Wang Fei, a lawyer in the Zhang Yuhuan case, made his voice heard. What caused the unjust case?

When it comes to this issue, it is necessary to understand the ins and outs of the case.

1993 10.24, this day is extremely ordinary for most people, but a tragedy happened in Zhangjia Village, Huangling Township, Jinxian County, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province. Two boys in the village were killed and dumped in the reservoir. Zhang Yuhuan in the same village was taken away by the police as a suspect for investigation.

On June 3rd, 1993,1.0993, 1 1.04, during the interrogation by the police, Zhang Yuhuan made two transcripts and admitted to killing someone, but in June19993.

Zhang Yuhuan was convicted of intentional homicide by Nanchang Intermediate People's Court on 1995 10. The basic facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient. The verdict is as follows: Zhang Yuhuan is sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve.

Zhang Yuhuan refused to accept the verdict, so he appealed. In March of the same year, Jiangxi Higher People's Court dismissed the original judgment and sent it back for retrial on the grounds of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

200 1, 1 1, the rejected case was retried by Nanchang Intermediate People's Court, and the facts of the case were still clear and the evidence was sufficient. Maintain the judgment of the second instance and sentence to death. After three trials, Zhang Yuhuan appealed again.

20011,Jiangxi Higher People's Court made a final ruling: dismissed the appeal, upheld the original judgment, and sentenced Zhang Yuhuan to death with a two-year suspension.

After a series of appeals, retrial and re-appeal, Zhang Yuhuan did not give up the final appeal. After years of writing a complaint, he appealed to various judicial departments with the support of his family.

This dragged on until August, 20 17, and Zhang Yuhuan submitted criminal proceedings to the Jiangxi Higher People's Court again.

2065438+June 2008, Jiangxi Higher People's Court filed a case for review.

On August 4, 2020, the Jiangxi Provincial High Court publicly pronounced the verdict, rescinded the original judgment and acquitted Zhang Yuhuan.

The presiding judge said in an interview with reporters after the court ended. The sacks and hemp ropes used as crime tools were found to have nothing to do with this case and Zhang Yuhuan; The human injury inspection certificate on which the original trial found that the victim scratched the back of Zhang Yuhuan's hand only proved that the scratch could be formed and was not exclusive; In the first crime scene identified in the original trial, the public security organs did not find or extract trace material evidence related to the case during the on-site investigation; Zhang Yuhuan's two guilty confessions are obviously contradictory in the place of killing, the tools of committing crimes, the process of committing crimes, etc., and their authenticity is in doubt, so they cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case according to law. In this case, apart from Zhang Yuhuan's guilty confession, there is no direct evidence to prove Zhang Yuhuan's crime, and indirect evidence cannot form a complete chain. The evidence on which the original trial was based did not reach the exact and sufficient legal proof standard, and it was found that the facts of Zhang Yuhuan's intentional homicide were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. According to the principle of no doubt, Zhang Yuhuan cannot be found guilty. Our hospital adopted the opinion of Zhang Yuhuan, his defender and Jiangxi Provincial People's Procuratorate on the acquittal of Zhang Yuhuan. In accordance with relevant laws and regulations, the original judgment was revoked and Zhang Yuhuan was declared innocent. ?

It can be seen that the fact that there was a confession by torture in the case-handling department at that time was not clear for the time being, but the method of handling cases at that time was quite different from today. In the case of unclear facts and insufficient evidence, direct conviction should be the concrete process of the formation of this unjust case.