大午法律团队:大午案第四天简报——我想挖出一扇窗(中英文)

第四天庭审,今天高碑店市的天阴沉沉的下着小雨,似乎要诉说冤屈!庭审从早上9点开始。

高碑店市法院继续昨天庭审的聚众冲击国家机关罪的举证、质证程序。审判长先宣布排非决定,驳回昨天下午辩护人新提出的排非申请后,公诉人继续宣读被告人的笔录。

被告人纪玮莲(女)说:指定居所监视居住我看这个房子可以看出以前是有窗户的,我申请我要换房间,我抓狂我想挖出窗户,我希望把门打开,我想要空气。我提审的次数太少,我记忆力衰退,办案人员帮我回忆细节,我回忆不起来,都是办案人员提示写上笔录的,有视频为证。我希望出去提审,是因为可以放放风。有个看管女工作人员进我指定居所监视居住的房间5分钟就晕倒了。医生最后2天给我吸氧袋,我一直申请没有给我。(哭诉)为什么那个有窗户的房子要堵上窗户,为什么?我追究我追究。孙大午的辩护人怒斥说,指居期间非人的待遇,纪玮莲最后说的话,只要不是铁石心肠的人,你能不相信吗?我们不希望走形式,这四天排非不就是在走形式吗?公诉人是在制造证据,被告人无法质证。为什么应该提交的讯问同步录音录像不提交?把程序依法处理得当不好吗?庭前会议就是强推,质证你能绕过去吗?

由于昨天有辩护人当庭发现被告人靳凤羽在高碑店市有其所有权住房这一线索,但是高碑店市公安局依然对其指定居所监视居住5个多月,辩护人向法庭提交了侦查机关对靳凤羽指定居所监视居住涉嫌非法拘禁罪的线索材料。今天上午靳凤羽说,我房子的事我不会追究监视居住我的问题,不想纠结这个问题,希望律师也不要追究,这是我的态度。多位辩护人质证时严肃反驳其,法律监督是检察机关的法定职权,不应该受被告人靳凤羽左右,发现违法就应该纠正;靳凤羽你有原谅冤枉你人的权利,但是涉嫌违法犯罪线索举报控告是公民的权利,检察机关依据违法犯罪线索履行法律监督职能是公权力,你无权干涉,检察机关有权依法追究涉嫌非法拘禁罪的侦查人员的刑事责任。

孙大午说,指定居所监视居住的环境有问题,后来政府加了空气净化器,还是不行。孙志华就是这样把身体搞坏了。笔录必须真实,监视居住时间少一点三个月就可以了。因为你们不让排非,希望法庭让我多说一点,孙志华也是办案人员诱供才说的。孙福硕说,记得核对笔录时,办案民警写的笔录与事实是有出入的,说明笔录是办案人员根据需要写的,有些不记录。为了案子公平公正,笔录要给我们看一下,不起眼的细节单从公诉人读一下笔录是听不出来的,笔录记的是真的吗?我要看笔录,这也是我要求看讯问同步录音录像的原因。

多名辩护人质证时,强烈要求法院调取讯问同步录音录像,要求当庭播放讯问同步录音录像,来核对被告人供述的真伪,但是法庭不置可否,你叫不醒装睡的人。辩护人指出本案侦查主体的违法,保定市公安局1110专案组是高碑店市公安局吗?无侦查权的主体所做的笔录应当全案排除。几名女被告人说指定居所监视居住期间那黑屋子无窗户,新装修后气味刺鼻难闻,指居期间5个多月才洗2次澡,没有人格尊严。

本案因为大午员工对徐水公安处理8.4土地纠纷时存在过度执法引起请愿诉求,孙大午要求请愿人员自愿参加,限制人数、限制时间,主动避开上下班高峰时间。请愿主要目的是告徐水公安副局长崔超。下午在辩护人强烈要求下,法庭播放了8.4下午现场视频资料,大家就看的很清楚,请愿人员离开机关门口有十几米秩序井然,出现混乱的场面是特警躲在人群后面推,警察在人群前面拉。把许多手无寸铁的请愿人强行拉入机关内,有的人员衣服被警察拉坏,有些妇女被警察蛮横拉扯倒地,典型的诱捕行为。

公诉人在出示视频时,不愿意播放全部视频,闪烁其词。辩护人要求法庭播放该罪全部视频证据,给法庭内的在坐被告人看,以方便被告人自我辩护。法院审判长不情愿播放全部视频,要求辩护人讲视频节点时间播放,辩护人据理力争要求无需视频节点时间播放,应当全部播放,以便找到对被告人有利的证据。辩护人当庭说出所依据的司法解释是《人民法院办理刑事案件第一审普通程序法庭调查规程(试行)》2018年1月1日最高人民法院,第二十八条 开庭讯问、发问结束后,公诉人先行举证。公诉人举证完毕后,被告人及其辩护人举证。公诉人出示证据后,经审判长准许,被告人及其辩护人可以有针对性地出示证据予以反驳。

被告人在看完8.4下午视频后,纷纷表示根本不知道这还能犯罪,知道这是犯罪谁还要去。被告人李大红表示我们去机关就是诉说委屈,请愿,根本没有冲击机关的想法也没有过激行动。我感觉大午集团很委屈,大午集团的人很委屈,把我们抓到这里8个多月很委屈。大午在看完视频后说,在机关门口的请愿人群中后排有一个女的高声尖叫,我不认识她,我希望集团查一下这个人,非常可疑!孙福硕也说人群中有几个穿黑衣的人我不认识,感觉是便衣警察,很可疑。难道还有某些人故意混在请愿人群中制造混乱,构陷请愿的人吗?想想不寒而栗。

庭审还在继续中,预计要到晚11点……

大午法律团队

2021年7月18日

Dawu-lawyer-Zhang-Peng-Wang-Shihua-and-Zhao-Jun
Gaobeidian Municipal People’s Court. Three of the defense lawyers leaving the court (from left to right): Zhang Peng (张鹏), Wang Shihua (王誓华) and Zhao Jun (赵军).

On the fourth day of the trial, the sky in Gaobeidian City was gloomy with light rain, as if it were grieving! The trial started at 9 o’clock in the morning.

The Gaobeidian Municipal Court continued yesterday’s trial proceedings of evidence production and cross-examination of the alleged crime of “gathering a crowd to assault state organs”. The presiding judge first announced his decision on the exclusion of illegal evidence. After dismissing the defense lawyers’ new application to exclude illegal evidence from yesterday afternoon, the prosecutors continued to read the defendants’ interrogation transcripts.

The defendant Ji Weilian (纪玮莲, female) said: I could see that there were once windows in the Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) room. I applied to change rooms, I was extremely agitated, and wanted to dig out the window. I wanted to open the door. I wanted air. I was interrogated too many times. My memory was declining. The case handlers tried to help me recall the details, but I couldn’t recall them. Everything written in the transcripts was prompted by the case handlers, as evidenced by the interrogation video recording. I had hoped to be taken out of the room to be interrogated, because then I could have a breath of fresh air. When a female member of the custodial caretaking staff came into my residential surveillance room she fainted within 5 minutes. During my final two days of detention, the doctor gave me an oxygen bag, which I had kept on requesting but they they had not given it to me. (Crying.) Why did they seal off the windows that had been there, why? I will keep asking, and waiting, for an answer.

One of Sun Dawu’s defense lawyers said angrily, referring to the inhuman treatment during RSDL that Ji Weilian said previously, how could anyone but the cruelest people not believe it? We don’t want to reduce everything to a formality, but haven’t these last four days of applying for the exclusion of illegal evidence been nothing other than a matter of formality? The prosecutors were creating evidence that the defendants could not cross-examine. Why not submit real-time audio and video recordings of the interrogations? Shouldn’t the court handle its procedures according to law? Is that not a good thing? During the pretrial meetings the court tried to steamroll everything through, but can you avoid the cross-examination of evidence by the defense?

The defense counsel learned in court yesterday that, even though the defendant Jin Fengyu had her own residence in Gaobeidian City, she was still put under RSDL for more than five months by the Gaobeidian Municipal Public Security Bureau. The defense counsel filed supporting materials demonstrating the investigative agency’s suspected illegal detention of placing Jin Fengyu (靳凤羽) under RSDL. Jin Fengyu said this morning, “I will not pursue the issue of being made to sell my property and placed under RSDL. I don’t want to dwell on this issue; I hope that my lawyer will not pursue it either. This is my attitude.” Several defense lawyers seriously refuted Jin Fengyu during cross examination. Legal supervision is the statutory power of the prosecutorial organ and should not be influenced by the defendant, Jin Fengyu. If a violation is found, it should be corrected. Jin Fengyu has the right to forgive those who wronged her, but it is the right of citizens to report clues of suspected violations and illegal criminal acts. It is the duty of the prosecutorial organs to perform its legal supervision functions based on clues of violations and crimes. You [defendant Jin Fengyu] have no right to interfere, and the prosecutorial organ has the duty to pursue whether investigators suspected of illegal detention should be held criminally responsible.

Sun Dawu (孙大午) said that there was a problem with the air quality at the RSDL facility. Later, the government installed an air purifier, but it didn’t improve much. That’s why Sun Zhihua’s (孙志华) health deteriorated. The transcripts must be true to facts, and the duration of RSDL shouldn’t be longer than three months. Because the judges won’t allow the exclusion of illegal evidence, I hope the court will allow me more time to speak. Sun Zhihua’s transcripts are also the result of the fact that the investigators used deception to extract confessions.

Sun Fushuo said: I remember that when asked to verify the interrogation transcripts, the transcripts produced by the officers were inconsistent with the facts, indicating that the transcripts were produced according to the investigators’ need to prove guilt, with some details not recorded. For the sake of fairness and justice, the transcripts should be shown to us in court. These inconspicuous details cannot be discerned from the prosecutor’s reading aloud of the transcripts in the court. Are the transcripts true? I want to read the transcripts, which is also why I asked to watch the real-time audio/video recordings of the interrogation.

When multiple members of the defense team cross-examined the defendants, they firmly demanded that the court obtain real-time interrogation audio and video recordings and play them in court to verify the authenticity of the defendants’ confessions. However, the court was noncommittal, and intentionally so.

The defense counsel pointed out that the case investigators violated the law. Is the Baoding municipal Public Security Bureau’s “1110 Special Case Group” (“1110专案组”) under the jurisdiction of the Gaobeidian Municipal Public Security Bureau? Transcripts made by investigators who had no investigative authority should be wholly excluded in the case.

Several female defendants said that the dark rooms they were placed in during RSDL had no windows, and that the smell of the newly renovated room was pungent and malodorous. They said that they had only taken two baths during their 5-months in RSDL, and they were not afforded their personal dignity.

Dawu-feed-company-4-factories-and-1-trade-co.
Dawu Animal Feed Company.

In this case, Dawu employees gathered to voice their grievances with regard to the use of excessive force by the Xushui Public Security Bureau when handling the land dispute on August 4, 2020. Sun Dawu asked employees to participate in the petition voluntarily, limited the number of people, limited the times of protest, and intentionally avoided rush hours. The main purpose of the complaint was to protest against Cui Chao (崔超), deputy director of the Xushui Public Security Bureau. In the afternoon, as requested by the defense counsel, the court played video recording of the scene of petition on the afternoon of August 4. Everyone could see clearly that the Dawu petitioners protested more than ten meters away from the entrance of the government building, and were extremely orderly. The chaos was only caused by SWAT-type forces purposely pushing the crowd from behind and police officers pulling them forward from in front. Many unarmed petitioners were forcibly pulled into the PSB building, some of the petitioners’ clothes were torn by the police, and some women were shoved to the ground by the police. It was a textbook example of police luring Dawu petitioners into a trap.

When showing the video, the prosecutors were unwilling to play the video in its entirety and were evasive when questioned about the video. The defense counsel asked the court to broadcast the entire video evidence of the alleged crime and show it to the defendants sitting in the court to facilitate their self-defense. The presiding judge was reluctant to play the video in its entirety and asked the defense counsel to give the court a time stamp for the part of the video they wanted to be played. The defense counsel argued forcefully that there was no need to require the video play at a certain time node, because it should be played in its entirety to demonstrate evidence beneficial to the defendants. The demand, the defense counsel pointed out, is based on the judicial interpretation of “General Procedures for Court Investigations for People’s Courts Handling of First Instance of Criminal Cases (Provisional)” issued on January 1, 2018, by the Supreme People’s Court. Article 28 states: “After the completion of initial questioning of the defendants by both prosecutors and defense lawyers, the prosecutors shall first present evidence. After the prosecutor has finished presenting evidence, the defendants and their defense lawyers shall present evidence. After the prosecutors present their evidence, with the permission of the presiding judge, the defendants and their defense counsel may then present specific evidence to refute prosecutors’ evidence.”

After watching the video of the Dawu petition scene on the afternoon of August 4, the defendants all expressed their disbelief that what they had seen could have constituted a crime, and if the Dawu petitioners thought this would have been considered criminal behavior, no one would have participated. The defendant Li Dahong stated that we went to the government agencies to complain about our grievances and petition the government. We had no intention to, nor did we, attack the government organs, and we did not act radically. I feel Dawu Group was wronged, and the people of Dawu Group were wronged. We were wronged for being detained here for more than 8 months. After watching the video, Sun Dawu said that the woman screaming loudly in the back row of the petitioning crowd at the entrance of the PSB was unknown to him, and I hope Dawu Group will investigate who this person is, but she was very suspicious! Sun Fushuo also said that there were a few people in the crowd dressed in black that he didn’t know, but he believed they were plainclothes policemen and suspicious. Did some people deliberately mingle with the petitioning crowd to create chaos and frame the petitioners? One shudders at the thought.

The trial is still in progress and it is expected to continue until 11 o’clock in the evening……

Dawu Legal Team

July 18, 2021

请分享这个故事:

发表评论

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注