

Vice President Zhang Jun, a first-class judge of the Supreme Court, made a speech at the rotation training class for vice presidents of high and intermediate courts in the first phase (the third phase) of the national courts, accusing lawyers of being "unscrupulous", "nonsense" and "noisy", and also made a speech on the issue of witnesses appearing in court to testify.

Now, the relevant speech made by Vice President Zhang Jun, a first-class judge, in the article "Pressure of the Vice President of the Court" in the Economic Observer is as follows:

When talking about the implementation of the new criminal procedure law for witnesses to testify in court according to law, Zhang Jun said without hesitation: "What is the proportion of witnesses to testify in court now? That is 2% to 3%, no more than 5%. " When analyzing the reasons, Zhang Jun said that it is not that witnesses don't want to, dare to and can't appear in court, but that prosecutors and judges don't want witnesses to appear in court for fear of conflicts between witnesses and written testimony.

Zhang Jun specifically mentioned an ongoing case. "So far, no witnesses have appeared in court. This is also a well-known case in the country and the world. "

Zhang Jun hopes that this will attract the attention of courts at all levels. Because the failure of witnesses to appear in court and the low rate of appearing in court have always been a long-standing problem that puzzles the criminal judicial practice in China. It is also one of the key issues to be solved in this revision of the Criminal Procedure Law. He said that the concept of judges should keep up with the corresponding changes. "Otherwise, it is meaningless to just change the rules."

4. The public prosecutor didn't respond to the cross-examination opinions of the defenders at all, and the presiding judge tried illegally every day.

On the first day of the trial, the procedure is: the prosecutor gives evidence first, the defender expresses his own cross-examination opinions, the prosecutor expresses his own opinions on the cross-examination opinions of the defender, and the defender responds to the opinions of the prosecutor.

However, from the next day, the public prosecutor changed his way, and he only gave evidence and did not comment on the cross-examination opinions of the defenders. Make the defender confused, and the second King Kong can't touch his skull. According to common sense, the public prosecutor does not express his opinion on the cross-examination of the defender, that is, agrees with the cross-examination of the defender, but the public prosecutor has to add that the source of the evidence cited by the public prosecutor is legal, objective, true and relevant, and requests the presiding judge to adopt it. It's strange that there are so many rivers everywhere!