Jurassic Court: Appeal Hearing Will Reveal Facts

“I just want the truth and don’t accept the blame!” – Huangli Army, Luanang Prison in Hunan

Title: From Prosecution to Prosecution

On January 9, 2024, the First Court of the People's Court of Ningbo City.

Huang Li, party group secretary, chief prosecutor, senior prosecutor at the third level, convicted and punished, sentenced to nine years in prison .

At this time, Huang Li Army, has been 62 years old.He has cultivated the prosecution system for thirty-eight years

• from 1984 to the prosecutor's office, to 1995 as Deputy Prosecutor General of the Yuan District Prosecutor's Office, and in 2016 to the principal Pyeongchang Prosecutor's Office, leading the chamber to take the national civilization units, the entire province to remove the evil and advanced collective, public interest lawsuits for the country to recover economic losses of more than 200 million yuan, and the entire chamber to establish the collective first.

For thirty-eight years, he has heard so many of the parties shout out and he may never have thought that the word “judgment” would come out of his own mouth.

The world turns around, Sandy.

1, Reverse the Storm, with a "Third Week Signatory"

On September 3, 2021, the Shaanxi Municipal Supervisory Commission filed a case investigation into the Huang Li Army, and took the measures of detention.Guidance is a line in the report of the Shaanxi Municipal Prosecutor's Office: in the re-examination of the 29 people involved in the black case, the whole city prosecuted 137 people, and the Huang Li Army was identified as involved in the case "protection umbrella".

Two old cases were reversed and became the two knives hanging on the top of the Huangli army's head -- the 2010 case of deliberate injury by painting the spring wave, and the 2015 case of deliberate injury by Liu Xiaobo.

The logic of the judiciary's determination is very direct: the two cases were "slightly convicted" or "not prosecuted for violations", while the Huang Li Army, as the deputy chief prosecutor of the Zhejiang District Prosecutor's Office for Public Prosecution at the time, was the "backdoors" that used the power to confiscate the law.

But Guo, the woman who had been law enforcement officer for decades at the Shaanxi District Prosecutor’s Office, discovered in the process of filing a complaint for her husband a fact that made her back cold: The key decisions in these two cases were almost all made before the Yuan army actually divided the prosecution, or simply made by someone else.

The mystery of the time line.

The case was transferred to the Yunnan District Prosecutor's Office on August 12, 2009 to review the prosecution.

• August 12, 2009 : the case was transferred to prosecution, and the prosecution was administered by Deputy Attorney General Chen Zhen, not the Huang Li Army;

• November 15, 2009 : the contractor has produced the "Public Prosecution Case Review Report", which clarifies that "the primary offender ... suggests a penalty between two and three years of imprisonment";

January 29, 2010: Party group meeting record (for research purposes only);

February 4, 2010: Chen Qing signed the approval case as the Deputy Attorney General in charge of prosecution.

March 1, 2010: The Zhou Army signed the prosecution case for the first time (after the Spring Festival);

March 17, 2010: The Huangli Army signed the approval form on the "acceptance of prosecution" in the painting of the Spring Wave case;

• March 18-19, 2010: The contractor had silver trees still questioning witnesses.

There are three deadly paradoxes in this timeline:

First, the decision is first, the department is after. The case "first offender" determined the core decision, such as two to three years sentence recommendations, by the contractor has been put forward on November 15, 2009, at this time the department of the prosecution is Chen.

Secondly, the signature is still obtained after the evidence, the only explanation is "subscription". If the 17th of March has approved the Yuli Army has agreed to the prosecution, Yuri has no need to continue to question the key witnesses on 18-19 March; if the 19th of March to inquire the certificate talents to discuss the case, the signing time should be 19th instead of 17th. The only reasonable explanation is that the signing of the 17th of March after the case for the improvement of the case.

Third, the penalty recommended was higher than the actual sentence. The prosecutor’s office proposed a penalty of two to three years, and the court eventually sentenced to four years. The penalty result was higher than the prosecutor’s recommendation, directly denying the accusation that the “Julian army greeted the manipulation of light sentence”.

More intriguing is the authentication of the note. The authentication opinion issued by湘西正司鉴所 shows: The handwritten revisions in the draft of the prosecution amendment are all written by the prosecution chief Gong, not by the Yuli Army. – That is, the material evidence that can directly prove “who is trying to remove the prosecution” is pointed at Gong, not the Yuli Army.

Yuan Shuang, the defense lawyer of the Yuan Shuang case, in the “Legal Opinion” submitted on March 8, 2010, only claimed that the Yuan Shuang does not constitute a crime, suggested to take a bailout trial. This with the confession made by Yuan Shuang during the detention of “Send 3,000 yuan red packs before the Spring Festival to the Yuan Yuan Army to be determined to commit a crime” in the timeline is fundamental contradiction – before the Spring Festival he has not yet investigated witnesses, how can the Lord request the question of the perpetrator?

In the “Legal Opinion” submitted on March 8, 2010, Yuan Shuang, the defense lawyer of the Yuan Shuang case, only argued that the Yuan Shuang painting does not constitute a crime, and suggested to take insurance for trial. This with the confession made by Yuan Shuang during the detention of the “Send 3,000 yuan red packs before the Spring Festival to the Yuan Li Army to be convicted of the crime” was a fundamental contradiction on the time line – before the Spring Festival he had not yet investigated witnesses, how could the Lord have asked for the question of the crime?

2: Liu Xiaobo case: a misunderstood decision to revoke no prosecution

Liu's deliberate injury in 2015 is the second pillar of the Yuan Army's conviction.

The logic determined by the original trial was that the Yulian army accepted the petition of Deng Xiaoping, and conspired with the Penny people and the Yulian, concealed the preliminary case of Liu Xiaoping, and made a decision not to prosecute.In 2020, the District Prosecutor's Office revoked the decision not to prosecute, and Liu Xiaoping was eventually sentenced to a period of imprisonment of twenty-five years for organizing and leading the black society for 13 crimes of organizational nature.

However, the original text of the Shaanxi District Prosecutor's Office "Revocation of the Decision not to Prosecute" (Shaanxi District Prosecutor's Office No.

1. is as follows:

"Currently, due to the determination that the circumstances were found to be inappropriate, and there is a criminal case, it has been decided to revoke the [2015] No. 52 No. 52 No. 52 No. 52 No. 52 No.

The keyword is “confirmation of inappropriacy in the proceedings” rather than “pre-proceedings.”

The complaint documents revealed a long-forgotten detail: the records of the 2015 seventh meeting of the Prosecutor’s Committee showed,

The original words spoken in the discussion were:

"The acts of criminal suspects Liu Xiaobo and Yuan Xing have constituted a deliberate injury crime ... but criminal suspects Liu Xiaobo and Yuan Xiaobo have reconciled with the victim after the incident, also obtained the victim's understanding, can be punished from the mild, the crime circumstances are mild, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the High Prosecutor's Office and the criminal settlement cases in our province ... As for whether or not to surrender, I do not think it is appropriate to consider the case to surrender."

And Yang Binhlin and Suzhou considered the establishment work in the discussion.

This objective record clearly demonstrates: The Yulian army held a fair law enforcement position in the proceedings of the procuratorate, opposed to the assertion of commitment, opposed to the assertion of surrender, and argued that there was no prosecution for criminal reconciliation only.

More critical counter-evidence is: Dungeon cared for the case of thankfulness, only to the Penny people and the goats sending goods, did not send any goods to the Zhou Army, even "thank you" did not express .

In the note, the Huntsman admitted that he did not report to the Huangli Army, because "the report can not be done without prosecution" -- This means that hiding the Huntsman is the personal act of the Huntsman, and the Huangli Army is not aware.

Collapse of Testimony: Confessions of Four Witnesses

The core of the original conviction is based on the word evidence of Yuan, Gong, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan, Yuan and Yuan.

But in the first trial, a dramatic scene happened:

by *

Huang Yongming (the deputy dean of the court in the Yangtze District) dubbed at the court: "The Huang Li Army did not find me for the painting of the spring wave." he said that the previous testimony was compiled under the heavy pressure of physical punishment, threats of honor, and coercion to affect the work of children.

Yuan Shuang (advocate for the defence of Yuan Shuang) confessed in court that he was forced to make a false confession of $3,000 for bribes to the Yuan Army because of the seizure of associated enterprises and the need to verify theft of taxes.

Wang Benevin (the chairman of the court in the Yangtze district) stated to his colleagues after the judgment in the first instance that the supervisory commission's investigators were partly commissioned to retain 2 million bribes and pledged to make rewards in accordance with the instructions of the case officers.

The recorded evidence of Penli (the head of the prosecution department of the Yunnan District Prosecutor's Office) proved that the prosecutor-general of the time gave up the prosecution as a condition in exchange for his testimony against the Yunnan army.

The four key witnesses of the original trial, both clearly confessed or self-confessed, both witnesses were made under substantial interest exchange or personal coercion.

Huang Yongming (the deputy dean of the court in the Yunnan District) confessed at the court: " The Huang Li Army did not find me for the painting of the spring wave." he said that the previous testimony was compiled under the heavy pressure of corporal punishment, threats to honor, and compulsion to affect the work of children.

Yuan Shuang (Juan Shuangbo defense lawyer) in court doubled confession: because of the seizure of associated enterprises, to verify the fraud of taxes, was forced to make a false confession to the Zhou Li army bribes of 3000 yuan. He claimed to have attempted suicide three times.

Wang益民 (the chairman of the court in the Yangtze District) stated to the supervisor after the judgment in the first instance: the supervisory committee investigator in part to retain 2 million bribes, and promise to reward, according to the instructions of the person in charge of the case.

The recorded evidence of Penli (the head of the prosecution department of the Yunnan District Prosecutor's Office) proves that the prosecutor-general of the time gave up the prosecution as a condition in exchange for his testimony against the Yunnan army.

The four key witnesses of the original trial, both clearly confessed or self-confessed, both witnesses were made under significant exchange of interests or personal coercion.

Huang Liuan himself stated that during the detention, the case officers obtained oral confessions through exhaustion interrogation (long sleep less than four hours a day), physical insults and physical punishment, and illegal means such as child coercion. The synchronous recording of the key interrogation process was not transferred with the case, and no proof was presented in court.

Fourth, Second Instance's "Written Judgment": The Focus of Procedural Disputes

On March 27, 2024, the middle people's court of the city of Nagashu issued a criminal ruling No. 234 (2024) at the end of湘01 sentence: without a trial, the appeal was rejected and the original sentenceined .

This procedure choice has become the focal point of the complainant.

Article 234 of the Criminal Procedure Law states:

The people's courts of the second instance shall constitute joint chambers and hear in court in the following cases:

(1) The defendant, the self-applicant and his legal representative object to the facts and evidence determined in the first instance, which may affect the sentence;

In the second trial of the Huangli military case, the defense lawyer raised a fundamental objection to all the facts and evidence of the conviction, and several witnesses doubled confessions -- according to the law, the second trial of this case should be opened for trial.

Article 5 of the Supreme People's Court on the Specific Provisions of the Trial Procedure in Criminal Re-Examination Cases (Proving) further clarifies that the following re-examination cases shall be opened in accordance with the law: "(B) the facts or evidence must be heard in accordance with the second-instance procedure." and Article 7 of the Supreme Law on the Regulation of Several Opinions (Proving) of the People's Court on the Re-Examination Cases stipulates that the appeal of the final criminal judge shall have " evidence not collected or not collected at the time of trial, and may overturn the original penalty, the people's court shall decide to re-examin."

The new evidence submitted by Guo Jiang – the November 15, 2009 public prosecution case review report, the original legal opinion letter, the record of the 2015 seventh session of the Prosecutor’s Committee, the revocation of the decision not to prosecute, and the actual implementation of the party division of work – all conform to the legal circumstances that were “not collected or unqualified during the trial”.

5 Guo Red: Four years from the police to the "visitors"

Guo Red was originally just an ordinary law officer at the Yunnan District Prosecutor’s Office, and her life trajectory was completely changed on the day of September 3, 2021.

She said a word that filled her inner unrest:

"The Zhou Army did not come in because of injustice and abuse of office power, but because of a campaign, surrounded by his former colleagues, became a guilty sheep."

For four years, she interrogated the municipal prosecutors, stayed in the provincial prosecutors, and kneeled at the highest prosecutors.

She constantly contacted her husband's former colleagues and collected evidence. Li Muna, a subordinate of the Yuli Army, told her: "Only Yuli Inspectorate has not found me in the building district prosecutor's party group, greeted me for the case, said sympathy, including other deputy prosecutors have greeted, only your Yuli Army has never greeted."

The subordinate of Zhou Silver Tree (i.e. the contractor of the Spring Wave case) also said to her: "I have spoken with the case officers, the Zhou Li Army has been my leader for so many years, he has never sought me for the case, I said he is a famous courageous little in my yard, it is absolutely impossible for him to come out for a case to greet this matter."

She thought that the evidence was enough to reverse her husband’s case, but it was the suffocation of the procedure.

She treats these guilty visitors as brothers and sisters, and gives rise to compassion and compassion. She says, “As long as the truth is, do not accept the blame.” – This is not just the proclamation of the Yuli Army, but it is indeed the life belief of Guo.

She no longer is silent.She treats these guilty visitors as brothers and sisters, and gives rise to compassion and sympathy.She says, "As long as the truth is, do not accept the blame."—it is not just the proclamation of the Yuli Army, it is indeed the belief of Guo.

6: September: Hearing to face the sunlight of the evidence in the volume

After countless clashes, countless disappointments, and years of long complaints, the case finally took a crucial turn.

After family members continuously submitted the complaint material and submitted the full set of evidence and legal opinions, the middle-level people's court of the city of Hangzhou determined that in mid-September will be held a military appeal hearing on the case of Zhou Li.

The hearing means that the objective documentary evidence that has been sealed – the November 15, 2009 Public Prosecution Case Review Report, the original of Yuan Chun’s Legal Opinion, the Shaanxi Jinshu Institute’s Notebook Assessment Report, the record of the 7th Procurator’s Committee meeting of 2015, the revocation of the decision not to prosecute, and the actual implementation of the party division of work – will finally have the opportunity to openly verify and accept the dialectics of the prosecution.

As the legal adviser, Wang Donghai, said in an open letter to the Association of Chinese Prosecutors:

"Today is he, and who might be tomorrow? if we can't face the issues exposed in this case, then every prosecutor could be the next Zhou Army."

Under the rule of law, no exception

From the prosecutor’s seat to the defendant’s seat, from the prosecutor to the prosecuted person.The person who oversees justice becomes the person who is “blamelessly wronged.”

The case is still in the process of appeal, and the hearing is about to be held. Whether the case is ultimately guilty, whether the original proceedings are disputed, still needs to be determined by the judicial organs according to law. But there is a little doubt: the bottom line of the rule of law is never to protect a person, but to protect all people.

A 38-year-old prosecutor who has worked in the prosecution system has been sentenced to nine years in prison after retirement by the machine he has guarded.

The case is still in the process of appeal, and the hearing is about to be held. Whether the case is ultimately guilty, whether the original proceedings are disputed, still needs to be determined by the judicial organs according to the law. But there is a bit of no doubt: The bottom line of the rule of law is never to protect a person, but to protect all people .

An old prosecutor who has worked in the prosecutor’s system for thirty-eight years is sentenced to nine years in prison after retirement by the machine he has guarded.

The knife to reverse the prosecution, can not fall on the slate of the procedure; the umbrella hat, can not hang on the head of the lack of objective evidence.

The hearing in September will be the system that shares the fog and restores the facts.All the doubts within the book will eventually be seen in the sun; all the hidden evidence of innocence will eventually be given the opportunity to speak in court.

"I just want the truth and don't accept the blame!" -- the phrase came from the Hunan Penang prison, through the iron window, through the four-year long road of complaints, and arrived in the hearing hall in September.

We look forward to the fact that the evidence of innocence in the volume will finally see the light.