Brief description of the case:

The original judgment found that from June 21, 2013 to September 29, 2013, T was stolen seven times in the Hedong District, Hexi District, Heping District, etc. in Tianjin, and the amount of theft was RMB 50. More than 10,000 yuan. In the end, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison for theft. T was dissatisfied and appealed to an intermediate people's court in Tianjin.

Defence plan:

After accepting the second-instance commission, Li Changyong seriously studied the case file and met with T. T screamed, saying that it was indeed a shackle and did not steal 468,000 yuan in cash. Combined with the evidence on the case, there are indeed many doubts. Lawyer Li Changyong promptly filed an application for trial in an intermediate people's court in Tianjin and obtained permission.

In court, Mr. Li Changyong’s evidence on the case: victim statement, “receipt police list”, “on-site inspection and examination record”, “price identification conclusion book”, “court scientific DNA test report”, “detention list”, “source of case” 》, T’s confession, the “situation statement” issued by the first-instance judge and other evidences are analyzed one by one, and the doubts and contradictions between the evidences are considered to be serious and cannot be ruled out.

The first aspect: T confession - T confession, it did implement the theft, for other stolen property and theft of cash 5,000 yuan, they are recognized, and with the "detention list", "return list" Basically consistent; also successfully identified the crime scene, showing a high degree of credibility; however, for the more than 400,000 yuan of huge yuan, it was denied from beginning to end.

The second aspect: the victim's statement - self-contradictory, serious doubts about authenticity. The owner’s description of the specific location of the cash deposit is not consistent. One statement stated that the cash was placed in the cabinet of the bedroom; one statement stated that the cash was placed in the chest of drawers in the bedroom; one statement stated that the cash was placed in the five-door drawer of the bedroom. Combined with the physical photos, the owner's bedroom has both a chest of drawers and five large cabinets. The victim’s statement and his daughter’s testimony cannot be mutually confirmed.

The third aspect: There is a contradiction between the "receipt of the police" and the "source of the case" - the two evidences, indicating that the investigating organ has procedures in the process of handling the case, and cannot accurately reflect the actual situation at the time of reporting.

The fourth aspect: Regarding the "Statement" issued by the first-instance judge - the investigating agency should conduct an investigation experiment on whether there is enough space for the stolen cash in the drawer of the case, and only the presiding judge will issue a "statement". One, subjective and not enough. According to the "Criminal Procedure Law" and the "Procedures for Public Security Organs to Handle Criminal Cases", it is necessary to conduct a reconnaissance experiment on "whether there is enough space for the stolen cash in the drawer of the crime scene": First, the volume of the drawer should be 40 The volume of RMB 10,000 yuan was accurately measured and explained. Secondly, according to the records in the “Site Investigation Record” and the photos taken on the spot, after the cash in the drawer was stolen, there were still some items such as jewelry and packing boxes, which occupied a considerable part. Space, then, the key facts of the volume occupied by the original debris in the drawer, the order of the banknotes and the sundries, etc. should also be considered in the investigation test to maximize the original appearance of the case.

At the trial, the collegiate bench listened carefully to the defense viewpoint of Li Changyong.

Referee results:

The court held that it was unclear and insufficient evidence that the appellant Tian Zhibing had stolen cash of RMB 468,000 at the home of the owner Li Huanmei on September 29, 2013. The defense opinions of Tian Zhibing’s defenders were adopted by the court.

The second trial was changed to seven years.

Lawyer Comments:

In this case, Mr. Li Changyong conducted a detailed analysis of the first-instance evidence file, and sharply and convincingly put forward the defense viewpoint that the theft fact was not established, and achieved a good defense effect.

It is worth mentioning that the client of the case, the sister of T, came from a poor mountainous area in Guizhou. The economic conditions were very tight and he could only pay a small amount of legal fees. Lawyer Li Changyong did not reduce the quality of case handling, and ran for the case, actively communicated with the trial judges and procurators, and provided a high-quality defense in court, which finally won the recognition of the client.