Author: "Rule of Law Weekend" reporter Chen Xiao Rule of Law Weekend reporter Chen Xiao Source: Legal Daily Rule of Law Weekend Legal Daily Rule of Law Weekend
People in the legal profession believe that this is a closed review of the death penalty The change to the direction of litigation-style death penalty review is in line with the conceptual direction of modern criminal procedure law
From Beijing and Cangzhou
Having practiced law for many years,
In the district court In the court, the prosecution and defense sat together as if in court, with the judge in the middle and several witnesses present for questioning.
No, this is not a court session, although it is very tangible.
Yes, this is the death penalty review stage - in the past, it was considered the most difficult stage of special procedures to be made public, but at this stage, human life is at stake.
This is the most public appearance of the prosecution and defense participating in the death penalty review process since the death penalty review power was transferred to the Supreme Court. It is also the first time that the Supreme Court has reviewed a death penalty case in this way.
This made Chen Guangzhong, a leading figure in criminal procedure law, extremely excited: "I am very happy to see this attempt by the Supreme Court. This is the trend of future reform, and it was already planned in the proposed draft of the Criminal Procedure Law that year. alright".
Pioneering plan
Yang Jinming and his wife have been sitting in the court for an hour. There was no urging, no impatience, or even confirmation that "the court cannot be opened yet."
In fact, let alone an hour, it means waiting for another day or a year, no matter how long it takes, as long as there is still hope of survival, they are willing to wait.
A year ago, since the Cangzhou City Intermediate Court issued the first-instance death sentence against his son Yang Fangzhen, Yang Jinming’s family has been waiting for the final judgment of fate.
On the afternoon of June 17, at the Huanghua City Court in Hebei Province, almost everyone who decided Yang Fangzhen’s fate came, but Yang Fangzhen did not show up. He was still detained in the Haixing County Detention Center, waiting hard. Final words.
More than a year ago, 23-year-old Yang Fangzhen was accused by the procuratorate of killing the driver during a taxi robbery, throwing the body and burning the car before escaping, on suspicion of robbery.
The Cangzhou Intermediate Court sentenced Yang Fangzhen to death in the first instance. The Hebei Provincial High Court upheld the original verdict in the second instance and reported it to the Supreme Court for review of the death penalty.
According to past practice, the Supreme Court will make a ruling to approve or disapprove the death penalty after reviewing the case file in writing and interrogating the defendant. For difficult and complex cases, review judges of the Supreme Court sometimes go to the local area for investigation and verification.
In the past, death penalty reviews rarely saw prosecutors and lawyers face to face. Even after the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law this year, the Supreme People's Procuratorate "can" submit opinions to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court only needs to inform the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the results of the death penalty review. The judge will hear the defense attorney's opinion only when the defense attorney requests it.
So, when he received a call from the Supreme Court judge informing him to participate in the evidence verification process involving both the prosecution and the defense, Xie Tongxiang was very surprised. He had been practicing for many years and handled so many death penalty review cases, but he had never heard of it. Said there is such a program.
As Yang Fangzhen’s defense lawyer, he had previously met with the Supreme Court judge, talked about the case for nearly two hours, and clearly expressed his opinions to the judge.
The prosecutor who received the call was also surprised.
"What procedures are applicable?"
On the afternoon of June 17, the judge, prosecution and defense arrived at the Huanghua City Court, but the procedure has not started yet.
Yang Jinming heard what the prosecutor and the judge had been discussing. "The prosecutor said to the judge, you either approve it or you don't approve it. Why is there this procedure? I have never seen this procedure..." At first, prosecutors seemed reluctant to start the process.
The prosecutor claimed that he had never seen such a procedure and pressed the judge: "What procedure is applicable? Is it the first-instance procedure or the second-instance procedure?
The judge thought for a moment and replied: " This is not any program. It is neither a first instance nor a second instance proceeding. These are just a few issues worth debating and verifying. "
The prosecutor thought for a long time and said nothing.
Yang Jinming suddenly felt that the air in the courtroom was a little tense. He heard the judge ask the prosecutor: "Will you participate or not?" "
The prosecutor was unclear and asked for instructions from the leader. He turned around and walked out. A few minutes later, he walked into the court again: "The leader said, we will cooperate with the work of the Supreme Court and make an exception.
"
After about an hour of rehearsal, the proceedings were able to begin.
The witness summoned to court that day was Yang Fangzhen's roommate in the detention center, and the two were locked in the same "cell" "He is a new witness invited by the defense to prove what he learned about Yang Fangzhen's forced confession.
After the witness arrived in court, the judge first verified his identity. Since he did not bring ID card, the prosecutor questioned his identity.
After the judge questioned the witness, the defense lawyer asked the witness, and finally the prosecutor testified that he. When he was imprisoned in the same "cell" as Yang, he saw that Yang's legs and feet were swollen and he couldn't even put on his shoes. He also saw red and purple bruises on Yang's chest, waist and other parts. Yang told him , was beaten by the police during the interrogation.
During the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the witness to provide a verdict or other written proof to prove that he was detained in the same detention center at the same time.
The questioning of this witness lasted for more than half an hour.
According to Xie Tongxiang, another key witness in the case was summoned to testify, but when the judge summoned him again, he stopped. Answer the phone.
This key witness is an informant in the Yang Fangzhen case. He claimed to have met Yang Fangzhen after the incident, heard Yang Fangzhen describe the carjacking and murder, and claimed that he reported the incident after breaking up with Yang Fangzhen. Police. But according to Yang Fangzhen when he met with his lawyer, this witness was at the scene of the crime at the same time and witnessed the murder together. The real culprit was someone else.
This is an unprecedented incident. The trial, in which both the prosecution and the defense participated, ended in this way.
"This is not a trial"
The Supreme Court held a hearing in the death penalty review procedure, and the news quickly spread to all parties. The news spread in the big media and became the hottest news in the criminal justice industry recently.
When the reporter of "Legal Weekly" asked the presiding judge of the Supreme Court to review the case, he expressed his unwillingness to accept the matter. During the interview, he repeatedly emphasized: "This is not a court session, definitely not a court session! "
The presiding judge later responded to this special procedure through the defense lawyer: "(This) is a verification of key evidence for individual convictions and sentencing, not a trial. This reflects the Supreme Court's commitment to less killing in death penalty cases. Kill with caution, respect and protect human rights, and be very cautious about the death penalty. "
According to the Rule of Law Weekend reporter, the Supreme Court misunderstood this (the media reported the hearing of the death penalty review case), and urgently communicated with the relevant media through lawyer Xie Tongxiang to clarify that this procedure was not a formal hearing in the second instance sense.
After learning about this procedure of the Supreme Court, Chen Guangzhong also explained to the Rule of Law Weekend reporter: "This is not a court session, it is somewhat similar to an internal trial. "
Previously, in the proposed draft of the "Criminal Procedure Law" drafted under the leadership of Chen Guangzhong, such a procedure was drawn up, which can be used in cases involving major disputes, or involving guilt or misdemeanor crimes. Cases. This litigation-based, public trial format with the participation of both the prosecution and the defense is conducive to the judge’s more realistic, direct and comprehensive understanding of the evidence and case facts. Legal professionals believe that this is the transition from closed review to litigation. The change in the direction of death penalty review is in line with the development direction of modern criminal procedure law.
Chen Guangzhong said that he was very happy to see the Supreme Court make such an innovative attempt in 2012. The current Criminal Procedure Law, which has just been overhauled, has made recognized progress in the death penalty review process, such as stipulating that judges must interrogate the defendant and listen to the opinions of lawyers.
"The current law has reached this point. It's already very good. We didn't expect to reach this point (that is, transforming the death penalty review into a litigation form with a litigation nature)," said Chen Guangzhong.