[brief introduction]
On the evening of July 12, 2004, when the defendant Ding was playing mahjong with the victim Guo and others at Wu's house in Siming District of the city, he quarreled with the victim for some reason and was persuaded by the people present. At about 10:00 on the evening of July 13 of the same year, the defendant Ding went to Wu's house to play mahjong again. During this period, the victim Guo gathered at least four or five unidentified men to Wu's house for a drink. In the early morning of the next morning, a man gathered by the victim Guo asked the defendant to drink, and when he was refused, the man casually picked up a glass bottle of toilet water on the bedroom table and hit the defendant on the head, causing the defendant's head injury and bleeding. Then, the victim, together with at least three or four men gathered together, also beat the defendant. As a result, the defendant stabbed the victim with a knife in order to protect his own life, resulting in the victim's death.
[process of handling a case]
After receiving the notice of defense appointed by the court, the aid center immediately assigned a lawyer from a law firm to defend the defendant Ding on suspicion of intentional injury (death). The defender carefully reviewed the case file, met with the defendant, carefully studied and analyzed the materials of each link of the case, and finally found that the public prosecution organ was not clear about an important plot of the case, that is, the specific circumstances of the defendant's intentional injury were not clear. When the defendant stabbed the victim with a knife, did the victim stop the injury and stand in place? Or have you retreated? Or does the victim continue to attack the defendant? The evidence provided by the public prosecution does not indicate the situation at that time. The appointed defence counsel is of the view that inferences in favour of the accused should be made when the evidence is in doubt. In this case, the public prosecutor and the appointed defense lawyer launched a heated debate on the core issue of whether the defendant's behavior is self-defense and over-defense.
In the court argument, the designated defense lawyer puts forward a highly targeted defense opinion according to the facts of the case and the relevant evidence materials combined with the relevant law: first, this case is caused by the fault of the victim. The day before the crime, after the defendant quarreled with the victim over playing mahjong, the defendant took the initiative to invite the victim to eat midnight snacks outside in order to reconcile. The next night, the victim took a group of people to deliberately find fault with the defendant, and one of them first committed the murder, hitting the defendant on the head with a bottle, causing the defendant to bleed, and then the victim assaulted the defendant with many people. as a result, the personal safety of the defendant was in a state of danger and emergency, which led to the defendant stabbing the victim with a knife in order to protect his own life. Second, the defendant's behavior is excessive defense. The purpose of the defendant's behavior is to force a group of people brought by the victim to stop attacking him, so that he can flee the scene as soon as possible and prevent his life from suffering more serious harm. The motivation and purpose of the behavior are reasonable and legal. The defense tools held by the defendant were conveniently picked up from the locker in the room, which shows that the injury was not premeditated. A group of people brought by the victim not only punched and kicked the defendant, but also hurt the defendant with bottles and blocked the only exit for the defendant to escape. It can be seen that in a very urgent situation, in order to defend himself, the defendant picked up a fruit knife and stabbed his fiercest victim before fleeing the scene to avoid accident. Suppose that if the defendant does not take this defensive measure, it will be the defendant who will cause serious casualties. In fact, the defendant has been seriously injured, the head was hit by a bottle, and faces a more serious threat. Therefore, the appointed defense lawyer believes that the defendant's behavior is excessive defense. In accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law, if justifiable defense obviously exceeds the limit of necessity and causes major damage, it shall bear criminal responsibility, but it shall be mitigated or exempted from punishment.
[outcome of the case]
The court of first instance in this case judged on the defense opinion put forward by the appointed defense lawyer on April 18, 2007: 1. The behavior of the defendant Ding accords with the constitutive elements of justifiable defense and belongs to justifiable defense. 2. The defender put forward the defense opinion that the defendant Ding's behavior was over-self-defense, and the reason was established and adopted. 3. The defendant is a recidivist and should be given a heavier punishment in accordance with the law. after the defendant is brought to justice, he has a better attitude of confessing his guilt and may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Finally, the defendant Ding was found guilty of intentional injury and sentenced to nine years and six months in prison. The defendant did not appeal.
[lawyer's speech]
For criminal cases, many people despise the role of defense lawyers and think that defense lawyers can play a very small role. In particular, criminal cases appointed by the court to defend are generally serious and serious cases that may be sentenced to indefinite and death penalty, and some people think that the appointment of lawyers is just a formality. This is not the case. In this case, if the defense lawyer fails to grasp a focus of the case, that is, whether it is over-defense, the defendant is likely to impose a heavier penalty. In the trial, after the defense lawyer raised this question, both the prosecution and the defense had a fierce debate on it, and finally the defense opinion was valued and adopted by the court. Under the current legal framework, criminal defense lawyers must do a good job in defense with a high sense of responsibility in order to give full play to the defense function, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the accused and carry forward the spirit of legal aid.
