What embarrassment does a lawyer expose to a witness?

category:Global
 What embarrassment does a lawyer expose to a witness?


In April 8, 2018, Jiang said in his second retrial that the previous confession was illegal evidence of extorting confessions by torture and demanded that the court remove it. Nanming District procuratorate investigators denied, defendant defense lawyer Zhou Ze asked: witnesses, you dare to swear in court? If you say false, the whole family is dead. The chief judge immediately stopped it and called it idealistic. The court is a special place for the peoples courts to represent all kinds of cases on behalf of the state. All the actions of the participants in the proceedings must conform to the proceedings and the rules of the court. According to the 119th and 120 articles of the interpretation of the Supreme Peoples Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the peoples Republic of China, the peoples court shall tell the witness to testify before the witness in court and the legal consequences of the perjury, and order it to sign a guarantee, the witness refuses to sign a guarantee, No evidence shall be made, and the related expenses shall be borne by itself. That is to say, a witness only needs to sign a guaranty, and he has no legal obligation to swear in court. In fact, the signing of the guarantee is also the content of standard, such as I am a witness in this case, and I promise to give testimony to the court faithfully. If you are interested in perjury or concealment of evidence, you will be liable for it. If the false words, the whole family dead light, is far beyond the legal oath and guarantee range, can only be classified as venom oath type, not only without any legal effect, but also because of the sharp wording, and the potential threat tone, the influence of the trial order of the court, the judge in court to stop the legal love. Secondly, some important evidence identified by the court also has some flaws. For example, Jiang Yongrongs confession in January 23, 2014 in Xiuwen County Detention Center in Guizhou, synchronized audio and video recording only pictures, no sound. This is clearly contrary to the provisions of the supreme law on the establishment and improvement of the work mechanism for the prevention of criminal injustice and miscarriage of justice, which does not comply with the laws and relevant provisions of the whole process of simultaneous recording and video recording in the process of interrogation, which should be excluded. Why did the original trial and the two retrial confirm that the evidence was collected legally? As a case handling officer, dont you know that the fruit of poisonous tree of illegal evidence will seriously affect judicial fairness? Look at the transcript of Jiang Yongrongs Nanming peoples Procuratorate in January 22nd. In the original trial, the record was excluded because of long time interrogation before being arrested and unable to exclude the case of guilty confession due to the suppression of his spirit. The court of retrial was identified because the formalities for the detention of the procuratorate, video materials and transcripts are mutually confirmed, and the legal formalities are all ready. The procedures of the interrogation place are all legal. The question is whether long - time interrogation is in existence. The criminal procedure law clearly requires that interrogation should guarantee the necessary rest time for suspects. In the case of corruption in Wu Yi and Zhu Beiya, the supreme law pointed out that this kind of act had been enough to force the suspects and defendants to confess their wishes. It was a disguised punishment and should be regarded as the illegal method of extorting the confession by torture, and the guilty confession obtained under this situation belonged to the illegal evidence. The disputed interrogation of torture is not only the same. Jiang Yongrong said he had been threatened by the investigators in the detention center, causing scratches on the elbow. It is very difficult for investigators to testify against themselves. When retrial in April 3rd, several case handling personnel said that Jiang Yongrong did not torture the confession by torture. As for the specific details, time is too long to remember. In the 8 days retrial, the investigation personnel denied again. The whole course of recording and video is blemish and ignored, whether the long time interrogation is doubtful, the defendants wound has been healed long ago, and the case handling personnel face a thousand miles in the face of questioning. The conviction and sentencing will depend on the evidence. However, the defendant is in a weak position in the litigation structure, and there is inherent deficiency in the proof of illegal evidence. While finding out the truth of the case and presiding justice, the principle of inversion of the burden of proof should be established as soon as possible, so that it can not only strike a stronger attack on extorting the confession of torture, but also regulate the process of handling cases, abandon illegal evidence, and be less embarrassed. The source of this article: surging news writer: Yang Chen responsible editor: Ji Ke _b6492 The disputed interrogation of torture is not only the same. Jiang Yongrong said he had been threatened by the investigators in the detention center, causing scratches on the elbow. It is very difficult for investigators to testify against themselves. When retrial in April 3rd, several case handling personnel said that Jiang Yongrong did not torture the confession by torture. As for the specific details, time is too long to remember. In the 8 days retrial, the investigation personnel denied again. The whole course of recording and video is blemish and ignored, whether the long time interrogation is doubtful, the defendants wound has been healed long ago, and the case handling personnel face a thousand miles in the face of questioning. The conviction and sentencing will depend on the evidence. However, the defendant is in a weak position in the litigation structure, and there is inherent deficiency in the proof of illegal evidence. While finding out the truth of the case and presiding justice, the principle of inversion of the burden of proof should be established as soon as possible, so that it can not only strike a stronger attack on extorting the confession of torture, but also regulate the process of handling cases, abandon illegal evidence, and be less embarrassed.