Lawyer

"Defendant Deng Junshan is defending himself." The presiding judge's voice sounded.

"Presiding judge, judge: I was wronged, I really didn't kill anyone, they framed me..." Deng Junshan shed tears and choked up.

In the face of death, how many people can talk and laugh happily?It's better to live than to die. After hearing the prosecutor's suggestion, Deng Junshan couldn't stand it anymore.

The presiding judge persuaded the defendant a few words, lest the defendant's agitation affect the progress of the trial, and then his voice sounded again: "The defendant's defender expresses his defense opinion."

"The presiding judge and judges: the defender believes that the evidence in this case has many doubts and has not yet reached a certain and sufficient level, and the charges charged by the public prosecution cannot be established. The specific reasons are as follows:
[-]. The key evidence for the finalization of this case is the statement of the victim Jiao Shangying, Deng Junshan's confession, the murder weapon wooden stick extracted from the crime scene, and the wooden stick and gloves extracted from Deng Junshan's home.

However, Jiao Shangying's previous statements were inconsistent and contradictory, and there were many unreasonable things. There were obvious differences with Deng Junshan's confession in key details, and they could not be mutually confirmed.

[-]. There are contradictions between the situation found in the on-site investigation and the victim's injuries reflected in the conclusion of the autopsy and Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession.

Deng Junshan confessed that he used pliers to cut off the wires on the wall, and the on-site inspection records that the wires were torn off; Jiao Shangying mentioned in his later statement that after the murderer beat Deng Lu with a wooden stick, he then stabbed Deng Lu with a knife. Lu's head was poked, and the conclusion of the autopsy analysis concluded that the wound on Deng Lu's head and face was caused by a blunt object such as a stick. There was no record of Deng Lu's body injury.

Therefore, the situation found in the on-site investigation and the conclusion of the autopsy cannot be corroborated with Jiao Shangying's statement or Deng Junshan's confession. Not only can the relevant doubts be eliminated, but the objectivity and probative force of Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession are further reduced. .It can be seen that the key evidence for the finalization of this case is obviously insufficient.

[-]. The burden of proof in criminal cases is borne by the public prosecution agency, and the defendant does not need to 'self-prove his innocence'.

Defenders believe that the standard of proof for a verdict of innocence is not the same as that of a verdict of guilt. As long as the evidence for the charge does not meet the standard of proof for a verdict of guilt, in other words, as long as there is the possibility that the defendant is innocent, it means that the proof of guilt has not reached at least The requirement beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant should be found not guilty.

In this case, the core evidence relied on by the procuratorate is Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession.There are obvious contradictions between the situation reflected by other evidence on file and the two pieces of evidence, which cannot play a reinforcing role.Especially after the defendant Deng Junshan retracted his confession, the evidence in the whole case could not form a complete chain of evidence. The possibility of Deng Junshan's innocence is far greater than the possibility of his guilt.

In summary, the defender believes that the defendant Deng Junshan is innocent.complete. "Fang Yi expressed his defense opinion. Everyone in the auditorium had their own thoughts and complex expressions.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge stopped the pen in his hand and looked up at the public prosecutor.

"In response to the defender's defense, the public prosecutor expressed his views as follows:
The defendant, Deng Junshan, confessed that he had conflicts with Deng Lu due to the separation of the family and the building of a house.Therefore, the defendant in this case had an obvious motive for killing, and his confession was reasonable.

In addition, according to Jiao Shangying, when the case happened, she wanted to protect her son Deng Junshan, and then her mentality of killing relatives took the dominant position, so she reported the defendant's murder and robbery, and her psychological process was reasonable to a certain extent.As a result, the inconsistencies in the preceding and subsequent statements also have a certain degree of rationality.

The authenticity of the evidence in this case cannot be denied because of Jiao Shangying's inconsistencies in statements caused by her inner changes.complete. ’ the female prosecutor responded.

"Defenders can respond to the prosecutor's comments," said the presiding judge.

"Based on the Prosecutor's defense opinion and response, the defender issued the following defense opinion:

[-]. According to the defendant's confession in court, the relationship between him and his father Deng Lu had been repaired as early as the birth of his son, and the relationship between father and son was good before the incident.

According to Jiao Shangying's statement, the murderer asked for money from him on the night of the incident, and took away [-] yuan. According to this, the murderer had an obvious motive of robbery, not revenge.

In addition, the defendant thinks it is doubtful whether some housework conflicts many years ago could have prompted the defendant to have the motive to kill his biological father.

[-]. Jiao Shangying's behavior of "killing relatives with righteousness" is doubtful.

According to the evidence in the case, Jiao Shangying, Deng Junhai and the defendant Deng Junshan did have conflicts over the redistribution of jujube trees and alimony, which is consistent with what Deng Junshan stated in court.Therefore, Jiao Shangying's act of "killing relatives with righteousness" is doubtful, and the possibility of revenge cannot be ruled out.

[-]. The defendant's criminal motive cannot be used as an important basis for determining the objectivity and rationality of his confession.

Whether the defendant's criminal motive is reasonable is an important basis for determining the objectivity of his confession and whether reasonable doubt can be ruled out, and even unreasonable motives are directly regarded as reasonable doubt that cannot be ruled out.Defenders believe that this understanding is biased.

The motive of committing a crime is the psychological activity of the criminal when committing the crime, which is part of the facts of the case. It mainly depends on the defendant's confession.

Therefore, whether the motive can be ascertained has no direct relationship with whether the case constitutes an "iron case" or whether the facts of the crime are clear.As for whether the motive is reasonable, it is the conclusion drawn by the case investigators from the perspective of ordinary people, which is highly subjective and not sufficient as a reasonable basis for suspicion.

It can be seen that the criminal motive has no direct impact on whether the evidence for concluding a case is reliable and sufficient. "Fang Yi's response was freely developed according to the situation of the trial scene. The previous defense opinion was drafted by Cao Yongzheng and revised by Fang Yi. It can be seen that the response in court will test the lawyer's adaptability and professional ability, as well as his understanding of the case. Analytical and comprehensible skills.

After hearing Fang Yi's response, Cao Yongzheng admired Fang Yi's boss very much. After the public prosecutor responded, Fang Boss was able to respond immediately, which showed his quick response and deep professional skills.

……

Deng Junshan's intentional homicide and robbery case started at 01:30 in the morning and did not adjourn until [-]:[-].The collegial panel did not pronounce a sentence in court.

Deng Junshan's daughter-in-law, Chen Xiaoling, left the trial court wiping away tears.Outside the gate of the court, Fang Yi and Cao Yongzheng comforted her for a while before returning to the law firm. (end of this chapter)