From the trial of a telecommunications fraud case, we can see the ecological environment of criminal defense

A telecommunications fraud case is heard in a certain court, and I am curious to see if the quality of the prosecution here is relatively high, and the level of lawyers will be relatively high. With a learning attitude, he participated in the trial of the case. I found that during trial investigations, prosecutors have been using inducing questions, even questions with a hint of that flavor. For example, if you plead guilty and accept punishment, but you disagree with a fact alleged in the indictment, we will consider that you are not guilty of guilt. The questions you answered in court are different from the previous transcripts, and I warn you again if you are to confess truthfully. Your confession today is not the same as the confession at the stage of review and prosecution, and admitting guilt and accepting punishment is not only to confess your own actions, but also to confess to the actions of the perpetrators. Otherwise we will consider that you do not constitute a plea bargain. I ask you again, do you have the subject of the confession at the stage of reviewing the prosecution or the confession in court? The defendant repeatedly defended himself. The prosecutor concluded with a sentence: I would like to remind you at the end that the affidavit of admission of guilt and punishment is invalid given that the defendant did not truthfully confess the conduct of the co-offender. According to the Criminal Procedure Law and the Investigation Procedures of the Ordinary Procedure Court of First Instance, the public prosecution organ shall use other evidence to confirm whether the defendant's confession in court is true, rather than directly determining that the defendant did not make a truthful confession because the defendant's confession in court is inconsistent with the pre-trial confession. The accused truthfully confessed his crime, but could not fail to charge co-offenders without grounds. According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law (it seems to be between Articles 74 and 78), speculative and speculative testimony of witnesses cannot be used as a basis for a verdict. The prosecutor tried to get the defendant to use speculative speculative testimony to determine the conduct of the co-offender. Incredibly, the judges have also repeatedly tried to guide the accused to accuse co-defendants through trial questions.

As a result, none of the defenders objected, nor did they question the prosecutor's threatening questioning, and even cooperated with the prosecutor to ask questions to the defendant, trying to guide the defendant to answer in a direction that was unfavorable to other co-defendants. As a defence lawyer for co-defendants, he does not object to the prosecutor's interrogation of the prosecutor for inducing and coercing the accused to make charges against his client. Regardless of whether the co-offender committed a criminal act or not, whether he or she is a co-offender in the case, the truth of the facts should be restored, rather than repeatedly persecuting him through various kinds of coercion. And the defendant's answer to a certain question made me speechless: the defendant replied: I think I am not a shareholder, and the lawyer told me that this behavior is considered a shareholder.

I have found that the trial here, the trial of ordinary procedures, is more suitable for the living environment of criminal case defense lawyers. Under such an environment in which defense lawyers cooperate with prosecutors in inducing defendants to confess guilt and accuse co-defendants, if the quality of procuratorial personnel is not improved, some more truthful lawyers will certainly be hanged. In this case, there was originally a defendant who was identified as the principal offender and should be acquitted. Because other co-defendants who have already pleaded guilty and accepted punishment have all made statements in court that are beneficial to themselves, I believe that such confessions are in line with objective facts. However, when the prosecutor repeatedly coerced and induced other defendants to accuse the defendant, the defendant's defense lawyer not only became a spectator, but also helped guide the defendant to confess guilt.

It can be seen that the ecological environment of criminal defense needs to be improved, so that ordinary procedural cases can truly become the essence of "trial-centered" trials, rather than virtual trials.