Defendant acquitted in the case of dead body in toilet after nearly 12 years in prison: claim will be made

category:Hot
 Defendant acquitted in the case of dead body in toilet after nearly 12 years in prison: claim will be made


According to the judgment obtained by surging news from Wang Shihua, Li Jiangongs defender, the court found that the guilty confession made by Li Jiangong when he was interrogated by the police and the testimony of his daughter Li Juan were all illegal evidence and were excluded.

Li Jiangong and Wang Zhihua, the appeal agent, walked out of the court. Picture provided by interviewee

Im very happy. In the afternoon of that day, Li Jiangong was still excited when he was interviewed by the surging news. After his release, he met his parents and other relatives and said a lot. Li Jiangong said that compared with the time before his imprisonment, Korla had built many buildings and widened roads. It was strange to see the city again 12 years later.

Referring to his 12 years in prison, Li Jiangong revealed to surging news that he would apply for state compensation and investigate the responsibility of relevant personnel in the future. As for a longer-term life plan, Li said he had no plans for the time being. Im in my fifties. Im old. My legs and feet are sick. I cant move easily. I cant find a job outside. I just stay at home. Next, he will have a good rest at home, Li said.

Li Jiangongs guilty confession and his daughters testimony are illegal evidence

Surging news earlier reported that in 2007, Cao, a 75 year old retired female worker from a cement plant in Korla, was found drowning in a toilet in the cement plant, and Li Jiangong, an employee of the silver textile company of the second division of agriculture of Xinjiang production and Construction Corps, who lives nearby, was targeted as the suspect.

Li Jiangong before going to prison. Family drawing (data drawing)

In July 2008, the second agricultural division court of Xinjiang production and Construction Corps sentenced Li Jiangong to death for intentional homicide with a two-year reprieve. Li Jiangong refused and appealed. On November 7 of the same year, the Xinjiang High Court reviewed the ruling and upheld the judgment of first instance.

For more than a decade, Li and his family have continued to complain. In July 2016, Xinjiang procuratorate decided to start reexamination of Li Jiangong case. On December 6, 2018, Xinjiang High Court made a retrial decision on this case. Seven days later, the Xinjiang High Court decided that Li Jiangongs intentional homicide was unclear in main facts and insufficient in evidence, and sent the case back to the middle court of the second division of the Xinjiang production and Construction Corps for retrial.

On November 24, 2019, the case was reopened in the intermediate peoples Court of the second division of Xinjiang production and Construction Corps. Wang Zhihua told surging news that when the court trial lasted for two hours and 30 minutes, on the basis of consensus between the prosecution and the defense, the collegial panel decided that the guilty confession made by Li Jiangong when he was interrogated by the police and the testimony made by his daughter Li Juan were illegal evidence, and ruled it out.

According to the acquittal, Wang Zhihua applied for the exclusion of illegal evidence, excluding 17 interrogation records formed by Li Jiangongs confession in the investigation stage, 2 interrogation records formed in the examination and prosecution stage, and 5 interrogation records formed by Li Juan as a witness in the investigation stage, which were proved by evidence in the case file and belonged to illegally collected evidence, which should be excluded.

Through the transfer of the above evidence, the public prosecution agrees with the application of the defender to exclude the illegal evidence, and believes that all the above illegal evidence should be excluded.

In this regard, both the prosecution and the defense agree and the court confirms it.

Court: key evidence is not on file

The judgment shows that the public prosecution opinion in court holds that the direct evidence of Li Jiangongs killing is only his own confession of guilt, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and Li Jiangongs confession of key facts is inconsistent, inconsistent and uncertain. In the process of obtaining Li Jiangongs confession, the public security organ cannot exclude the reasonable suspicion of illegal evidence collection. Li Jiangongs time, process and Caos clothing characteristics can not be confirmed by other evidences, especially by objective evidences. The key circumstances are all evidence before evidence. There is a big doubt about the authenticity and reliability of consistent evidence.

There is no complete evidence chain between the existing evidence and the facts of the accusation. It can not be proved that Cao was killed by Li Jiangong, and the only conclusion can not be drawn from the evidence. The case evidence is insufficient, and the evidence has not been proved to a certain and sufficient degree. The opinion of the public prosecution organ in court is that.

According to the defense opinion, the time of conflict between Li Jiangong and Cao, the time of committing the crime, the time of throwing the corpse, the scene of the crime and the tools of committing the crime are not clear; there are no fingerprints and DNA of Li Jiangong on the tape of sealing Caos nose and mouth, no physical evidence is found, and Li Jiangong has no motive for committing the crime; from the height of Li Jiangong and Cao, when Two people face to face, Cao after the occipital injury is impossible to form. According to the defender, the above evidence should be recognized as illegal and excluded by the court. At present, none of the evidence in this case points to Li Jiangongs crime, and other evidence has nothing to do with Li Jiangong, so Li Jiangong is not guilty.. The court held that the cause of the case, criminal motivation, criminal purpose, crime scene, crime tools and other key evidence were not on file, and the court did not support the indictment accusing Li Jiangong of intentional homicide due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The opinion of public prosecution that the case did not meet the legal standard of proof. The Court adopted the public prosecution opinion of the public prosecution organ and the defense opinion of the defendants innocence, acquitted the defendant Li Jiangong, and rejected the plaintiffs claim in the incidental civil action. Source: surging news editor: Zhou Xinyi

According to the defense opinion, the time of conflict between Li Jiangong and Cao, the time of committing the crime, the time of throwing the corpse, the scene of the crime and the tools of committing the crime are not clear; there are no fingerprints and DNA of Li Jiangong on the tape of sealing Caos nose and mouth, no physical evidence is found, and Li Jiangong has no motive for committing the crime; from the height of Li Jiangong and Cao, when Two people face to face, Cao after the occipital injury is impossible to form.

According to the defender, the above evidence should be recognized as illegal and excluded by the court. At present, none of the evidence in this case points to Li Jiangongs crime, and other evidence has nothing to do with Li Jiangong, so Li Jiangong is not guilty..

The court held that the cause of the case, criminal motivation, criminal purpose, crime scene, crime tools and other key evidence were not on file, and the court did not support the indictment accusing Li Jiangong of intentional homicide due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The opinion of public prosecution that the case did not meet the legal standard of proof.

The Court adopted the public prosecution opinion of the public prosecution organ and the defense opinion of the defendants innocence, acquitted the defendant Li Jiangong, and rejected the plaintiffs claim in the incidental civil action.