Skip to content Skip to navigation

Lawyers’ Request for Open Court Hearing for Xu Zhiyong’s Second Instance Trial

March 10, 2014

After being sentenced to four years in prison for “gathering a crowd to disrupt order in a public place” during his first instance trial, Xu Zhiyong, a key advocate of the New Citizens Movement, filed an appeal. For the second instance trial, defense lawyers Zhang Qingfang and Liu Shuqing have issued a request for an open court hearing. They list six reasons why, in accordance with the law, they believe the second instance trial should and must be open.


就许志永博士案二审应开庭审理的法律意见书

尊敬的法官:

我们系上诉人许志永博士的二审辩护人。经过会见当事人,经过阅卷和对一审情况的了解,我们依法认定此案二审应该开庭审理,而非可以开庭审理。

其理由如下:

第一,上诉人在检察院的起诉书中被定位为共同犯罪,从查明案件事实和节约司法资源减少讼累角度,无疑应并案审理,而且考虑到许博士案在北京市一中院已经立案,全案应一并由一中院审理。但一审法庭拒绝了上诉人和辩护人合理的并案审理请求和管辖权异议,导致出现“哑巴庭”这种史所罕见的窘况。在法庭调查阶段,上诉人和辩护人均未对证据进行质证。

而根据《刑事诉讼法》(以下简称《刑诉法》)第53条,证据确实、充分,应当符合以下条件:(一)定罪量刑的事实都有证据证明;(二)据以定案的证据均经法定程序查证属实;(三)综合全案证据,对所认定事实已排除合理怀疑。

而具体到许博士案,上诉人和辩护人在一审中都坚持了沉默的立场,均未对检方提供的证据进行质证,该证据显然未经法定程序查证属实。依法不应作为定案证据。

第二,一审法庭没有通知主要证人出庭作证。根据《刑诉法》59条,证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和上诉人、辩护人双方质证并且查实以后,才能作为定案的根据。在许博士案一审庭审中,能证明案件主要事实的同案被告人和指控证人均未出庭作证,没有接受控辩双方的质证。依法证人证言不能作为定案依据。

虽然上诉人和辩护人因为自己合理并案审理请求及管辖权异议遭拒,对案件公正审理失去信任,为维护自身尊严不得已沉默,而出于法庭沉默的立场考虑,没有坚持最初申请证人出庭的立场。但一审法庭理应依据《刑诉法》187条之规定,依职权要求重要的证人出庭作证,以查明案情。

第三,考虑到上诉人在最后陈述中坚持自己无罪的立场,显然上诉人对一审认定的事实、证据均有异议,而此异议直接影响定罪。根据《刑诉法》223条之规定,二审法庭应开庭审理。

第四,考虑到许博士的最后陈述被一审法庭屡次粗暴打断最终被违法制止从而其最后陈述权被剥夺的事实,二审法院也应开庭审理补正许博士最后陈述的机会。而且一审庭审只提供很少旁听席位的做法也违背了公开审理制度设立的初衷。

第五,辩方有新的证人出庭。新的证人证言理应经过庭审质证。

最后,从《刑诉法》保障人权,追求程序和实体正义的角度,也理应开庭审理,通过控辩双方、被害人的质证和辩论,以查明案件事实,保证无罪的人不受刑事追究。

综上:针对许志永博士案,二审法庭应开庭审理。

此致

辩护人: 张庆方 北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所律师

刘书庆 山东天宇人律师事务所律师

——转自参与

Explore Topics

709 Crackdown Access to Information Access to Justice Administrative Detention All about law Arbitrary Detention
Asset Transparency Bilateral Dialogue Black Jail Book Review Business And Human Rights Censorship
Charter 08 Children Chinese Law Circumvention technology Citizen Activism Citizen Journalists
Citizen Participation Civil Society Commentary Communist Party Of China Constitution Consumer Safety
Contending views Corruption Counterterrorism Courageous Voices Cultural Revolution Culture Matters
Current affairs Cyber Security Daily Challenges Democratic And Political Reform Demolition And Relocation  Dissidents
Education Elections Enforced Disappearance Environment Ethnic Minorities EU-China
Family Planning Farmers Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression Freedom of Press Freedom of Religion
Government Accountability Government regulation Government transparency Hong Kong House Arrest HRIC Translation
Hukou Human Rights Council Human rights developments Illegal Search And Detention Inciting Subversion Of State Power Information Control 
Information technology Information, Communications, Technology (ICT) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) International Human Rights International perspective International Relations
Internet Internet Governance JIansanjiang lawyers' rights defense Judicial Reform June Fourth Kidnapping
Labor Camps Labor Rights Land, Property, Housing Lawyer's rights Lawyers Legal System
Letters from the Mainland Major Event (Environment, Food Safety, Accident, etc.) Mao Zedong Microblogs (Weibo) National People's Congress (NPC) New Citizens Movement
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Olympics Online Activism Open Government Information Personal stories Police Brutality
Political commentary Political Prisoner Politics Prisoner Of Conscience Probing history Propaganda
Protests And Petitions Public Appeal Public Security Racial Discrimination Reeducation-Through-Labor Rights Defenders
Rights Defense Rule Of Law Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Special Topic State compensation State Secrets
State Security Subversion Of State Power Surveillance Technology Thoughts/Theories Tiananmen Mothers
Tibet Torture Typical cases United Nations Uyghurs, Uighurs Vulnerable Groups
Women Youth Youth Perspective