Pre-trial Report of the Second Trial of Zhang Deduction Case: Rejection of Application for Identification of Mental Disorder Degree

category:Society click:26
 Pre-trial Report of the Second Trial of Zhang Deduction Case: Rejection of Application for Identification of Mental Disorder Degree


According to the official microblog broadcasting of Shaanxi High Court, the judges first read out the report of the pre-trial meeting on March 22, and responded one by one to the application of the appellant and the defender, including the jurisdiction of the case, the way of opening the trial, the exclusion of illegal evidence and other issues.

In view of the problem of identifying the degree of mental disorder when Zhang Deduction was committed, the appellant Zhang Deduction and the defender believed that Zhang Deduction belonged to paranoid disorder, and that Zhang Deductions identifying ability existed at the time of committing a crime, but his controlling power was slightly weak. It belonged to the limitation of criminal responsibility ability. Moreover, the application procedure for rejecting Zhang Deductions psychiatric appraisal at the first instance was illegal, and the substantive reasons could not be established. The degree of mental disorder was identified when the crime was detained.

The procuratorial organs believe that, first of all, before committing a crime, withholding means to prepare for committing a crime, carefully disguising, and choosing the time and object of committing a crime. In the process of killing, Zhang Bu can accurately determine the identity of three victims, stabbing the victims key parts with knives, killing three people in succession, choosing the time of the thirtieth lunar year, choosing the place on the way back from the victims grave, threatening others with fake guns, spattering Mars on other peoples cars while burning the car and letting others extinguish fire show that the appellants control power is not affected by any other factors. Ring. And Zhang quickly fled the scene after the crime, bought food to hide, and then surrendered to the public security organs. Before, during and after the crime, he has clear thinking, normal mental state and the ability to identify and control his own behavior. Secondly, there is no family psychiatric history in both paternal and maternal relatives, and Zhang has no previous history of psychiatry. To sum up, the defenders application for the appraisal of the degree of mental disorder in Zhangs detention case has no factual basis, and it is suggested that it be rejected.

After deliberation, the collegial panel decided to adopt the opinions of the procuratorial organs and refused to grant the above requests.

Peng Mei News reported earlier that at the pre-trial meeting of the second instance, after the defence lawyers application for psychiatric appraisal of Zhang Deduction was rejected, Zhang Deductions family members entrusted three psychiatric forensic experts to appraise Zhang Deductions mental state. The Opinion on Review of Forensic Psychiatric Documents No. 5 of the Consultation Letter of Zhenghui Science Reference Center (2019) was issued by Beijing Zhenghui Science Reference Service Center. This Opinion recognizes that Zhang Deduction has paranoid personality disorder, acute stress disorder and weakened control ability when committing a crime, which belongs to the ability to limit criminal responsibility. Deng Xuepingting, an attorney for Zhang Deduction, sent the above opinions to the court and applied to the court for three experts to appear in court. On April 10, the reporter learned from Deng Xuepings lawyer that the application for psychiatric disorder identification of Zhang Deduction had been rejected, and the application for three experts to appear in court was also formally rejected by the court.

In addition, on the issue of jurisdiction of the case, the collegial panel considered that the defender should not jurisdiction the first instance of the Hanzhong Intermediate Court, and further considered that the reason why the Shaanxi High Court should not jurisdiction the second instance of the case could not be established. Zhang Furus appeal of Wang Zhengjuns intentional injury case in 1996 and his application for state compensation were examined by the Shaanxi Higher Court in accordance with legal procedures and handled according to law. The composition of the trial organizations, the applicable litigation procedures and remedies in the above two cases are different from those in the case of Appellant Zhang Deduction of Intentional Homicide and Intentional Destruction of Property heard by the Court, and they are also rejected. With regard to the exclusion of illegal evidence, the defender proposed that Zhang Deductions interrogation transcript dated March 4, 2018 and according to the transcript, the identification transcript of the location of the abandoned knives and the salvage record of the knives organized by the public security organs were obtained by the public security organs by the way of temptation, and applied for the exclusion of the above evidence. According to the procuratorial organ, the witness, Guo Mou, is a public security officer who, under the leadership of the public relations organ, voluntarily and truthfully confessed the place where the knife was abandoned with the help of local sentiment and friendliness, and there is no hidden worry to obtain evidence. The collegial panel adopts the opinions of the procuratorial organs, but in view of the objection of the defenders to the above evidence, the evidence will be cross-examined in the second instance trial. Source of this article: Peng Mei News Responsible Editor: Youyuan Garden_NO4712

In addition, on the issue of jurisdiction of the case, the collegial panel considered that the defender should not jurisdiction the first instance of the Hanzhong Intermediate Court, and further considered that the reason why the Shaanxi High Court should not jurisdiction the second instance of the case could not be established. Zhang Furus appeal of Wang Zhengjuns intentional injury case in 1996 and his application for state compensation were examined by the Shaanxi Higher Court in accordance with legal procedures and handled according to law. The composition of the trial organizations, the applicable litigation procedures and remedies in the above two cases are different from those in the case of Appellant Zhang Deduction of Intentional Homicide and Intentional Destruction of Property heard by the Court, and they are also rejected.

With regard to the exclusion of illegal evidence, the defender proposed that Zhang Deductions interrogation transcript dated March 4, 2018 and according to the transcript, the identification transcript of the location of the abandoned knives and the salvage record of the knives organized by the public security organs were obtained by the public security organs by the way of temptation, and applied for the exclusion of the above evidence. According to the procuratorial organ, the witness, Guo Mou, is a public security officer who, under the leadership of the public relations organ, voluntarily and truthfully confessed the place where the knife was abandoned with the help of local sentiment and friendliness, and there is no hidden worry to obtain evidence. The collegial panel adopts the opinions of the procuratorial organs, but in view of the objection of the defenders to the above evidence, the evidence will be cross-examined in the second instance trial.