Hobin Case: Conflict of Evidence and Procedural Justice

In the case of Hubin, the case is now at the key point of the trial of the court, and has not yet made a final judgment.Looking at the full material of the case, to see the family in anxiety, the most troubling, is not the complex demolition dispute in the scenes, but deciding whether the core witness testimony can be found by bribery, the two statements appear strikingly opposite; can distinguish the true prison meeting synchronous video, but disappeared; the defense lawyer was complained after obtaining evidence in accordance with the law, and was forced to withdraw from the defense.When the key evidence of the conviction fell into a major contradiction, the justice procedure became the prerequisite for justice.

Among the three charges of Hobin’s first trial ruling, the allegation of bribery of 600,000 yuan is an important basis for the whole case. This amount is actually bribes or loans between private persons, directly related to whether the bribery was established. And this is the key fact, the most sharp and unavoidable evidence conflict broke out in the whole case. What was behind the Wuhan Hobin trial from early morning to late night: a more than 13 hours of “tremor trial” — written in Hobin’s second trial.

The same witness, two completely opposing statements

The key witnesses in the case have been sentenced to prison.The record of the investigation confirmed that the 600,000 yuan was a bribe sent to Hobin for the purpose of taking care of his children's cases.

But the defense lawyer Zhang Zhang Xia, Li Ba, after obtaining a prison permit in accordance with the law, went to Zhejiang prison to meet with the survivors of the sentence, and fully recorded the exact opposite fact: The 600,000 was a private loan for Hobin's purchase of houses, not bribery; between the two sides there was a private loan exchange, there was no money transaction using the office to help deal with the case, but also recorded the details of the funds that had been returned 500,000, and the bank transfer flow can be mutually certified.

The entire process of the meeting was under the supervision of the prison, the prison clearly informed that the meeting room was all opened synchronous video recording, the process of the meeting was supervised by the prison police, the procedure was completely legal, the lawyer completed the meeting record, submitted to the case authority.

A dramatic shift took place.

After the lawyers submitted the key evidence in favour of the defendant, the Honghua District Supervisory Commission officers again entered the Zhejiang prison to file the case. This time the written note completely overturned the statement of the lawyers at the meeting, and again returned to the original accusation calibre of "600,000 belonged to bribery".

The same person, at a short interval of time, appeared two testimony completely contradictory: on the one hand, it is borrowed, and on the other hand, it is bribery.

To distinguish which is the true meaning, the hardest and most undeniable evidence is the full synchronous video of the lawyer's meeting in prison. the video can be objectively restored: the lawyer meets the induced, threatened witnesses; what is the real word at the time.

A key video that can determine the end of the dispute, but declares “covered and no longer exists”

The defense lawyer first requested in writing to obtain all the surveillance videos of the meeting in the prison.

The prison side answered: The video of the meeting was taken away by the prosecutor's office, but when the lawyer and the court further requested the video from the case authority, the answer was: the video has been covered, now can not be found, no longer .

There is a huge logical contradiction here:

The prison confirmed: there was a full-time video of the meeting, the video was retrieved by the case agency; the lawyer requested to retrieve the original video used to verify the authenticity of the testimony; the case agency replied: the video was covered and disappeared, and could not be provided.

This video is not an irrelevant marginal material, it is the only objective and original evidence that discourages the nature of the case’s 600,000 claims and distinguishes the witness from the opposite two statements.

The "Implementation Regulations of the Supervision Law" clearly requires that important inquiries and conversations should be synchronized with the recording video throughout, properly stored, complete archive, retain the recording, must not be deliberately deleted, covered with loss ... The criminal laws interpretation is also clear: the evidence of the recording video should be obtained, the video can not be provided, and the authenticity of the evidence can not be confirmed, the corresponding recording may not be used as the basis of the case ...

Now, the original video that can verify the truth is missing, there are only two notes of words fighting each other. Without the original image proof, no one can judge: whether the lawyer spoke the truth at the time of the meeting; or the subsequent trial cycle, witnesses under pressure changed the original statement.

Only on the basis of two conflicting verbal evidence, is far from reaching the criteria of conviction in criminal proceedings “facts are clear, evidence is indeed sufficient.”

After obtaining evidence according to law, the defense lawyer encountered a complaint and was forced to withdraw from the defense.

A more remarkable chain of events followed: the two defence lawyers only met with witnesses in custody in accordance with the law, recorded witness statements in truth, submitted evidence in favor of the defendant to the judiciary, and fulfilled the legal investigation rights conferred on the defence.

But after the “loan” testimony was submitted, the Hong Kong District Supervisory Commission subsequently filed a complaint with the judicial administrative department against two defense lawyers, accusing the lawyer of suspicion of instigation and tempting witnesses to make false testimony.

The complaint brought immediate consequences: The lawyer was pressured to withdraw from Hobin's defence team , the defendant lost a defense who had mastered the key evidence and was familiar with the details of the whole case, directly affecting Hobin's right to an effective defence.

The law grants the defence lawyer the right to verify the case to witnesses, collect innocent, innocent evidence. The defence lawyer's duty is to find, submit evidence in favor of the accused. Can not because the lawyer has a statement of witnesses against the accusation, in turn to question, complain to the defence lawyer. If the defence lawyer obtains evidence in accordance with the law, will be at risk, then the defence evidence of all office crime cases will be substantially blocked.

Here objectively formed a difficult situation: either, the lawyer meeting the record is true, 600,000 is borrowed, then the subsequent supervisory committee's counter-word record is inducing confession, referring to the suspicion of confession; or, the supervisory committee subsequent record is true, the lawyer meeting exists encouraging witnesses to false testimony.

And the only key to solving this puzzle — the prison meeting video, but the declaration of disappearance, can not be verified in court.

If the evidence is seriously contradictory and procedural defects overlap, the original judgment shall be revoked in accordance with law and re-examined.

At the heart of criminal trial is the evidence judge.All conviction of guilt must be based on an objective, complete and mutually justifiable chain of evidence.

Combined with this set of core facts in the case, at least multiple procedural and evidence issues need to be urgently addressed by the court:

There is a major contradiction that cannot be ruled out in the core conviction evidence: the accused party relies on the determination of the key witnesses of bribery, there are two strikingly opposite testimony, and the only one that can verify the truth is the original synchronous recording video disappearance, cannot verify the truth of the testimony, the word evidence should not be used separately as the basis of the conviction.

When the original video of the conviction is not available and cannot provide a legitimate and reasonable explanation, the effectiveness of the evidence should be questioned on the basis of the record formed by the witness' subsequent objection.

The right to defence is substantially infringed: a defence lawyer receives a complaint after obtaining key evidence of innocence in accordance with the law, a defence lawyer is forced to withdraw from the case, objectively weakening the defendant's defence power, and belongs to the rule of law network of procedural issues that may affect a fair trial.

Article 238 If the facts of the original judgment are not clear or the evidence is insufficient, the second instance may revoke the original judgment and send it back to the people's court for re-trial; if the original trial violates the statutory litigation procedure, which may affect the fair trial, it should also be re-trial.

The Hoobin case is still in the second phase of the trial, everything has not yet been settled.We do not presume Hoobin is guilty or innocent, we only adhere to the simple rule of law logic: When a core evidence that determines whether the crime is founded or not appears sharp contradictions, and the original objective evidence for verifying the truth is lost, the court should not rush to maintain the original judgment, should send the case back to re-examination, re-complete verification of all the evidence, put the truth above the court for public proof.

* by

Let the evidence speak and the procedure be justice.

Let the evidence speak, and the procedure justice.

Hobin, who was also a grassroots civil police officer in the legal system, understands the law, understands the procedure and is now deeply immersed in the cycle of criminal proceedings.

What we expect is not a single outcome, but a full evidence review, strict procedural justice.

If 600,000 are indeed bribes, complete, solid, objective evidence that can rule out any reasonable suspicion shall be presented; if this amount is indeed a private loan, it shall not be based on this to support the conviction of bribes.

The disappearance of the video cannot be solved in this way, the contradictory testimony of witnesses cannot be carried out blurred, and the legal right of the defense of the defense must be respected and protected.

The court faces all the contradictory evidence, and makes a judgment that can withstand the law and can withstand the public review.

May every person in the whirlwind of the lawsuit have the complete defense and meet the true procedures and justice.Wuhan Civil Police Hubin, when no one helps you to support your umbrella, should strike the light in your hands.