The second trial of the Lao Rongzhi case continued to open, and senior lawyers interpreted the focus of control

Jimu Journalist Yu Yuan Du Guangran

Video editing Li Xiaoxue intern Dong Xiaoshe

According to CCTV News, the Lao Rongzhi case continued to open the court at 1:30 pm on August 18th. Whether the branch constitutes the evidence of intentional homicide is sufficient "," Lao Rongzhi is the main criminal of the department or the offender ", etc. Jimu Journalists interviewed two senior lawyers on the focus of the prosecution at the court.

The crowd waiting for the results outside the court

Lawyer Fu Jian, Henan Yulong Law Firm, said that Lao Rongzhi acknowledged participation in robbery and abduction during the first instance, but denied intentional homicide and claimed that he had been coerced by Fayu Ying. The prosecutor believes that Lao Rongzhi will deceive the victim to the criminal place in the abduction case in the process of crime. His behavior autonomy is strong. All criminal penalties participating. The defendant believed that Lao Rongzhi committed a crime under the coercion of Dharma and had a small effect in common crimes. Although the degree of coercion is low, it still belongs to the threat of the crime, which can reduce the proportion of punishment, but the punishment should be reduced.

Lao Rongzhi in the first instance court

Fu Jian said that if the defense could not provide valid evidence and prove that Lao Rongzhi did not participate in intentional homicide, the possibility of the second trial reform was relatively low.

Attorney Chai Xin, a law firm at Beijing Dacheng (Wuhan) Law Firm, said that the court of the second instance may probably have the probability that Lao Rongzhi constituted a co -crime, whether there is a coercion, how the crime and participation, the exclusion of illegal evidence, and whether there are illegal evidence exclusion and whether the first instance procedure is illegal, etc. The question conducted a detailed investigation. The focus and direction of the final survey is to see which new evidence the appellant and the public prosecution agency supplemented.

- END -