Lawyer

Chapter 646 Fighting 2
"Important! Very important! Because the facts of the case Xu Chungen told me will affect the court's sentencing of him. If the facts of the case are confirmed to be true, then the sentence of the defendant Xu Chungen is likely to be reduced to less than three years in prison; if this The facts are false, and Xu Chungen's sentence will most likely be between three and ten years in prison.

It is related to the great personal interests of my client. As a defense lawyer, I feel that I have the responsibility and the obligation to verify the relevant information. "Guo Wen said bluntly.

"After you greeted the witnesses, which of you two told the story of the night when the crime happened first?" Fang Yi continued to ask.

"It was Shi Dali who took the initiative to tell me. At that time, after I went to Xu's house, I asked Shi Dali what he was doing when the case happened. He told me that he was drinking with Xu Chungen, and Xu Chungen didn't go home until very late.

Later I asked him if he was willing to testify in Xu Chungen's theft case and tell the judge what he just said, and he said there was no problem.Then I made notes for him.It's that simple. "Guo Wen said straightly.

In the eyes of the public prosecutor, the conversation just now was more like Fang Yi and Guo Wenzhi acting in a play, an extremely realistic play, a pair of actors.

"Presiding judge, the defender has finished questioning." Fang Yi looked at the presiding judge.

"Do the prosecutors, defenders, and appellants have any new evidence to submit?" asked the presiding judge.

"No!" All three said.

……

"The court investigation is over, and the court debate is now underway. Before the debate, the court draws the attention of both the prosecution and the defense. The debate should focus on determining charges, sentencing and other controversial issues.

Let the appellant first defend himself. " said the presiding judge.

Before the trial, Fang Yi went to see Guo Wenzhi, so the latter was very familiar with Fang Yi's defense plan. Guo Wenzhi's self-defense opinions were all based on the defense plan that Fang Yi had told him before.

"Now the defender of the appellant Guo Wenzhi will speak." The presiding judge said routinely.

"Presiding judge, judge: The defender believes that the appellant Guo Wenzhi does not constitute the crime of obstructing testimony, and the specific reasons are as follows:

The second paragraph of Article [-] of the "Criminal Law" on the crime of obstructing testimony stipulates that the witness testimony or other evidence provided, produced, and quoted by the defender is not true, and it is not intentionally forged, and it does not belong to forged evidence.

In Xu Chungen's theft case, the appellant Guo Wenzhi, as the defense lawyer, quoted witness testimony that was indeed inaccurate, but the appellant did not have intentionality subjectively.

The defender believes that the "intention" in the second paragraph of Article [-] of the "Criminal Law" should be limited to direct intent, that is to say, the defender should know that his act of obstructing testimony will hinder the normal progress of criminal proceedings, and actively pursue This result occurs.In addition, the defender should not be found to have the intention to obstruct the criminal proceedings.

In this case, it can be seen from the following two aspects that the appellant did not subjectively have the intention to obstruct the criminal proceedings:
First, the appellant went to witnesses to inquire about the facts of the case out of the defender's duties and obligations, and it was to verify the facts of the case that Xu Chungen said.

In this case, the appellant Guo Wenzhi submitted to the court his investigative record about Shi Dali, which objectively hindered the normal trial activities of Xu Chungen’s theft case (this is an objective fact and cannot be avoided), but Guo Wenzhi did not have Direct intent to obstruct trial activities.

Moreover, judging from the existing evidence in this case, when Xu Chungen retracted his confession in the first instance, there was no evidence to prove that the defender Guo Wenzhi knew or should have known that Xu Chungen's retracted statement about his last theft was false, and there was no evidence to prove that Guo Wenzhi knew that Xu Chungen and the time Dali did not drink together.

In other words, Guo Wenzhi didn't know, and couldn't possibly know, that Xu Chungen's retracted statement was against the facts.There is also no sufficient evidence to prove that when the appellant Guo Wenzhi collected evidence from the witness Shi Dali, Guo Wenzhi knew or should have known that Shi Dali's testimony was false.

Second, judging from the behavior of the appellant Guo Wenzhi, it is not possible for him to 'knowingly'.

Judging from the behavior of the appellant, the appellant Guo Wenzhi introduced the situation of Xu Chungen's theft case to Xu Chunming and Shi Dali, and explained that the importance of Shi Dali's testimony was not illegal. Shi Dali gave false testimony.

The appellant Guo Wenzhi deliberately recorded the investigation site and investigators that were inconsistent with the actual situation, which is not enough to be evidence of Guo Wenzhi's perjury when he seduced Dali.

In addition, the appellant Guo Wenzhi told Xu Chungen the details of Shi Dali's testimony when he met with Xu Chungen in the detention center. It cannot be deduced from this that Guo Wenzhi knew that Shi Dali's testimony was false before that and when he approached Shi Dali to verify the case.

Based on the above analysis, the court of first instance determined that the appellant Guo Wenzhi had the direct intention to obstruct the testimony based on the existing evidence, and the evidence is not sufficient.

The existing evidence submitted by the procuratorate cannot rule out that Shi Dali's testimony was inconsistent with the facts, which was caused by the appellant Guo Wenzhi's improper way of investigating and collecting evidence, or because the witness Shi Dali's memory was fuzzy and he took a laissez-faire attitude towards the authenticity of the testimony.

To sum up, based on the existing evidence and ascertained facts, it is difficult to determine that the appellant Guo Wenzhi had the direct intention of obstructing the testimony.The defender suggested that the court revoke the original judgment and acquit the appellant Guo Wenzhi.complete. "

After Fang Yi delivered his defense opinion, he looked at the presiding judge, hoping to catch a trace of information from the latter's eyes, but the latter's eyes were impassive, and Fang Yi failed.

"Now it's up to the prosecutor to speak." The presiding judge said blankly.

"Presiding judge, judge: ... We believe that the factual evidence determined by the court of first instance is sufficient and the law is appropriate, and we recommend that the court reject the appellant's claim according to law. Finished." The female prosecutor said with a cold face.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defense opinion of the defender." The presiding judge said.

"With regard to the defender's defense opinion, our views are as follows:
It is not difficult to see from the evidence in this case that the appellant Guo Wenzhi in this case, after accepting the entrustment of Xu Chunming, acted very actively in order to obtain evidence in favor of the defendant Xu Chungen, and met with the defendant Xu Chungen many times. Talking back and forth.

The appellant's positive and abnormal behavior is just the appearance of the appellant Guo Wenzhi's unscrupulous efforts to exonerate the defendant Xu Chungen and reduce his guilt. The appellant participated in the falsification of evidence and other acts that hindered the testimony.

It can be seen that the appellant Guo Wenzhi knew that the testimony of the witness Shi Dali and the retraction of the defendant Xu Chungen were contrary to the facts, and there was suspicion of collusion. The appellant Guo Wenzhi had direct intention, which constituted the crime of obstructing testimony.complete. ’ the female prosecutor responded.

"The appellant's defender can respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge raised his big eyelids and glanced at Fang Yi.

(End of this chapter)