1. On the grounds that state secrets were involved, the defendant Pan Lixin was tried in secret for the crime of harboring a mafia-type organization and the crime of accepting bribes
The defendant Pan Lixin was charged with three crimes: The crime of harboring a mafia-type organization, the crime of intentionally leaking state secrets, and the crime of accepting bribes. Among them, the crime of harboring a mafia-type organization is closely related to the crime of organizing and leading a mafia-type organization by defendant Li Qinghong, and has nothing to do with the crime of intentionally leaking state secrets. It must be tried in public. However, the Xiaohe Court actually held a secret trial on defendant Pan Lixin for the crime of harboring a mafia-type organization and accepting bribes on the grounds that state secrets were involved. President Yang is a scholarly judge, so doesn’t he know that the bullshit reasons given by the Xiaohe Court are totally untenable? But President Yang Wanming pretended to be deaf and mute and allowed Xiaohe Court to run naked, which had nothing to do with President Yang Da’s professional knowledge. In fact, Yang Jinzhu almost got on a plane to the Supreme Court to argue with the first-level justice, Vice President Zhang Jun.
2. No police officer handling the case was allowed to testify in court during the illegal evidence exclusion process
More than 20 defendants in this case stated in court that the police tortured them to extract confessions while handling the case, and 10 Many people pointed to the two police officers handling the case, Pan Lixin and Yang Tao. After the court started the process of excluding illegal evidence, the prosecution, defense and trial parties conducted an in-court injury examination and found that defendant Mei Yunyu still had scars on her feet four years later.
Faced with such irrefutable evidence, many defenders, including lawyer Yang Jinzhu and Chen Youxi, strongly urged Pan Lixin and Yang Tao to appear in court to testify. At this time, the prosecutor issued a certificate from the Guiyang Municipal Public Security Bureau as a shield. In the certificate, the Guiyang Municipal Public Security Bureau stated two reasons for not allowing police officers to testify in court: First, all police officers handling the case handled the case in a civilized manner and in accordance with the law, and none of them tortured the defendant to extract a confession; second, at present, The witness protection system is not perfect enough. In order to avoid retaliation and protect the personal safety of the police officers handling the case, all police officers handling the case are not allowed to appear in court to testify.
The Xiaohe case has become a landmark case before the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law next year. The illegal evidence exclusion procedure has been officially written into the new Criminal Procedure Law. However, public security bureaus across the country have followed the example of the Guiyang Public Security Bureau and come up with Such a piece of bullshit proves that the illegal evidence exclusion procedures in the new Criminal Procedure Law will be completely abolished, leaving lawyers with nothing to show for their martial arts skills and no place for heroes. In this way, the country's laws have completely become child's play. This is what Yang Jinzhu hates so much, so he wants to have a one-on-one fight with President Yang.
3. After more than a week of evidence and cross-examination in the trial, not a single prosecution witness appeared in court to testify
From the first day of the prosecution's presentation of evidence, the defense lawyers in this court strongly requested that the prosecution witnesses When he appeared in court to testify, the presiding judge replied in court: "The collegial panel will give a reply after studying it." But this research is far away, and there is no news for more than a week.
Vice-President Zhang Jun, a first-level justice of the Supreme Court, made groundless accusations against lawyers as "unscrupulous" and He made remarks about "nonsense" and "making court trouble", and also made remarks on the issue of witnesses appearing in court to testify.
Yang Jinzhu now excerpts the relevant speech of First-level Justice Vice-President Zhang Jun from the Economic Observer article "Pressure on the Vice-Presidents of the Court" as follows:
When talking about the new When it was implemented in the Criminal Procedure Law that witnesses should appear in court to testify in accordance with the law, Zhang Jun said without hesitation: "What is the proportion of witnesses who appear in court to testify now? That is, 2 to 3, not more than 5." When analyzing the reasons, Zhang Jun said that he was not a witness They don’t want to, don’t dare, and can’t appear in court, but neither the prosecutor nor the judge wants the witness to appear in court, for fear that the witness’ appearance will conflict with the written testimony.
Zhang Jun specifically mentioned a case currently under trial. "So far, not a single witness has appeared in court. This is still a case that attracts national and even global attention."
Zhang Jun hopes that this will attract the attention of courts at all levels. Because witnesses do not appear in court and the low appearance rate has always been a persistent problem that plagues China's criminal justice practice. It is also one of the key issues to be solved in this revision of the Criminal Procedure Law. He said that judges’ conceptual awareness must keep up with the corresponding changes, “otherwise, just changes in provisions have little meaning.
”
Four. The prosecutor did not respond to the defender’s cross-examination opinions at all. The presiding judge conducted illegal trials every day
The procedure for the first day of evidence and cross-examination in the trial is: the prosecutor first presents evidence, and the defender makes a statement Cross-examination opinions, the prosecutor's opinions on the defender's cross-examination opinions, and the defender's response to the prosecutor's opinions.
But starting from the next day, the prosecutor changed his method and changed to only presenting evidence and not expressing any opinions on the defender's cross-examination. The comment made the defender confused and confused. According to common sense, if the prosecutor does not comment on the defender's cross-examination opinion, it means that he agrees with the defender's cross-examination opinion, but the prosecutor has to say something again. : The evidence cited by the prosecutor is legal, objective, true, and relevant, and I request the presiding judge to accept it. There are really weird things everywhere, especially in small rivers!