"Defendant Deng Junshan defended himself." The presiding judge's voice rang out.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: I was wronged, I really didn't kill anyone, they framed me......" Speaking of this, Deng Junshan shed tears and choked.

In the face of death, how many people can talk and laugh? It's better to die than to live, after hearing the prosecutor's suggestion, Deng Junshan was a little overwhelmed.

The presiding judge persuaded the defendant a few words so that the defendant would not be emotionally disturbed and the trial proceeded, after which his voice sounded again: "The defendant's defender expresses his defense opinions. ”

"Presiding Judge and Adjudicator: The defender believes that there are many doubts in the evidence in this case, which have not yet reached a credible and sufficient level, and the charges charged by the public prosecution cannot be established. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. The key evidence for the verdict of this case is the statement of the victim Jiao Shangying, Deng Junshan's confession, the wooden stick of the murder weapon taken from the scene of the crime, and the wooden stick and gloves taken from Deng Junshan's home.

However, Jiao Shangying's statements are inconsistent and contradictory, and there are many unreasonable points, and there are obvious differences with Deng Junshan's confession in key details, which cannot be mutually corroborated.

II. There are contradictions between the circumstances discovered during the on-scene 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 the wires on the wall, and the on-site investigation recorded 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 poked Deng Lu on the head with a knife, and the conclusion of the autopsy analysis was that Deng Lu's head and face wounds were caused by blunt force blows such as sticks, and there was no record of sharp injuries on Deng Lu's body.

Therefore, the circumstances found in the on-site investigation and the conclusion of the corpse identification cannot be corroborated with Jiao Shangying's statement or Deng Junshan's confession, which not only cannot eliminate relevant doubts, but further reduces the objectivity and probative power of Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession. It can be seen that the key evidence for the verdict of this case is obviously insufficient.

3. The burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the public prosecution, and the defendant is not required to 'self-incriminate'.

The defense argues that the standard of proof for a verdict of not guilty is not the same as that for a verdict of guilt, and that the defendant should be found innocent as long as the evidence of the charge does not meet the standard of proof for a verdict of guilt, in other words, as long as there is a possibility that the defendant is not guilty.

In this case, the core evidence relied on by the procuratorate was Jiao Shangying's statement and Deng Junshan's confession, both of which were inconsistent in content and contradictory in key details, which could not be corroborated. There are obvious contradictions between the situation reflected in the other evidence in the case and the two pieces of evidence, and 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, and the possibility of Deng Junshan's innocence was far greater than the possibility of being guilty.

To sum up, the defense believes that the defendant Deng Junshan is not guilty. Complete. Fang Yi expressed his defense opinions, and everyone in the audience had their own ideas and complicated expressions.

"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." The presiding judge stopped his pen and looked up at the prosecutor.

"In response to the defender's defense, the prosecutor expressed the following opinion:

Defendant Deng Junshan confessed that he had conflicts with Deng Lu due to issues such as family separation and house building, and he always held a grudge until he vented his anger and killed people, and Jiao Shangying, Deng Junhai and his neighbors also confirmed that there were contradictions between the two, which just corroborated Deng Junshan's confession. Therefore, the defendant in this case had an obvious motive to kill, and his confession was reasonable.

In addition, according to Jiao Shangying, when the case occurred, she wanted to protect her son Deng Junshan, and then her psychology of killing her relatives in righteousness occupied a dominant position, so she reported the defendant for murder and robbery, and her psychological process was reasonable to a certain extent. As a result, its statements are inconsistent, but also have a certain degree of reasonableness.

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

"The defender may respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge said.

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense counsel issued the following defense opinions:

1. According to the defendant's confession in court, his relationship with 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, on the night of the crime, the murderer demanded money from him and robbed him of 3,600 yuan.

In addition, it is doubtful whether some family conflicts many years ago could prompt the defendant to have a motive to kill his biological father.

Second, Jiao Shangying's 'righteous annihilation of relatives' behavior is suspicious.

According to the evidence in the case, there was indeed a contradiction between Jiao Shangying, Deng Junhai and the defendant Deng Junshan over the issue of the redistribution of jujube trees and the issue of alimony, which was consistent with Deng Junshan's statement in court. Therefore, Jiao Shangying's act of 'righteous annihilation of relatives' is suspicious, and the possibility of retaliation cannot be ruled out.

3. The defendant's motive for committing the crime cannot be an important basis for determining the objectivity and reasonableness of his confession.

Make whether the defendant's motive for the crime is reasonable an important basis for determining the objectivity of his confession and whether it can eliminate reasonable doubt, or even make the unreasonable motive directly a reasonable doubt that cannot be excluded. In the opinion of the defenders, this perception is biased.

The motive for committing the crime is the psychological activity of the offender at the time of committing the crime, and is part of the facts of the case, and is mainly determined by the defendant's confession, and if the defendant deliberately conceals it, it is difficult to accurately determine the motive for the crime.

Therefore, whether or not the motive can be ascertained is not directly related to whether the case constitutes an 'ironclad case' and whether the facts of the crime are clear. As for whether the motive is reasonable, it is a conclusion drawn by the case-handling personnel from the perspective of ordinary people, and it is very subjective and not enough to be used as a reasonable basis for doubt.

It can be seen that the motive of the crime has no direct impact on whether the evidence in the verdict is credible and sufficient. Fang Yi's response was free to play according to the situation at the trial scene, and the previous defense opinions were drafted by Cao Yongzheng and revised by Fang Yi. It can be seen that responding in court is a test of the lawyer's adaptability and professional ability, as well as the ability to analyze and understand the facts of the case.

After Cao Yongzheng listened to Fang Yi's response, he admired the other party's boss very much, and after the prosecutor responded, Fang Boss was able to respond immediately, which shows his quick response and deep professional skills.

……

The trial of Deng Junshan's intentional homicide and robbery began at 9 a.m. and was not adjourned until 1:30 a.m. The collegial panel did not pronounce the verdict in court.

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