You became a lawyer and sent the judge in?

Chapter 341: Clap the table in court and question! How does the collegial panel define statutory scenarios? ! (little hot blast)

Regarding the presiding judge's several consecutive questions at the trial.

to be honest….

Too tendentious.

Basically, it is not much different from the judgment of the first instance and the relevant circumstances recorded in the files.

It’s just in the records of the first instance file…

The verdict announced in the court hearing at that time was much more straightforward than in this second trial.

Facing several tendentious questions from the presiding judge, Su Bai directly raised his hand.

"presiding judge.…"

"We believe that the presiding judge's questions are not in line with legal fairness."

"The presiding judge's questions are too biased towards Xia Mingyuan's guilt."

"Xia Mingyuan cannot answer the above questions at all, and there is no need to answer them."

"So we applied to reject the presiding judge's relevant questions."
.

...

Su Bai spoke directly and dismissed the above questions from the presiding judge.

The main reason for the rejection was, of course, that the presiding judge was biased during the inquiry, which was detrimental to his client in terms of law, reason, and emotion.

Then he must fight for the corresponding litigation rights for his client in the court hearing.

However, in the face of Su Bai's rejection, Jiang Feng's expression was obviously unhappy in the court hearing.

Then he said: "The inquiry about Xia Mingyuan just now was about the case."

"Xia Mingyuan does not have to answer this point, but Xia Mingyuan must bear the consequences personally."

???

No, why should Xia Mingyuan bear the responsibility personally?

Legally, parties have the right to refuse to answer certain questions asked by the presiding judge.

If you refuse to answer, the consequences will be borne by the person concerned personally.

But just now, Jiang Feng's inquiry was obviously extremely targeted.

Such targeted questions are completely inconsistent with relevant litigation regulations.

According to relevant legal proceedings, how can a criminal suspect be allowed to prove that the criminal suspect has not committed a crime?

"However, according to relevant procedural law provisions, criminal suspects are not allowed to testify themselves in court."

"The presiding judge's inquiry just now has already touched upon it, allowing the criminal suspect to prove his innocence."

"This is no longer in compliance with the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code."

"We believe that even if our client is asked to bear subsequent responsibilities, does the presiding judge's inquiry comply with relevant legal provisions and legal definitions?"

On the bench, Jiang Feng, as the presiding judge, faced the questions raised by Su Bai.

Continued: "As for whether there has been any violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, as the presiding judge, I know this very well."

"Therefore, there will be no discussion on whether the appellant's determination complies with legal provisions and legal definitions."

"Now please ask Xia Mingyuan to answer the questions I raised. If you don't answer, then Xia Mingyuan will bear the corresponding consequences personally."

Su Bai frowned slightly when the presiding judge ignored the procedural rules.

Nothing was said.

It was just a look in his eyes indicating how Xia Mingyuan should answer.

Although the presiding judge's questions did not comply with the relevant rules of the trial.

However, no relevant judgment has been made and they have been entangled in this aspect, so the trial cannot move forward.

Therefore, Su Bai made certain concessions on this point.

you ask I answer.

But if relevant judgments are made, it will definitely not be accepted.

But having said that, this time I appealed to the Municipal Intermediate People’s Court, and again encountered a decision based only on oral confessions and no objective factual evidence.

It even allows the criminal suspect to prove his innocence...

To be honest... isn't this nonsense?

What happens when a criminal proves his innocence and proves his subjectivity?

Completely inconsistent with relevant procedures!

Let’s talk about that.

If the offender cannot prove to himself that he has not committed a crime, can it be said from the side that the offender has committed a crime?

Su Bai:….

Regarding this point, there are clear provisions in the Criminal Procedure Law that criminal suspects shall not be required to testify themselves in court trials.

Of course, there are also special circumstances, such as criminal facts.

For example, when a public official is facing a charge of "unknown source of huge amounts of property".

The criminal suspect needs to explain the unknown huge amount of property and explain the source of the property.

However, this is an act of self-evidence required when there are objective facts.

The case against Xia Mingyuan was based on self-evident evidence that there were no facts.

It is unreasonable in itself.

On the other side, Jiang Feng was still questioning Xia Mingyuan:

"Xia Mingyuan, please answer the question I just asked."

Regarding the above questions, Xia Mingyuan really couldn't provide any factual basis, so he said:

"I can't produce evidence to prove that I was not harassed or molested."

"But I definitely did not call these students to the office intentionally, or for the reason that these students violated school rules."

"To harass and threaten."

"Many people in the school know this."

"Also...I have not only punished these three students in school, but also many other students."

"Then why don't other students have this problem, but only these three students?"

"Although I can't provide any evidence, I know that these three students are completely slandering me."

"A complete slander!"

"I hope the presiding judge will take this situation into consideration."

"Well... Regarding the issues you raised, the collegial panel will make relevant considerations."

"According to the appellant's current statement, the appellant does not have any evidence to show that it was not intentional and that he did not violate the three victims, right?"

"Yes, there is no evidence."

"Ok."

Jiang Feng nodded: "So, does the appellant's lawyer have anything else to say?"

"some."

"A piece of evidence that we are applying for additional evidence."

"The application is approved." Su Bai submitted the relevant evidence to the staff on the side.

After the staff on the side handed the evidence to the presiding judge, Su Bai continued to speak.

"The additional evidence we add is a questionnaire survey about the school."

"I visited the school and asked the students and teachers in the school about Wu Yan, He Juan, Li Bing and others about their practices and reputation in the school."

"The three victims have a bad reputation in the school, and they often violate school regulations."

"Repeated bullying of others."

"And after Xia Mingyuan was put under investigation, Wu Yan, He Juan, Li Bing and others spread the word to their classmates and friends in the school."

"It was because of the interests of his relatives that Xia Mingyuan was put on file for investigation."

"Through this point, combined with the confessions of Wu Yan, He Juan, Li Bing and others in this case."

“So we believe that in the absence of objective facts, we need to take into account the interests in the first instance and revoke the first instance judgment.”

On the bench, looking at the evidence submitted by Su Bai, Jiang Feng said expressionlessly: "The collegial bench has already understood this piece of evidence."

"Does the victim have anything to complain about?"

This piece of evidence is definitely not conducive to the victim from a side perspective.

Of course, Wang Qin also opened his mouth to explain it:

"First of all, since this evidence has not yet been authenticated, we believe that the court should not accept it."

"The evidence itself raises doubts."

"also."

"The minors involved in this case may not be mentally mature."

"So it is easy to summarize Xia Mingyuan's own guilty behavior as other behaviors."

“At this point there is a flaunting of ‘false elements’.”

"So we believe that this evidence cannot be used as the victim made false statements."

Su Bai: "The evidence can be evaluated after court."

"Pursuant to the request for appeal in the filing."

"We have already pointed out that the victim Wu Yan's uncle is involved in this case."

"He Juan's uncle is also involved in this case."

"Among them, the relatives of the two victims involved in this case have an interest."

"Is this something that needs to be taken into consideration?"

"Combined with Wu Yan and other victims' statements, it increases the possibility of its authenticity."

"In other words, the confessions provided by Wu Yan and others are false confessions."

Regarding the defense on this point, both sides were very clear.

Su Bai presented this evidence to show that the confessions of Wu Yan and others' victims were false.

And Xia Mingyuan was investigated through false litigation.

Wang Qin, on the other hand, used excuses such as being underage and ignorant to dismiss Su Bai's point of view.

Whether in terms of evidence or objective facts, Su Bai's defense was much higher than Wang Qin's.

The defense has now entered an advanced stage.

Just wait for the relevant judgment from the presiding judge.

only.…

The judgment this time was based on Jiang Feng's performance just now.

It can be clearly seen that the other party is leaning towards the victim.

Su Bai raised his head and looked at the judgment seat.

After sorting out the relevant materials, Jiang Feng slowly spoke:

"Both parties have completed their defenses on the relevant circumstances of this case."

"The verdict regarding the defense will now be announced."

"First of all - the evidence submitted by the appellant has not yet been authenticated, so it will not be accepted."

"Secondly, the court believes that the victim's confession and related circumstances are reasonable to a certain extent."

"Here's why:"

"As a teaching director in the school, Xia Mingyuan can punish students without physical contact."

"He used this type of punishment even though he knew that he might be punishing students, that there was physical contact, that there might be access to private parts."

"It is subjectively expressive to a certain extent."

"Based on that."

"He also had multiple physical contacts with the victims Wu Yan, He Juan, and Li Bing, and called them into the office."

"In addition, in terms of his subjective intentionality, he cannot prove that he has not committed any obscene or harassing behavior."

"It is now determined that Xia Mingyuan has committed obscene and harassing behavior."

While the presiding judge Jiang Feng was making the judgment, Su Bai felt that this judgment was outrageous.

That’s the verdict, right?

Knowing that there is a possibility of touching a private part is the same as touching a private part?

No...where did this logic come from?

Criminal cases, say it 100 times: evidence, direct evidence, objective facts!

Neither can one be sentenced to three and a half years in prison based only on oral confession and possible intention!

Isn't this scary?

Su Bai directly rebutted in court: "Where are the objective facts and direct evidence that the presiding judge just based on his judgment?"

"where?!"

"Without objective facts and direct evidence, why should Xia Mingyuan be found guilty of a crime?!"

"I would like to ask which article or provision of the Criminal Procedure Law the presiding judge made his decision in accordance with?!"

Facing Su Bai's question, Jiang Feng frowned slightly, but still replied:

"This judgment is based on the adapted scenario."

"Based on the applicable scenario, it means there is no objective factual evidence?!"

“What scenarios apply?”

"Is it based on the victim's confession or is the scenario drawn up by the presiding judge based on his own subjectivity?!"

"I ask the presiding judge to give us a clear explanation!"

Su Bai looked at the seat of the trial bench and banged the table.

Isn't this bullying?

When this happens, I will definitely not mind breaking up with the presiding judge and members of the collegial panel.

why?

Because the other party no longer talks about the applicable laws.

Applicable scenarios, what legal scenarios apply?

If we only use legal scenarios to make judgments, what else would we have to defend just now?

Wouldn't it be better if you just pronounced the verdict right after the trial? !

Why go through the relevant procedures? !
.

....

PS: Please give me a monthly ticket~

(End of this chapter)