You became a lawyer and sent the judge in?

The application of high probability in civil fields is actually very common.

But it is still rare for people to use it like Qian Wei.

Even according to the evidence, neither side has direct evidence.

But look at it based on life experience.

So in a certain respect, Zhang Dahu's confession and evidence are relatively sufficient compared to Chen Meixia.

Especially Chen Meixia's previous confession that Zhang Dahu knocked her down from behind and Chen Meixia saw Zhang Dahu's face is completely nonsense.

Does this follow normal logic?

incompatible!

Then why is it so judged?

Obviously there is a certain problem.

after all.….

In the original trial, Qian Wei only adopted Chen Meixia's confession as a factual basis and used a high degree of probability, but did not adopt Chen Dahu's confession. This obviously did not conform to the logic of the trial and the rationality of a fair judgment.

After Su Bai finished his statement, the presiding judge Ren Yuandong gave a brief summary of the prosecution statements and defenses of the prosecution, the defendant and the prosecution.

Go through it quickly.

Summary completed.

Boom, boom, boom!

Ren Yuandong looked at the defendant's seat: "Now please appoint a lawyer from the defendant to answer the questions raised by the attorney appointed by the prosecution."

"Good judge."

Liu Jun nodded silently to Su Bai's accusation.

Before this lawsuit, he deliberately got to know Su Bai and knew that he was the top lawyer in Nandu's criminal circle.

Judging from Su Bai's accusation speech just now, the other party's defense angle is indeed very good.

but.….

As someone who is proficient in job-related crimes, he also has his own defense ideas for this type of case.

It's not that I was at a loss when faced with Su Bai's defense statement and had no way to deal with it.

Su Bai's statement was based on the fact that Qian Wei used the wrong legal provisions to defend, and it was based on the sixth point of the wrongful judgment he just reported.

As for the second point, that is the result.

That is to say, in order to organize this lawsuit, it is still necessary to conduct defense discussions in accordance with point 6.

Clear your mind.

Liu Jun began to make a statement:

"We have objections to several points raised by the prosecution."

"What the prosecution described, based on common sense, is that Chen Meixia, as an old man in her seventies, could not react that she was hit by Chen Dahu. Qian Wei did not take this into consideration during the trial and sentencing. It is We do not agree with this point of deliberately judging and creating unjust, false and wrongful convictions based on subjective purposes."

"First: From Qian Wei's perspective, there is no problem in using a high degree of probability to judge this case. The reasons are as follows:"

"(1) As the presiding judge, Qian Wei first considered why Zhang Dahu helped Chen Meixia and sent her to the hospital."

"Is it possible that Chen Meixia was hit by Zhang Dahu, so Zhang Dahu is the person in charge?"

"It should be common sense to make a judgment based on common sense, right?"

"Similarly, the most critical point in the judgment is that Zhang Dahu paid medical expenses three times, which is completely unjustifiable. Although Zhang Dahu has stated his reasons, there is no evidence!"

"Zhang Dahu has no evidence to prove that what he said is true. What he said about acting bravely is completely inconsistent with common sense."

"It is entirely based on his own confession, and there is no factual basis or proof to support this view."

"Based on life experience and common sense, one would generally refute and refuse to continue paying the hospital's medical bills."

"Even if Zhang Dahu really acted bravely and kindly helped pay the medical expenses, and paid the medical expenses three times in a row, a situation like this goes against common sense."

"Is there any problem in judging Zhang Dahu based on a high degree of probability?"

"No problem?"

"Because it meets the conditions for a highly probable verdict."

"(2) Regarding the prosecution's statement, it was said that the other two judges who were judging the case at the time asked who advocated and who gave evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zhang Dahu hit someone."

"Indeed, there is no problem in this case as to who makes the claim and who gives the evidence."

"But based on the above point of view, there is also no problem in using a high degree of probability, because such a judgment is based on facts."

"(3) Since in the above determination, a high degree of human nature is used to make the determination, and the corresponding conditions are met, then Qian Wei does not constitute the crime of perverting the law, because the subjective and intentional conditions for the crime of perverting the law are not met, and his error is not applied. Judgment shall be made according to the laws and regulations.”

"That is, we believe that the prosecution's defense and litigation application should be dismissed."

Liu Jun spoke calmly and then looked towards the presiding judge's seat.

What is the key point in the judgment of this case?

The issues lie in whether Qian Wei intentionally made a judgment based on the crime of perverting the law and whether the law applied in the judgment was wrong.

By answering the complaint through these two points, if the presiding judge cannot make a judgment, then the purpose of exonerating Qian Wei can be achieved.

Liu Jun had already known about this case and had already thought about how to defend it.

So the current situation is that everything is under his control.

Although Su Bai is the top criminal lawyer in Nandu, he may not be as deep in the field of occupational crime law.

Liu Jun finished his statement.

Boom, boom, boom.

On the trial stage, the presiding judge Ren Yuandong banged his gavel and pondered over the contents of the litigation materials.

He has learned about this case, and the most important thing is at this point, how to confirm Qian Wei's intentionality in bending the law?

When Su Bai made his first accusation, he spoke very well and completely exposed Qian Wei's subjectivity and misuse of the law.

But Liu Jun's rebuttal was also sharp.

First, he explained from Qian Wei's perspective why a high degree of probability should be applied, and then explained Qian Wei's subjective expressiveness.

This case not only examines the competition between lawyers, but also examines his level as the presiding judge.

After a few seconds of silence, Yang Ren Yuandong, the judge of the trial, turned to the prosecutor's seat:

"Does the prosecutor have anything else to say?"

Guan Tong has a relatively deep understanding of this case.

At the same time, the lawyer also had a certain understanding of Liu Jun. Guan Tong did not agree with Liu Jun's statement and defense.

Because as the prosecutor of this lawsuit, Guan Tong is also a relatively proficient prosecutor in job-related crimes.

He knew the purpose of Liu Jun's reply, and he also knew how to deal with Liu Jun's reply.

Then he stated: "Presiding Judge... we do not agree with the statement made by the defendant's attorney."

"First of all, the first point is that based on a high degree of probability, the evidence on both sides is insufficient. We should favor the side with relatively sufficient evidence."

"Regarding this concept, the defendant's attorney obviously deliberately blurred this concept."

"And he completely ignored the objective reasons and used Qian Wei's subjective reasoning to make the argument."

"First of all, what I don't understand is why the attorney of the party being sued should rely on Qian Wei's subjectivity to make an argument?"

"You think Qian Wei's subjectivity is not intentional?"

"But if Qian Wei's subjectivity was not intentional, why did he only adopt the plaintiff's point of view and not the defendant's point of view during the trial?"

"According to the prosecution's description of Chen Meixia's confession after she was knocked down, does this go against common sense?"

"But why did Qian Wei deliberately ignore this point at the trial instead of adopting it? If this point is accepted, can Chen Meixia's relative sufficiency of evidence be greater than Zhang Dahu's relative sufficiency? ?”

"At this point, if Zhang Dahu's relative adequacy is greater, can a high degree of probability be used to determine that Zhang Dahu loses the lawsuit?"

"Does it mean that it cannot be judged in this case?"

“According to legal provisions, in a legal sense, it is not possible to rely on the subjectivity of criminal suspects to demonstrate some facts, because this is unrealistic.

Because the subjectivity of criminal suspects will achieve the purpose of exonerating themselves, it needs to be analyzed and further adopted from an objective perspective. "

"Then we analyze and judge Qian Wei's behavior based on objective facts and reasons."

"What are the objective facts and basis for this case?"

"It was Qian Wei who did not agree with the arguments put forward by the other two judges who were members of the collegial panel at that time, and whoever claimed that the evidence was insufficient, and the evidence was insufficient, and he chose to make a judgment with a high degree of probability."

"And I used my own subjective judgment in the judgment."

"Just say a little."

"In the judgment, Qian Wei made a judgment: Neither party stated at the trial that Chen Meixia was unconscious at the time and slipped or tripped to the ground due to her own reasons, so it was judged that she was knocked down manually."

"Both parties made no statements at the trial, so can it be determined that the collision was caused by man?"

"According to the replay of the live broadcast of the trial, the reason why there is no statement is because the dispute point between the two parties is not here."

"And as a presiding judge, Qian Wei has a certain conclusion. If he has considered this, why didn't he question both parties to the lawsuit?"

"And this was used in the judgment?"

"What constitutes the cause of this?"

"in addition!"

"Judging from the replay of the live broadcast of the trial, Qian Wei faced the defendant Zhang Dahu step by step and pressed forward step by step. In the process, he even used inducement methods to conduct questioning."

"As the presiding judge, Qian Wei cannot possibly not know that the induced evidence and confessions are illegal, right?"

"If you combine these factors, what is Qian Wei's purpose in doing this?"

"The purpose is written in the judgment, which is to make Zhang Dahu lose the case."

"Is this a serious violation of the truth and a distortion of the facts through the verdict?"

“Based on the objective facts and evidence, didn’t Qian Wei’s decision go against the law?”

"Aren't you deliberately distorting the facts of the verdict?"

“The presiding judge and the prosecutor believe that the statement made by the defendant’s attorney is completely evasive.

This is to excuse the criminal suspect Qian Wei. The criminal suspect's subjectivity does not meet the conditions for certification and defense reasons as evidence.

Therefore, the prosecutor applied to reject the defendant’s request to appoint an attorney to defend the lawsuit. "

"Presiding Judge, our defense is over."

Guan Tong's statement.

It has to be said that as a public prosecutor, the attacks on Qian Wei were very swift and violent.

To sum up this statement, there are two points:

The first point is to refute Qian Wei's subjectivity stated by Liu Jun, but to demonstrate Qian Wei's subjectivity based on objective facts.

The second point is that Qian Wei made leading questions during the trial.

Let's further determine Qian Wei's subjectivity through this point, that is, the deliberate judgment is contrary to the facts, violates the law, and violates the crime of perverting the law.

At the presiding judge's seat, Ren Yuandong nodded slightly, expressing his understanding of the defense point raised by the prosecutor Guan Tong.

.

….

at the same time.

Su Bai smiled and looked at the prosecutor's seat.

Originally, he wanted to refute from this aspect, and the argument was more intense. Unexpectedly, Guan Tong was the first to propose it.

During the defense of Liu Jun and Guan Tong.

The most important thing for both parties is to make judgments based on Qian Wei's main subjectivity.

Although Liu Jun refuted his question, the point he used was to express it through subjectivity.

There is no evidence to support this subjectivity.

Therefore, it is relatively easy for Guan Tong to refute.

That is to refute the subjective from the objective side and prove it with factual evidence.

At this trial….

Whether it is him, the prosecutor, or the attorney appointed by the defendant.

The three parties launched a fierce defense on this point.

Let’s see now…

This trial will be an exciting plea.

This made Su Bai vaguely look forward to how Liu Jun would exonerate Qian Wei next.

call.….

The attorneys representing the three parties involved in the trial all looked at the court seats at the same time.

This made Ren Yuandong, the presiding judge, also feel some pressure.

The contents of each party's defense are well-founded if taken in isolation.

This shows that the three parties have studied the content of this trial and the legal provisions it follows very deeply.

As the presiding judge, if my level of performance is not enough...

Then you may encounter a lot of problems.

It’s hard to decide now!

Ren Yuandong thought silently in his heart.

PS: Please vote for me~

Why do some people still say that they should vote for the previous one to motivate me?