Becoming a lawyer starts with raising a Xiezhi

Chapter 513 Mutual refutation
After Meng Lang explained this truth, the victim's family members sat down and became restless. Some people pointed at him and muttered something, but Meng Lang ignored him.

Then he said that in addition to the serious fault of the victim, there are other mitigating circumstances in this case. First, this case is a murder of passion. He ran into the victim impulsively after missing three times, and should be given a lighter punishment as appropriate.

Secondly, the defendant, Tian Jiu, did not kill the victim directly, but indirectly, because his main purpose of hitting the victim was to drive away, not to kill the victim directly. The deep hatred is just impulsively crashing into the victim and adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards the death of the victim. Therefore, it should constitute indirect intentional homicide instead of direct intentional homicide. Compared with direct intentional homicide, it can be given a lighter punishment.

Third, the defendant Tian Jiu surrendered himself. The public prosecutor in this case did not believe that Tian Jiu had surrendered himself. However, based on the evidence of the whole case, the defender believed that the defendant's behavior should constitute a surrender.

Although the defendant had the behavior of fleeing the scene, we must see that this was not his hit-and-run, but the follow-up after the murder was completed. The defendant was stimulated by the victim's behavior because of drinking, which caused him to lose his mind and drive a car. Escape, another car accident occurred during the escape, causing his vehicle to roll over, after the rollover, he did not escape, of course, it is okay if he thinks he cannot escape, but we must see that when the traffic police arrive, they do not know There was murder, and after the traffic police controlled him, he voluntarily confessed that he hit someone with a car, even if it did not constitute a general surrender, it should constitute a special surrender.

The circumstance of surrender is related to the issue of whether the defendant can be given a lighter punishment, so the public prosecution agency and the court are requested to deal with it accurately.

Fourth, the defendant was willing to compensate the victim for the loss. It was only because the victim opened his mouth and the defendant was unable to make compensation that the defendant did not make compensation for the time being. The defendant pleaded guilty and should be given a lighter punishment as appropriate.

After Meng Lang explained these reasons, Tian Jiu's eyes lit up, and he felt that Meng Lang was really a good lawyer, and it was the right choice to seek Meng Lang's defense.

After the public prosecutor finished his defense, he began the second round of debate.

The public prosecutor said that this case is two crimes, not one crime. The defendant knew that he was drunk and drove on the road, which endangered the legal interests of public safety. , still running wildly on the road after bumping into someone, so it undoubtedly constitutes the crime of dangerous driving, and his homicide and dangerous driving behavior are neither implicated behaviors nor competing behaviors, let alone absorption relations, but should be said to be caused by dangerous driving. Driving and causing disputes with others, which led to his intention to kill, is suspected of intentional homicide. These two behaviors should be evaluated separately, instead of choosing a felony for punishment. His behavior of hitting people with a car is a means of killing. Rather than dangerous driving, please note to the defender that dangerous driving and driving behavior do not mean the same thing. Dangerous driving is a fictional concept of a crime, and it is a criminal charge. Some people will drive the car after drinking Very good, but even if you drive well and will not endanger public safety, it is still a crime. This is a kind of criminal fiction, and driving behavior is a neutral word. The defendant hit the victim by driving It cannot be said that the defendant regarded dangerous driving behavior as a means of killing.

The prosecutor elaborated a lot on this issue and tried hard to reject Meng Lang's defense opinions.

Then the public prosecutor said that the victim had only ordinary faults, not serious faults. The cause of this case was that the defendant accidentally bumped into the victim while driving while drunk, and the statement that the victim touched porcelain was just the defendant's one-sided statement. According to eyewitnesses at the scene The testimonies all proved that the defendant hit the victim on the water horse at that time, which shows that the victim was not touching porcelain, and the victim was over seventy years old, lived a carefree life, and had no motive to touch porcelain. If it was really touching porcelain, how could the victim ignore it? To pursue the defendant safely?The defendant and the victim had an accident and had a dispute. The defendant should have reported to the police, but the defendant forcibly escaped. It was an act of private relief for the victim to chase the defendant. It is a calm approach, but she is also an act of protecting her legal rights. If it is illegal, it is only a violation of the traffic safety law. It cannot be said that she has serious faults. The defender's claim that the victim has serious faults is not consistent with the facts.

As for the defender's statement that defendant Tian Jiu surrendered, it is even more inconsistent with the facts. Passers-by called the police after defendant Tian Jiu hit someone. The investigation agency has already grasped the defendant's behavior of hitting people. Although the traffic policeman who captured the defendant at the scene We didn’t know that he had hit someone, but we had found that his behavior was suspicious, and the traffic police were not responsible for detecting intentional homicide cases. They turned it over to the criminal police after they found that the defendant’s hit behavior was suspicious.

The defender said that the defendant confessed his homicide after being controlled by the traffic police. This fact lacks evidence to corroborate and is just the defendant's one-sided statement.

After the public prosecutor dismissed it, Meng Lang had another chance to refute. He said that the defendant only constituted one crime, not two, and a hypothesis could be made. If the defendant accidentally hit someone in a car accident on the road after driving dangerously, the Is it one crime or two crimes to kill a person?Should he be held criminally responsible for the two crimes of dangerous driving and traffic accident?Obviously not, because the traffic police accident crime stipulates the circumstances of drunk traffic accidents, if it is two crimes, it is inconsistent with the law.

Some people may say that dangerous driving and traffic accident are the same behavior, which is different from this case, but dangerous driving is an intentional crime, while traffic accident is a negligent crime. How can they be the same behavior?Similarly, in this case, dangerous driving and intentional homicide are also two acts, but these two acts have the same nature, that is, the means of killing is his act of dangerous driving, and homicide is a felony, so the act of dangerous driving can be punished. Absorption, why should the defendant be held accountable for his dangerous driving behavior?

(End of this chapter)