滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case]
滕彪文集
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
·吴英的生命和你我有关
·和讯微访谈•滕彪谈吴英案
·吴英、司法与死刑
·努力走向公民社会(视频访谈)
·【蔡卓华案】胡锦云被诉窝藏赃物罪的二审辩护词
·23岁青年被非法拘禁致死 亲属六年申请赔偿无果
·5月2日与陈光诚的谈话记录
·华邮评论:支持中国说真话者的理由
·中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报
·陈光诚应该留还是走?/刘卫晟
·含泪劝猫莫吃鼠
·AB的故事
·陈克贵家属关于拒绝接受两名指定律师的声明
·这个时代最优异的死刑辩词/茉莉
·自救的力量
·不只是问问而已
·The use of Citizens Documentary in Chinese Civil Rights Movements
·行政强制法起草至今23年未通过
·Rights Defence Movement Online and Offline
·遭遇中国司法
·一个单纯的反对者/阳光时务周刊
·“颠覆国家政权罪”的政治意涵/滕彪
·财产公开,与虎谋皮
·Changing China through Mandarin
·通过法律的抢劫——答《公民论坛》问
·Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case
·血拆危局/滕彪
·“中国专制体制依赖死刑的象征性”
·To Remember Is to Resist/Teng Biao
·Striking a blow for freedom
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case


   Xia Junfeng (夏俊峰) was street vendor from Tieling county, Liaoning province (沈阳铁岭县). On May 16, 2009, while selling chicken strips, roasted sausages and other snacks with his wife Zhang Jing near a crossroads in Chenhe District, in the city of Shenyang (沈阳沉河区), Xia Junfeng was seized by urban enforcers known as Chengguan (城管) and taken to their office where he was beaten. During the course of the beating, Xia Junfeng fought back with a small knife he carried in his pocket, stabbing two Chengguans to death and injuring one. He was convicted of intentional homicide and sentenced to death during the first trial, and the second trial upheld the verdict of the first trial. The case has garnered wide online attention in China since its onset. It is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court in Beijing. Several volunteer translators have collaborated on a complete translation of Dr. Teng’s defense to shed light on, and call for attention to, the case and the ill system at its root.
   
   ----------------
   

   Chief judge and judges,
   
   
   As Xia Junfeng’s defense lawyer, let me first of all offer my condolences to families of the dead. Whether Xia Junfeng is guilty or not, the death of two citizens is regrettable. I will also indicate to the court that, just like Xia, the two members of the City Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement (Chengguan) were also victims of the Chengguan system, and that today’s trial is bound to be a war without a winner. What we want to do today, with all we can, is to avoid creating a new tragedy from what’s already a tragedy, making a new mistake from what’s already a mistake.
   
   
   The law is the law, and we cannot superimpose upon the law personal feelings or political pressure external to the law. According to litigation jurisprudence as well as Article 186 of Criminal Procedure Law, the goal of the second trial is to review and determine whether the verdict of the first trial is correct. What I will prove to the court is the followings: the first trial convicted Xia Junfeng of intentional homicide is a qualitative mistake, the court applied the wrong law, and the persecutors’ accusations cannot in any way be established; the first trial handed down the wrong sentence of death penalty, which was a departure from relevant laws and statutes.
   
   
   
   I. The first trial convicted Xia Junfeng of voluntary manslaughter, and it is a qualitative mistake.
   
   
   1. Prior to the incident, Xia Junfeng did not know the two victims, and had no enmity towards them. It was the brutal enforcement by Shen Kai, Zhang Xudong and a dozen or so others from the Shenhe District Chengguan team on May 16, 2009, that caused the incicent.
   
   According to witnesses Shi Chunmei, Zhang Jie, Jia Ziqiang, Shang Haitao, and Zhang Zhongwen: “the Chengguan team seized them and went for the Gas cylinder next, things (such as sausages and bamboo sticks) were thrown everywhere on the ground. Xia’s wife tried to prevent them from throwing things, a dozen Chengguan members surrounded Xia and started beating him. Xia begged to no avail. As they beat him, Xia kept falling down and couldn’t keep his footing.” The sole of one of Xia Junfeng’s shoe was torn off by the Chengguans and was presented as evidence in the first trial (the public prosecutors acknowledged the evidence in the court, but the verdict of the first trial makes no mention of such an important evidence). Xia Junfeng stated: “Chengguans threw my cooking ware onto the ground like a gang of brigands. We begged for mercy saying it’s Saturday today, they said, ‘Nonsense!’ One of them hit me on the back of my head......” Xia Junfeng’s wife Zhang Jing also witnessed that he was pushed and beaten by a dozen Chengguan members, who did not stop even when Zhang Jing kneeled down to beg for mercy. Chengguan member Zu Minghui also admitted in his written testimony that Xia Junfeng’s gas cylinder “was pulled away by us and put in the truck.” (p. 34, vol. 3)
   
   
   2. After brutal law enforcement, Chengguans pulled Xia Junfeng into a vehicle by force, took him to their office where they beat him. Such action by victims Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong constitutes unlawful detention.
   
   According to witnesses Shi Chunmei, Zhang Jie, Jia Ziqiang, Shang Haitao and Zhang Zhongwen: “Chengguan forced Xia Junfeng into their vehicle; Xia didn’t do so voluntarily. Xia Junfeng’s own statement and his wife’s testimony also confirmed this. (According to the written record of the interrogation of Xia Junfeng on February 25, 2010, “Three or four Chengguans pulled me into their vehicle. I struggled and resisted, not wanting to go with them.”) On the other hand, Zhang Wei’s testified that “Xia Junfeng got into the vehicle willingly,” contradicting the testimonies of Zhang Jing, Shang Haitao and three others. The verdict of the first trial doesn’t provide any explanation for such contradiction. The defense lawyers have noticed the inconsistency of Zhang Wei’s testimonies and believe it is not credible. For instance, according to the written record of interrogation on May 16, Zhang Wei mentioned that Xia Junfeng pursued him after stabbing him by didn’t catch him. The problem is, if he had been injuried in the thighs, how could Xia Junfeng have failed to catch up to him? For another instance, in the written record of interrogations conducted on May 16, the day the incident occurred, he stated clearly that he “didn’t see clearly who stabbed Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong (p. 17, volume 3); but a month later on June 22, he said “I was behind Xia Junfeng, and he was in the midst of stabbing Zhang Xudong with a knife.” (p. 20, volume 3). Such inconsistency obviously defies the law of memories, and he was lying. The fact is, when Chengguans enforcd regulations in a brutal manner, vendors were running away to avoid them, and the gang of Chengguans didn’t want to go away empty-handed. Xia Junfeng still got beaten in broad daylight and in front of the eyes of many witnesses, you can just imagine how much worse it would be for him to go to the Chengguan office with them. No one else but Chengguans themselves who testified that Xia Junfeng “got into Chengguan’s vehicle voluntarily”; it can only be a lie that the Chengguans made up to evade liabilities.
   
   Illegal detention refers to the act of illegally denying others of their freedom through detention, confinement or other methods of coercion. Article 19 of the Administrative Punishment Law stipulates only the public security organ can execute such administrative penalty. Chengguan and others in charge of administrative law enforcement at the Shenhe Bureau have no legal authority to restrict citizens' personal freedom, not to mention forcibly dragging Xia Junfeng into a vehicle or confining him to their office. These actions meet all the elements of illegal detention. According to several statements given by Xia Junfeng, the bald Chengguan first insulted him by saying, "How can you be so fucking good at pretending to be innocent." He then punched him on his head with his fists. He and another man punched and kicked Xia Junfeng, the bald man evening throwing a metal mug at Xia that he had picked up from a desk. It is obvious that Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong had committed more than just the offence of illegal detention; their behaviour at that time fell into the category of statutory aggravation, as it involved physical and verbal abuses. According to Article 238 of the Criminal Law: "A person who unlawfully detains another person or deprives another person of his personal freedom by any other means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights. If circumstances of hitting or insulting another person exist, a heavier sentence shall be imposed.." The Criminal Law also stipulates that public servants who commit the offence of illegal detention by abusing power shall be punished more severely.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场