timg
夏俊峰
  夏俊峰 相關圖片
其他人物 :

夏俊峰 生平 :

2009年5月16日。瀋陽小販 夏俊峰在同城管爭執時使用隨身攜帶的切腸刀將兩名城管人員刺死,事件引發中國大陸廣泛關注。該案主犯 夏俊峰在經歷多次上訴後無果,於2013年9月25日被執行死刑。

 夏俊峰終審時高喊:「你們撒謊!」臨死前, 夏俊峰對家人說:「我是正當防衛,不是故意殺人,我就是死了,我也不服。家裏哪怕就剩下一個人,也要繼續上訴……」

張晶攜子健強泣告: 愛夫 夏俊峰命終於西元二零一三年九月二十五日,享年三十七歲。尊母信仰,於風雨壇街家中停靈七天,以慰亡魂。謹定於十月一日早八點三十分殯出,瀋陽東陵紀念林安葬。不設酒席,不收禮金,不拉條幅,不喊口號。唯清水一杯,白布一方,答謝親世網友賜祭哀此訃,以示恭敬。

「告別 夏俊峰!」 讀完瞬間淚奔
日前,遼寧小販 夏俊峰因被控殺死城管突然被當局處死, 夏俊峰家人被通知「領取骨灰」,不見屍首。大陸《冷暖人生》的導演於9月27日在微博發表一篇長篇悼念的文章《告別 夏俊峰》瘋傳網絡,引爆共鳴,哭倒一片。
 

事件經過
 
2009年5月16日, 夏俊峰與其妻子張晶在遼寧省瀋陽市瀋河區南樂郊路與風雨壇街路口擺攤。瀋陽市城市管理行政執法局瀋河分局的城管人員與之發生衝突。在衝突中,2名城管隊員死亡,1人重傷。[1]
 
案件審理
 
2009年11月11日,瀋陽市中級人民法院作出一審判決,判處 夏俊峰死刑。 夏俊峰不服判決,決定上訴。2011年5月9日,遼寧省高級人民法院作出終審判決,維持一審判決,判處 夏俊峰死刑。[2]
法院在審理案件中,對涉案雙方證言採取了一邊倒的認定方式,僅採納了利於城管一方的證據,因而認定其故意殺人罪成立。[3]
二審判決後,針對眾多質疑,遼寧省高級法院專門回應了相關質疑。[4]但是原告對這些回應表示難以認同。[5][6]
本案被告 夏俊峰的代理律師為滕彪。二審主審法官苗欣。
2013年9月25日,經最高人民法院核准, 夏俊峰被執行死刑。瀋陽中院的判詞稱, 夏俊峰違規經營炸串,在城市管理執法人員依法查處時,不服從管理,與執法人員發生衝突,即持刀行兇,致二人死亡、一人重傷。犯罪情節極其惡劣,手段極其殘忍,後果特別嚴重,應依法懲處。
 
執行死刑
 
張晶表示,法院在9月25日清晨5時許到其家中,通知她該日去與 夏俊峰見最後一面。7時許,她與另外5名家人趕往看守所。張晶在當天下午接受媒體採訪時表示,在半小時的見面時間結束前,曾懇求看管人員幫助她們與 夏俊峰合影,但被拒絕,甚至給 夏俊峰本人單獨留照亦被拒絕。[7]因擔心未成年兒子留下心理陰影,張晶未帶其前往探視。
張晶指自己是昨晚9點鐘左右從記者處獲知此一消息。早前,她和 夏俊峰的任何直系親屬都沒有接到有關通知。 夏俊峰代表律師陳有西也在個人微博上公開表示,律師未收到關於最高法院核准 夏俊峰死刑的法院通知。陳有西表示,2011年5月其已向最高人民法院申請複核,認為案件尚有未清晰之處,要求最高院發回重審,之後一直等待最高院答覆,至今巳2年4個月。[8]
張晶稱執行死刑當日下午三時許接到法院通知, 夏俊峰的遺體已被火化。
有知情人士向香港《南華早報》表示,大陸媒體昨晚接到上級禁令,要求對 夏俊峰案的有關報導,一律依據法院發布的權威信息刊播,「不評論,不連結,不渲染炒作」。[8]
 
社會影響
 
對於 夏俊峰案的審理及判決結果,引發了強烈的社會反響。不少人認為此案存在法院偏袒城管一方的傾向,質疑其公正性。[9][10][11] [12][13]
中國大陸著名作家鄭淵潔發起網路聯署,要求最高人民法院依法不核准 夏俊峰死刑立即執行,以使​​該案經得起法律、歷史和人民的檢驗,並最大程度化解社會矛盾。同時建議適當提高民事賠償,以使死者家人獲得更多經濟保障。至執行死刑當日上午10時許,已有7萬5千條轉發。[8]
《新京報》評論稱,死囚刑前與家人合影早有先例,被讚為法制的進步。司法正義理應要展示人性光輝,法無禁止而拒絕「最後合影」,當局需要給出合情合理的解釋,回應輿論關切。[8]
有網民列出城管與市民衝突導致死亡亦同樣引起爭議的幾起案件:2013年6月,貴州民警槍殺2名村民案,獲刑8年,法院稱是防衛過當;2011年11月,遼寧省遼陽市城管打死人案,主犯獲刑11年,兩從犯獲刑3年;2008年11月,湖北天門城管打死拍照男子,被判有期徒刑6年。[14]
據稱,有多位匿名的中國最高法院從事死刑複核的法官透露,在他們複核的死刑案件中,多來自於社會底層。據稱死刑是窮人的刑罰已被一位最高院法官認為是共識。(成克傑、李真等多批因貪污而被處以死刑案件不算)如受賄6000多萬元的原鐵道部部長劉志軍被判處死緩,李天一強姦案只被獲刑10年,而湘西民營企業家曾成傑因集資詐騙罪數億卻被執行死刑。[15]
9月25日下午,李方平、張磊、劉衛國、滕彪等25名中國律師發表聯合聲明對該案提出質疑,其中滕彪表示, 夏俊峰殺人被判處死刑是司法殺人,再添血債,必須找出在判決書上簽名和幕後指揮的兇徒,永遠追查到底。處死 夏俊峰就是劊子手,應當像紐倫堡審判那樣被弔死。」 [16]
 
維基百科
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%8F%E4%BF%8A%E5%B3%B0%E6%A1%88

滕彪: 夏俊峰案二審辯護詞

 
賀衛方按:上午在博嘮閣上轉載了 夏俊峰案二審辯護詞,很快接到滕彪博士電話,他告訴我轉載者不是完整本,並希望我能夠在這裡把“完整面目”示人。我很高興聽到他的聲音,也很願意遵照他的指示辦理。
 
http://tengbiao2.blog.163.com/blog/static/13463100820106239120691/
 
 
審判長,審判員:
 
 
作為 夏俊峰的辯護人,我首先向被害者家屬表示同情;不管 夏俊峰有罪與否,兩個公民的死亡總是讓人非常遺憾的。我也將向法庭表明,兩名城管和 夏俊峰一樣,都是城管制度的受害者,今天的法庭註定是一場沒有贏家的戰爭。我們要極力避免的是一個悲劇引發新的悲劇,一個錯誤伴隨著新的錯誤。
 
法律就是法律,我們不能把法律之外的個人情緒和政治壓力等因素放在法律之上。依照訴訟法理以及刑事訴訟法第186條之規定,第二審程式審理的物件是一審判決是否正確。我要向法庭證明的是,一審判決認定 夏俊峰構成故意殺人罪,定性錯誤、適用法律錯誤,控方指控的罪名根本不能成立;一審判決判處 夏俊峰死刑,則是量刑錯誤,與相關法律規定相違背。
 
 
一、 一審判決認定 夏俊峰構成故意殺人罪,屬於定性錯誤。
 
 
1、案發之前 夏俊峰並不認識兩被害者,無冤無仇,該案的起因是2009年5月16日沈河區城管申凱、張旭東等十幾人進行野蠻執法。
 
證人史春梅、 張傑、賈子強、尚海濤、張忠文證明,“城管把人抓住,就搶煤氣罐,(香腸竹簽等)東西扔了一地。妻子不讓扔,十幾個城管圍著夏某就開始打,夏求別打了也沒放過,打得夏某來回倒,站也站不住。” 夏俊峰的一隻鞋底被城管人員踩掉留在現場,在一審時已經作為證據提交並出示(公訴機關開庭也對此也予以認可,但是一審判決書中對如此重要的證據隻字未提)。 夏俊峰的供述,“城管像土匪一樣把鍋碗瓢盆往地上扔,我們求饒,說今天週六,他們說‘別廢話’,一城管打我後腦勺……” 夏俊峰妻子張晶的證詞也證明了夏被十幾人推搡毆打,在張晶下跪懇求的情況下城管也仍然沒有住手。城管祖明輝的證詞也承認, 夏俊峰的煤氣罐“被我們奪下來,放在貨車上。”(卷三34頁)。
 
2、在野蠻執法之後,城管強行將 夏俊峰拽上車,並帶到辦公室進行毆打。這樣,被害者申凱、張旭東當時的行為就構成了非法拘禁罪。
 
證人史春梅、 張傑、賈子強、尚海濤、張忠文證明,是城管人員強行將 夏俊峰拽上車,而不是 夏俊峰主動上車。 夏俊峰的供述、妻子張晶的證詞也證明了這一點。(2010年2月25日 夏俊峰詢問筆錄:“三四個城管拽我到他們車裡。我掙扎反抗,不想跟他們去。”)張偉的證詞是“ 夏俊峰主動上車”,這與而張晶、尚海濤等5人的證詞相矛盾,一審判決書對此沒有任何解釋。辯護人注意到,張偉的證言前後矛盾,不足採信。比如5月16日筆錄,張偉提到 夏俊峰刺了他一刀後又追他,但沒追上。矛盾之處是: 夏俊峰怎麼可能追不上一個大腿已經受傷的人?又如,5月16日案發當天的筆錄明白無誤地說,“沒看見”申凱和張旭東被誰刺傷(卷三17頁);但一個多月後的6月22日筆錄卻說“ 夏俊峰背對著我,正在用到紮張旭東。”(卷三20頁) 這顯然不符合記憶規律,是在說謊。考察當時情境:城管野蠻執法,商販避之唯恐不及,城管人多勢眾,不願空手而歸; 夏俊峰在光天化日、眾目睽睽之下仍被毆打,前去虎狼之地將會如何,可想而知。因此“主動上車”之說,只有城管人員的證詞,其實只是城管人員逃避責任的謊言而已。
 
非法拘禁罪,是指以拘押、禁閉或者其他強制方法,非法剝奪他人人身自由的行為。行政處罰法第19條規定,限制人身自由的行政處罰只能有公安機關行使。行政執法沈河分局及城管人員當然無權限制公民人身自由,強行將 夏俊峰拽上車並限制在辦公室的行為,已經符合非法拘禁罪的全部構成要件。根據 夏俊峰的多次陳述,禿頭的城管人員先是辱駡他“你怎麼那麼能裝B呢”,繼而用拳頭打他的頭部,兩人對 夏俊峰拳打腳踢,禿頭還拿桌子上的鐵茶杯砸他。可見申凱、張旭東當時的行為不但構成非法拘禁罪,而且具有毆打辱駡情節,屬於法定的加重處罰情節。《刑法》第238條:“非法拘禁他人或者以其他方法非法剝奪他人人身自由的,處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剝奪政治權利。具有毆打、侮辱情節的,從重處罰。”同時規定,國家機關工作人員利用職權犯非法拘禁罪的,從重處罰。
 
3、 夏俊峰在被羈押時,就要求警官將其胳膊上被打的傷拍攝下來,這有力地證明了被城管毆打的現實。
 
 夏俊峰在被抓到辦公室之前並沒有受傷,案發之後數小時後即被抓捕,刺傷只能是在城管辦公室被毆打所致。據 夏俊峰陳述,當時他的“兩個胳膊都有傷,青一塊紫一塊。大腿根部有很大一塊淤青。當時沒照相。脖子、後背都有青紫,頭上還有包,但都沒照相。左耳朵二個月都一直耳鳴。當時只照了胳膊,法庭出示的兩張照片就是。” 夏俊峰被毆打至身體多處青紫,事件發生過程又僅有數分鐘,說明 夏俊峰被城管毆打而被逼自衛。但一審判決書對案卷中的、法庭出示的這兩張照片竟然隻字未提。對這麼關鍵的證據避而不談,說明一審審判機關已經喪失了起碼的中立性。
 
4、從死者的傷口形態分析,當時張、申兩人正在俯身對 夏俊峰進行持續毆打。
 
死者申凱左胸和背部刺創,死者張旭東左胸部上方刺創,並且均有左上右下走行或右上左下走行的刺創。
 
首先,非要害部位的刀刺不符合故意殺人的特點,如果是故意殺人,在極短的時間內,不可能去刺紮無關緊要的部位。
 
其次,申凱身高1.82米,張旭東身高1.80米,而 夏俊峰才1.65米,如果都是站立姿勢,不可能在胸部以上形成左上右下走行或右上左下走行的刺創;當時 夏俊峰為半跪姿勢,右手持刀,只有向前上方和向左肩後亂捅,才能形成被害者胸部上方的左上右下走行或右上左下走行的刺創。這也表明 夏俊峰被踢成半跪姿勢後,申凱和張旭東仍未停止行兇,而是俯身繼續對之進行毆打。
 
最後, 夏俊峰身體矮小,張、申二人身材高大,權力、社會地位和經濟地位差距懸殊,且在城管辦公室被限制人身自由, 夏俊峰主動毆打兩名執法隊員,絕不符合常理;只有突然而緊急的防衛,使張、申不及閃躲,才能解釋張、申二人身上刀傷的部位、走向和次數。
 
5、 夏俊峰進行防衛時所使用的小刀,並非事先準備;而且當時情境下用刀防衛,完全出於本能。
 
 夏俊峰所用的刀是平時切腸用的,並非有預謀準備。他並非一開始就掏出刀,也不是突然想起身上有刀;他是被城管人員猛踢下身時,用手去捂痛處,才摸到了揣在兜裡的小刀。完完全全出於防衛的本能,他才摸出刀來進行反抗。
 
6、 夏俊峰的行為符合正當防衛的條件。
 
《中華人民共和國刑法》第20條:“為了使國家、公共利益、本人或者他人的人身、財產和其他合法權利免受正在進行的不法侵害,而採取的制止不法侵害的行為,對不法侵害人造成損害的,屬於正當防衛,不負刑事責任。”對正在進行故意傷害、殺人、搶劫、強姦、綁架以及其他嚴重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪,採取防衛行為,造成不法侵害人傷亡的,不屬於防衛過當,不負刑事責任。
 
根據 夏俊峰的陳述,“到了執法隊。陶冶先下車,開門。張旭東問:你農村還是市里的?我說:“這還有什麼區別啊,擺攤的,都不容易。”剛進屋,後來又進來一輛車,下來一個人(後來知道他叫申凱),他進屋就罵我,開始打我,用拳頭打在我腦袋和耳朵上,我就想往外跑,和申凱面對面了,馬上張旭東就把我脖領子抓住了不讓我跑,也打我,用拳頭叮咣打,張旭東和申凱就把我夾中間了,張旭東用腳踢我大腿根部,特別痛,我右膝蓋被踢跪地下了。我就去捂痛的地方,就摸到刀了。”
 
當時, 夏俊峰被非法拘禁的狀態在持續,被野蠻毆打的狀態沒有停止。在行兇者的非法侵害行為正在進行的過程中, 夏俊峰被迫進行防衛,符合正當防衛的全部要件。
 
7、 夏俊峰的防衛行為雖然造成兩死一傷的後果,但並非防衛過當。 
 
防衛過當是指正當防衛明顯超過必要限度,給不法侵害人造成重大損害的行為。一般而言,在面臨非法侵害時,如果用較緩和的手段能制止侵害時,就不要用激烈的防衛手段;當侵害行為已經被制止時,就不應再繼續對侵害者進行傷害。而對“必要限度”的把握,必須結合當時的環境、體質、精神狀態、可能的反抗手段乃至相關的社會背景等各種因素進行綜合考量。在當時的情況下, 夏俊峰處在被非法拘禁狀態,兩城管人高馬大,除了拳打腳踢之外,還用了鐵杯子等工具虐待 夏俊峰,使用鐵杯子毆打 夏俊峰,這足以對 夏俊峰的生命形成了威脅。後面極可能有其他城管隊員陸續進來,此時,除了用隨身攜帶的擺攤用的小刀,沒有任何其他的辦法可以制止正在進行的不法侵害。 夏俊峰說,在那種情況下,“任何人都會做出同樣的反應”,這是最典型的正當防衛的心理狀態。
 
根據 夏俊峰當庭回答本辯護人的提問,他根本無法確定,自己被毆打何時結束以及會有何種結果。城管野蠻執法人所共知,城管打人事件幾乎天天都有,而城管毆打公民致死的案件也不在少數。在互聯網上Google“城管 野蠻執法”有261,000條結果,“城管 打死小販”有602,000條結果,“城管 暴力 致死”有782,000 條結果。
 
 
2000年9月6日,四川眉山縣城市管理監察大隊管理中隊鄭光永、吳順乾、駕駛員張衛東等人上街整治亂擺攤設點將杜某亂拳擊傷,唐德明被甩下貨車身亡。
 
2001年5月29日,寧夏靈武市城建局城市監察大隊執法人員強行沒收鍋灶時,將楊文志打死,並打傷楊建榮夫婦等人。
 
2001年11月12日,因與市容執法人員發生爭執,安徽宿州市個體工商戶張福才在多名執法人員的推搡與踢打中身亡。
 
2002年1月18日,重慶市沙區城管人員在檢查市容衛生過程中與沙區雙碑村陳家連生產隊的個體戶餘波發生爭執,開執法車從餘波腹部碾過致其死亡。
 
2002年11月18日,26歲的青年郭戰衛在西安被蓮湖區數名城管毆打致死,與他同行的一名跟車青年也被打成重傷。
 
2003年1月2日,廣東潮州市庵埠鎮一名三輪車夫在與幾名城管人員爭執中喪命。
 
2003年2月,西安市雁塔區城管在小寨興善寺東街清理占道經營時,一工作人員竟將擺攤的孕婦金昌豔推倒在地,並在金的肚子上踩了兩腳。後經醫院檢查,金昌豔腹中的胎兒不幸死亡。
 
2004年7月20日,廣州天河區員村街道辦城管人員在野蠻執法過程中將外來商販李月明打死。
 
2005年7月20日,經營蔬菜的56歲江蘇農婦林紅英被城管人員打死。
 
2005年11月19日,江蘇無錫城管打死小販吳壽清。
 
2006年2月16日,上海市普陀區城市管理監察大隊第九分隊將上海市民李秉浩毆打致死。
 
2006年10月9日,廣西來賓市象州縣的一名流浪漢被喝醉酒的城管隊隊長覃宗權毆打致死。
 
2007年1月8日下午15時40分左右,山東濟陽縣經一路宏偉酒業經營部老闆李光春被11名城管打死。
 
2008年1月7日,湖北天門竟陵鎮灣壩村魏文華路過該市竟陵鎮灣壩村時,發現城管執法人員與村民發生激烈衝突。他掏出手機錄影時,被城管人員當場打死。
 
2008年7月30日,重慶市渝中區兩路口綜合執法大隊的周某等4名執法人員在大田灣體育場附近將正經營的攤販劉建平毆打致死。
 
2009年3月30日,江西萍鄉市開發區橫板村16組村民陳某被該區城管人員一、二十人群毆致死,事後家屬抬著屍體封堵了境內320國道路段,抗議城管暴行,引發近萬名群眾圍觀。
 
2009年10月27日,昆明市福發社區城管分隊在野蠻執法時與一三輪車夫潘懷發生衝突,並將其打死。
 
2010年6月1日,深圳城管與老太發生爭執活活碾死老太. 
 
 
與本案不無關係的是,死者之一申凱經常毆打商販,在濱河派出所應有報案記錄,比如,2008年7月份,一賣雨傘女商販的胳膊被打骨折了。我們在庭前已經申請法院調查取證。但法院調查取證的範圍小於辯護人申請取證的範圍;而且即使沒有查到報案記錄,並不等於報案記錄不存在;報案記錄不存在,也不等於沒有傷害商販的事實。而沈河城管經常性的野蠻執法,即使沒有本案商販的證詞,也是本地民眾眾所周知的事實。
 
不要以為這些和本案沒有直接關係的事實真的與本案無關。這些事實(不管 夏俊峰本人有沒有清楚地瞭解全部城管暴行),在一個具體的案件裡已經成為相關參與者的常識,或不言自明的社會認知或潛意識。這些社會事實已經深深嵌入行動者,成為行動者做出反應的理所當然的、無需思索的條件。從另一個方面說,城管把公民打殘打死卻受不到相應的刑罰制裁甚至完全沒有任何制裁,這也是城管和商販共知共用的“社會事實”。城管打人成本極低、具有毆打的動力,而 夏俊峰則當時對傷害後果無法預期:被打死是完全可能的。
 
 夏俊峰當時完全被打懵了,以至於他在防衛時失去了右手食指;以至於他完全不記得是否用刀捅了張偉,以至於發生了他完全沒有料想到、也根本不希望發生的兩死一傷的後果。在 夏俊峰極為緊張的情形下,在極其短暫的時間內,要求他清晰地估計對自己的傷害後果、清楚地計算防衛行為的後果、明確地掌握防衛的分寸和尺度,這無疑是一種過分的苛求。我國新刑法將1979年刑法規定的“正當防衛超過必要限度”修改為“正當防衛明顯超過必要限度”,“造成不應有的危害”改為“造成重大損害”,增加了無限防衛權的條款,從而降低了界定防衛過當的標準,擴大了正當防衛的範圍。其立法主旨顯然是為了鼓勵公民勇於同不法侵害者作鬥爭,提高公民抵抗暴力犯罪的積極性。
 
8、判決認定 夏俊峰具有殺人的主觀故意和動機,缺乏證據支援,與事實不符。
 
前已表明, 夏俊峰的主觀心態是自衛,是在被非法拘禁、遭到非法侵害時想要制止暴力並儘快逃脫的心理。張、申兩人被捅了幾刀之後沒有立刻死去、還能站立起來並說話,說明 夏俊峰根本不想殺死他們。而耽誤治療造成死亡的可能原因之一。一審提交的證據表明,從出事到送醫院搶救用了19分鐘,但從出事地點打車到463醫院只需要5分鐘,其中還等了一個紅燈。根據城管祖明輝5月16日的證詞,120遲遲未到,這耽誤了最寶貴的搶救時間。依鑒定結論,被害人系失血性休克死亡,這不同於“急性失血性休克死亡”,後者是主動脈出血,失血快,休克快,死亡快。而失血性休克死亡則是次動脈或靜脈出血,搶救及時不至於死亡。這也說明 夏俊峰了沒有殺人的故意。
 
本案證人城管隊員曹陽稱:“我出來看見申凱向勤務區的後門走,走到我身邊就倒在我懷裡說:‘我被炸串那小子紮了’之後就倒下了。這時我又看見張旭東用手捂著腹部站在辦公室裡,能有兩秒鐘左右,沒說話就倒地了。”可見, 夏俊峰刀刺自衛完畢後,張、申兩人仍可以勉強步行或站立。也就是說, 夏俊峰在兩名城管仍可站立說話時已經逃離,並沒有採取進一步傷害手段以確保剝奪其生命。因此,曹陽的證詞也可以證明 夏俊峰並無殺人之故意。
 
沈河城管人員在大庭廣眾之下,毫無顧忌地毆打 夏俊峰,強搶其維持基本生存的用具,在 夏俊峰愛人下跪求饒的情況下仍然毫無憐憫,誰能相信他們把 夏俊峰強行帶回城管辦公室卻能耐心而溫柔地對他說服教育? 夏俊峰在鬧市區被打不還手、東西被搶不還手、在自己愛人苦苦求饒時不還手、在被拽上車時不動手、在下車後進辦公室之前也不動手,卻在進了辦公室、失去了逃跑機會的時候,主動用刀傷害申凱和張旭東?一審判決認定 夏俊峰具有殺人的故意,完全違反邏輯,不合情理。綜合 夏俊峰被抓、被打、被迫防衛的整個過程來看,根本不具有積極追求或放任被害者死亡的主觀心態,其行為模式也與故意殺人的行為方式完全不同。
 
9、一審和二審庭審中,全部證人均未出庭,證人證言未經過當庭質證。 
 
刑事訴訟法第47條規定,“證人證言必須在法庭上經過公訴人、被害人和被告人、辯護人雙方訊問、質證,聽取各方證人的證言並且經過查實以後,才能作為定案的根據。”刑事訴訟法司法解釋第58條規定:“證據必須經過當庭出示、辨認、質證等法庭調查程式查證屬實,否則不能作為定案的根據。”“對於出庭作證的證人,必須在法庭上經過公訴人、被害人和被告人、辯護人等雙方詢問、質證,其證言經過審查確實的,才能作為定案的根據;未出庭證人的證言宣讀後經當庭查證屬實的,可以作為定案的根據。”第141條:“證人應當出庭作證。符合下列情形,經人民法院准許的,證人可以不出庭作證:(一)未成年人;(二)庭審期間身患嚴重疾病或者行動極為不便的;(三)其證言對案件的審判不起直接決定作用的;(四)有其他原因的。”而陶冶、曹陽等關鍵證人不屬於上述任何一種情況。
 
自二O一O年七月一日起施行的《關於辦理死刑案件審查判斷證據若干問題的規定》第四條:“經過當庭出示、辨認、質證等法庭調查程式查證屬實的證據,才能作為定罪量刑的根據。”第十五條:“未出庭作證證人的書面證言出現矛盾,不能排除矛盾且無證據印證的,不能作為定案的根據。”而本案證人張偉、陶冶、曹陽的書面證言均出現多處重大矛盾。
 
作為有重大影響的涉及公民生死的 夏俊峰案,竟然沒有任何證人、鑒定人出庭接受質證,這不僅反映出公訴人、合議庭的輕率,而且直接關係到本案的定性是否正確。張偉的證詞前後矛盾,陶冶、曹陽的證詞和張晶、史春梅、 張傑、賈子強、尚海濤、張忠文的證詞相矛盾。誰說真話誰說假話,經雙方質證後自然可見分曉。證人不去面臨挑戰性的問題、不去回答合理的質疑、不讓法庭觀其顏色、聽其氣息、辨其言辭,如何能夠排除人們心中的懷疑?如何讓旁觀者信服判決的公正性?
 
二、 一審判決 夏俊峰死刑,屬於量刑錯誤。 
 
1、被害人有重大過錯,不應該判死刑。 
 
根據《中華人民共和國行政處罰法》第10條之規定,行政法規需要對法律已規定得行政處罰作出具體規定的,必須在法律規定的給予行政處罰的行為、種類和幅度的範圍內規定。《行政處罰法》第8條,行政處罰種類只有警告、罰款、沒收違法所得、沒收非法財物;責令停產停業、暫扣或者吊銷許可證、暫扣或者吊銷執照、行政拘留。並沒有所謂扣押和暫扣工具一類。沈河城管扣押 夏俊峰的經營工具於法無據。
 
城管執法人員對 夏俊峰進行行政處罰的原因是被告無照經營,可是城管事先並沒有確認其身份,也就無法在行政處罰前得到其進行過工商登記的相關證據。城管人員當日也未詢問 夏俊峰是否進行過工商登記。根據行政處罰法,執法人員應首先向被告出示證件,告知給予行政處罰的事實、理由和依據,聽取當事人的陳述、申辯,填寫預定格式、編有號碼的行政處罰決定書。因此當日城管執法程式存在嚴重瑕疵。
 
被害者先是野蠻執法,後是野蠻犯罪;非法拘禁於前,暴力傷害於後;濫權悖德在先,踐踏法律在後。沈河區城管尤其是張、申二人的違法犯罪行為是本案的最重大的起因,被害人對其自身的死亡不僅有過錯,而且有重大明顯過錯。被害人的過錯或犯罪行為直接引起了矛盾的激化和 夏俊峰的防衛反應。《全國法院維護農村穩定刑事審判工作座談紀要》規定:“對於被害人一方有明顯過錯或對矛盾激化負有直接責任,或者被告人有法定從輕處罰情節的,一般不應判處死刑立即執行。”
 
2、 夏俊峰有自首情節並如實坦白全部事實。 
 
3、 夏俊峰平時表現良好,沒有犯罪記錄。其鄰居朋友的聯保信已向法庭提交。已經生效的《關於辦理死刑案件審查判斷證據若干問題的規定》第三十六條:“人民法院認定被告人的量刑事實,除審查法定情節外,還應審查以下影響量刑的情節: (一)案件起因; (二)被害人有無過錯及過錯程度,是否對矛盾激化負有責任及責任大小; (四)被告人平時表現及有無悔罪態度; ……不能排除被告人具有從輕、減輕處罰等量刑情節的,判處死刑應當特別慎重。”
 
4、 夏俊峰真誠悔過,向被害者家屬表示道歉,並願意積極承擔民事賠償責任。
 
5、由於屬正當防衛,雖然造成兩死一傷的後果,但 夏俊峰的行為幾乎沒有社會危害性。相反,正當防衛應當受到法律的肯定和社會的表彰。
 
6、退一萬步說,即使防衛過當,也應該免除或減輕處罰,處以緩刑或短期徒刑,這才符合刑法的規定。
 
《中華人民共和國刑法》第20條第2款:“正當防衛明顯超過必要限度造成重大損害的,應當負刑事責任,但是應當減輕或者免除處罰。”防衛過當的情況下,防衛人主觀惡性極小,社會危害性非常輕微。防衛過當由最初的正當防衛轉化而來,而正當防衛的本質是社會的有益性,犯罪的本質是社會危害性。因防衛過當而構成犯罪,是非常輕微的犯罪。按照刑法,“應該”也就是“必須”而不是“可以”免除或減輕處罰;而且首先考慮“免除處罰”,實在不能“免除處罰”的,也必須“減輕處罰”。
 
即使 夏俊峰因防衛過當而犯罪,那也絕非故意殺人罪。至於他因為防衛過當構成何種罪名,則不是辯方的事情,辯護人不能指控委託人。本辯護人今天要做的事情是證明控方指控的罪名不能成立。
 
 
三、 結辯:維護司法尊嚴,避免司法專橫;慎重適用死刑,避免濫殺錯殺。
 
本案的一審判決簡單而蠻橫,對控方證據照單全收,對辯方證據視而不見;對證據之矛盾未加解釋,對無法解釋的證據乾脆不提;不但無法排除重大懷疑,而且把全部疑點之利益均歸於控方。在這份死刑判決書的字裡行間,可以看到法官比控方更積極;法官意圖成為迫不及待的行刑者。不難看出,這份判決書是先有了結論,然後加以勉強的論證企圖掩耳盜鈴、瞞天過海。為了得出 夏俊峰故意殺人的結論,竟超出檢察院的指控:控方稱“ 夏俊峰因故與被害人申凱、張旭東等人發生爭執,遂持隨身攜帶的尖刀先後猛刺被害人……”,而判決書認定“事態已經平息後被告人持刀行兇”。顯然,“發生爭執”不是“事態已經平息”, 夏俊峰是因為“爭執”而拔刀刺人的。法院沒有也無法解釋“事態已經平息”與檢察院指控的“發生爭執”的矛盾。
 
這份6500多字的判決書,“說理” 的部分只有400字,主要有如下兩段:
 
“本案定性問題。經查,被告人 夏俊峰持刀連刺被害人身體要害部位數刀,從兇器類型、刺擊部位、力度、刺擊次數均反映出被告人主觀上具有故意殺人的主觀故意,客觀上造成被害人死亡結果的發生,其行為應以故意殺人罪定罪處罰。故對控方的意見予以支持,對辯方的意見不予採納。”
 
“兇器類型”如何能反映出被告人有殺人的主觀故意?欲置人死地者用切腸用的小短刀?“刺擊部位、力度、刺擊次數”如何能反映出被告人有殺人的主觀故意?如何解釋創口的方向?如何解釋背部創口?如何解釋 夏俊峰離開時兩城管並未當場死亡?刺擊瞬間,三個人是何種姿勢?為何是這種姿勢?被刺第一刀時如何反應?為何有這種反應?被刺者人數、身高、心理、社會地位均佔優勢,為何能讓 夏俊峰得手?被害人死亡結果有無其他因素,比如耽誤救治?
 
再如,判決書稱,“辯護人所提被告人系遭毆打而進行防衛一節,經查,證人陶冶始終距案發地點僅數米,其證言未能證實存在毆打一節,此節只有被告人陳述,無其他證據證明,認定此節證據不足。故本案不具有防衛情節,被害人在案件起因上不存在重大過錯。此爭議問題對控方意見予以支持,對辯方意見不予採納。”稍一分析,就可見其荒謬之處。
 
1、判決書對辯方有哪些證據支援 夏俊峰遭城管毆打幾乎不提,也完全沒有引用其論爭過程。
 
2、陶冶雖然距現場僅數米,但由於陶冶“把門關上,沒聽見什麼聲音”(卷三24頁),他既沒有看到 夏俊峰紮人,也沒有看到被害人打 夏俊峰,這是很正常的,並不能因此否認被害人毆打了 夏俊峰。按照判決書的邏輯,陶冶沒看到 夏俊峰用刀紮人,難道就否認了 夏俊峰用刀紮人?
 
3、 夏俊峰遭城管毆打並非“只有被告人陳述”,此節除 夏俊峰本人的沒有漏洞的完整陳述外,還有 夏俊峰手臂受傷照片、被害人刀傷部位及方向、被踩掉的鞋底、張晶、史春梅、 張傑、賈子強、尚海濤、張忠文等證人的證言等等,這些證據並非單獨存在,而是能夠互相印證 夏俊峰被毆打的事實。
 
4、判決書認定“本案不具有防衛情節”,卻沒有解釋殺人動機,更沒有解釋矮小的 夏俊峰何以有能力以一對三,極短的時間內用小刀造成高大兇狠的城管隊員兩死一傷。
 
5、判決書認定“被害人在案件起因上不存在重大過錯”, 不存在“重大”過錯,就肯定不是“不存在任何過錯”了,那麼是什麼樣的“過錯”?被害人何以有過錯?這種過錯和 夏俊峰的刀刺行為有何關聯?這種過錯何以完全沒有考慮在量刑當中,何以執意要判處 夏俊峰死刑?一審判決書之專橫粗暴可見一斑。
 
 
 
審判長、審判員: 
 
1997年城管出現以來,弊端早已顯現,所犯罪行累累,可謂民怨沸騰。迄今未有一部全國性的《城市管理法》或者行政法規,城管“執法”從來於法無據;執法缺乏統一性和規範性,領導機構缺失;法律監督缺位,僭越公安權力;城管隊員法律身份不明,素質參差不齊,打手流氓混跡其中,借執法之名、行奪財謀私擾民害民之實,所在多有。在法律地位不清、權力制約不力的制度之下,城管人員的暴力習慣,也就成為城管制度的需要,成為這種制度的一部分。法外暴力用於補充規則之不足,用於彌補身份威信和法律威懾之不足,因此也就不再是個人化的;法外暴力既是變態的“城市管理”“城市形象”需要,也就必然是普遍存在的,得到居廟堂者的默許;法外暴力得不到民眾和媒體的有效監督和法律的嚴肅制裁,也必然會滋長城管人員使用暴力的積極性。運用暴力而極少受到處分,這滋長了城管隊員的陰暗心理,這被城管的作為“特權”和有身份、有面子的標誌。法律和政治地位曖昧不清,勢必用謀財、洩憤、與民爭利來彌補。暴力一旦開始,就具有自身的慣性,在具體制度的縱容之下,在群體心理的傳染之下,就會成癮、成為習慣。我相信張旭東申凱在妻子或孩子面前,絕不會表現其人性的殘忍和暴力的輕率,他們在家庭的場域之下遵循愛和良善的原則,而在城管集體執法的場域之下,則被施暴的欲望和激情所吞沒。——儘管本辯護人為了 夏俊峰的利益和本案的正確定性,必須指出申凱和張旭東當時行為的違法犯罪性質,但我對他們絕不僅僅是譴責。他們,是我的同胞,與我們一樣生活在這個不完善的世界之中;他們,毫無疑問,是城管制度的受害者。我對他們抱有深切的同情;我能真切感受到他們家屬失去親人的哀痛;他們自身的和家庭的不幸,也是整個社會的不幸。
 
城管制度已經讓兩個家庭破碎了,我們難道非得讓第三個家庭破碎嗎?我們已經失去了申凱和張旭東兩個公民,我們已經有幾十個公民被城管打死,我們已經為野蠻的城管制度付出了沉痛的代價,難道我們非得用司法的公正性為城管體制的弊端和城管隊員的野蠻背書?難道我們非得把司法當做城管的復仇之手,置 夏俊峰於必死之地,讓父母失去兒子、讓妻子失去丈夫、讓9歲的孩子永遠失去父親?
 
 
審判長、審判員: 
 
在全球反對死刑的潮流之下,絕大多數國家已經立法或事實上廢除了死刑,保留死刑的國家一般也只針對謀殺等最為嚴重的暴力犯罪。難道我們不但要把死刑適用於經濟或非暴力犯罪,而且還要適用於防衛過當或者正當防衛的案件嗎?因正當防衛被執行死刑,曹海鑫的悲劇成為河南司法史上洗刷不掉的恥辱,我們難道在21世紀的今天在遼寧重新上演這一悲劇嗎?
 
兩個公民的死亡是社會悲劇,但如果判處 夏俊峰死刑,則是一個明顯的巨大錯誤,是社會難以承受和接受的悲劇,中國司法也將長期籠罩在 夏俊峰案的陰影之下。如果 夏俊峰被判死刑,必將有更多無辜、無助的商販死在城管手下;如果正當防衛而被判死刑,那麼一個人在正當防衛之後,可以繼續瘋狂地殺人而不必承擔更多的責任,因為一個人只能死一次;如果正當防衛而被判死刑,那將不再有罪與非罪、善與惡、生與死的界限,我們社會中本已非常可憐的規則的力量,也必將被邪惡、混亂和野蠻所摧毀。
 
不誇張地說,正當防衛的公民被判死刑,對整個社會的影響將是災難性的——暴徒將更加氣焰囂張,公民面對非法暴力時的反抗必將畏首畏尾;邪惡將得到支援,受害者被暴力犯罪侵害之後,又再次受到法庭的侵害。面對非法侵害時的防衛行為不僅是美德而且是本能,但反抗行為非但不受到保護讚揚反而受到譴責甚至要被定為死罪,那麼我們今天的判決所要傷害的,就不僅僅是 夏俊峰的法定權利,而且將是整個法律的尊嚴、社會的倫理和民眾的是非判斷。
 
我希望今天法庭的判決,能夠說明我們的司法體制還有起碼的是非觀和獨立性;我們希望 夏俊峰案的司法過程,能夠讓人們看到我們這個多難的民族,還能夠從苦難中反思,並堅定地站在法治和人道主義這一邊。
 
此致 
遼寧省高級人民法院 
 
辯護人:中國政法大學法學院 滕彪
2010年7月
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4886632001016v7m.html
 

Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case

 
Xia Junfeng ( 夏俊峰) was street vendor from Tieling county, Liaoning province (瀋陽鐵嶺縣). 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 (瀋陽沉河區), 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. The Chinese original is here.
 
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.
 
3. While Xia Junfeng was detained by the police, he requested police officers to take pictures of injuries on his arm. This strongly supported the fact that he was beaten by Chengguans.
 
Xia Junfeng did not suffer from injuries prior to his arrival at the (Chengguan) office, and then he was promptly arrested a few hours after the incident. So his injury could only be sustained as a result of beating at the Chengguan office. According to Xia Junfeng's statement, he "had bruises on both arms and a large bruise on one thigh. No photograph (of these injuries) was taken at the time. There were bruises on his neck and the back, and a lump on his head. However, no photographs were taken of those injuries either. Drumming noises in the left ear had lasted for two months after the incident. Only two photographs of the arms were taken at the time. They were the ones produced in court." Given that Xia Junfeng was beaten so badly in just a matter of a few minutes, it is clear that he was forced into self-defense in the face of Chengguans’ beating. However, the verdict of the first trial makes no mention of the two photographs that are in the case file and were presented as evidence in the court. That the court deliberately ignored such crucial evidence indicates that the judicial body that presided over the first trial had lost basic impartiality.
 
4.The state of the wounds on the deceased indicated that at the time Zhang and Shen were leaning over Xia Junfeng and assaulting him  continuously.
 
Shen Kai had stabbing wounds on his left chest and his back. Zhang Xudong had stabbing wounds on the upper part of his left chest. Both had wounds running from upper left to lower right or from upper right to lower left.
 
First of all, the stabbing of non-vital parts of (a victim’s) body does not comply with the characteristics of intentional homicide. If an intentional homicide is to be committed within a very short period of time, the perpetrator is unlikely to be aiming at where the knife will not deliver a fatal blow.
 
Secondly, Shen Kai is 1.82 meters tall and Zhang Xudong 1.80 (around 6 feet), while Xia Junfeng is only 1.65 meters tall (5’5”). If they were all standing, it would not have been possible for Xia Junfeng to stab them and leave wounds that ran downward from left to right or from right to left in areas above the chest. At the time, Xia Junfeng was half kneeling with knife in his right hand, only when he stabbed fiercely toward above him or behind his left shoulder, such wounds on the victims were possible. This also indicates that, even after Xia Junfeng had been kicked and fallen on his knees, Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong still didn’t  stop assaulting and beating him.
 
Finally, given that Xia Junfeng is physically small in comparison to Zhang and Shen, also in stark disadvantage in terms of power and social and economic status, and that his freedom of movement was constrained in the Chengguan office, it didn’t make any sense for him to beat two law enforcers of his own initiative. The only way to explain the positions, directions and the number of stabs Zhang and Shen had sustained is they had not been able to dodge Xia Junfeng’s sudden act of defense.
 
5. The small knife Xia Junfeng used for self-defense was not prepared for the purpose; and under the circumstances, it was completely out of instinct that he used the knife to defend himself.
 
The knife Xia Junfeng used was for cutting sausages, not premeditatively prepared. He didn’t pull the knife out at the beginning of the assault, nor did he remember he had the knife with him all of a sudden. He touched on the knife in his pocket when the Chengguans kicked him hard in his lower body and he covered a painful spot with hand.
 
6. Xia Junfeng’s actions meet the definition of justifiable defense.
 
Article 20 of The Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China states that “If a person employs an act to stop an unlawful infringement for the purposes of avoiding the said infringement for the State's or the public interest or for his own or another person's right of the person, property right or any other right, thus causing harm to the unlawful infringer, the said act shall be regarded as a justifiable defense and the said person shall not bear criminal responsibility.” If a person employs an act of defense to an immediate violent crime of committing intentional injury, homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping or any other crime seriously endangering the safety of another person, thus causing bodily injury or death to the unlawful infringer, the said act shall not be regarded as a defense that exceeds the limits of necessity, and the said person shall not bear criminal responsibility.
 
According to Xia Junfeng’s statement, “As we arrived at the law enforcement station, Tao Yan got off the vehicle first and opened the door. Zhang Xudong asked me, “Where are you from, the city or the countryside?” I said, “What difference does it make? Look, I’m just a street vendor living a hard life.” As soon as we entered the room, another vehicle pulled up, and a man got out of it (I learned later that his name is Shen Kai). He raged at me and began to beat me as soon as he entered the room, his fists pounding my head and ears. As I tried to run outside, I came face to face with Shen Kai. Right away Zhang Xudong grabbed my collar to stop me. He also struck me with fists. So I was sandwiched by Zhang Xudong and Shen Kai. Zhang Xudong kicked me at my thighs, and it hurt so badly that I fell on my right knee. As my hand covered the painful spot, I came in touch with the knife.”
 
At the time,  Xia Junfeng was still being illegally detained and furthermore savagely beaten. In the midst of such illegal assault, Xia Junfeng was forced to defend himself, and his actions meet all conditions of justifiable defense.
 
7. Even though Xia Junfeng’s act of defense resulted in two deaths and one injury, it was not excessive defense.
 
Excessive defense refers to the fact that justifiable defense obviously exceeds necessity, resulting in doing significant harm to the unlawful offender(s). Generally speaking, when faced with unlawful offence, if it can be halted through more moderate means, then fierce means of defense should be avoided; when offence has already been halted, the offended should not continue to harm the offender(s). On the other hand, “the necessary extent” must be considered under the actual circumstances, the physical and mental conditions, possible resistant measures, and even the relevant social background. At the moment, Xia Junfeng was under illegal detention, the two Chengguans were both big and physical who, apart from thumping fists and kicking, also used iron mug and other objects to abuse Xia Junfeng, posing enough threat to Xia’s life. Later on, it was very likely that other Chengguans also joined the two. Under the circumstances, Xia Junfeng had no other means to stop the ongoing, unlawful offence except for using the small knife he had carried with him. Xia Junfeng said, under the circumstances, “anyone would have done the same.” This is the most typical psychological state in justifiable defense.  
 
According to Xia Lingjun’s answers to my questions in this court, he had no way of being sure when they would cease beating him and what the outcome would be. Everyone is aware of how ruthlessly Chengguans go about enforcing the law, and there are incidents every day in which they beat people; there are even many cases of Chengguans beating citizens to death. If you google “Chengguan brutally enforce the law” there are 261,000 results. If you google “Chengguan beats street vendors to death,” you get 602,000 results. If you google “Chengguan beats someone to death,” you get 782,000 results.
 
On September 6, 2000, Zheng Yongguang, Wu Shunqian, of the Urban Management Enforcement in Meishan County, Sichuan province, and their driver Zhang Weidong fist punched a vendor by the name Du while policing vendors and their stands on street. Another vendor by the name Tang Deming died when he was swung off the Chengguan’s truck.  
 
On May 29, 2001, as Chengguan enforcers in Lingwu, Ningxia, impounded vendors’ pans and stoves, they beat Yang Wenzhi to death and injuried Yang Jianrong and wife.
 
On November 12, 2001, sole proprietor Zhang Fucai died after being pushed and beaten by enforcers of urban appearance regulations in Suzhou, Anhui province.
 
On January 18, 2002, in Sha District, Chongqing, Chengguans got into a quarrel with sole proprietor Yu Bo while inspecting city appearance and sanitation, drove their enforcement truck over Yu Bo, and killed him.
 
On November 18, 2002, in Lianhu District, Xi’an, 26-year-old Guo Zhanwei was beaten to death by several Chengguans, and a young man who accompanied him was injured badly.
 
On January 2, 2003, in Anfu Township, Chaozhou city, Guangdong province, a pedicab driver was killed during a quarrel with Chengguans.
 
In February, 2003, in Yanta District, Xi’an, a Chengguan pushed pregnant vendor Jin Changyan on the ground in a street clear-up, and stepped on her abdomen. Later in hospital the fetus was found.
 
On July 20, 2004, in Yuan village, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Chengguans beat migrant vendor Li Yueming to death.
 
On July 20, 2005, in Jiangsu province, 56-year-old vegetable vendor Lin Hongying was beaten to death by Chengguans.  
 
On November 19, 2005, in Wuxi, Jiangsu province, Chengguans beat vendor Wu Shouqing to death.
 
On February 16, 2006, in Putuo District, Shanghai, Chengguan beat Shanghai resident Li Binghao to death.
 
On October 9, 2006, in Xiangzhou county, Laibing city, Guangxi Autonomy Zone, a homeless man was beaten to death by drunk Chengguan Squad leader Tan Zongquan.  
 
On January 8, 2007, in Yiyang county, Shangdong province, manager of Hongwei liquor store Li Guangchun was beaten to death by 11 Chengguans.
 
On January 7, 2008, in Tianmen, Hubei province, Wei Wenhua witnessed Chengguan enforcers in a clash with villagers. As he videoed the scene, he was beaten to death on spot by Chengguans.
 
On July 30, 2008, in Yuzhong district, Chongqing, four Chengguans beat vendor Liu Jianping to death near Datian Bay Sports Facility.
 
On March 30, 2009, in Pingxiang city, Jiangxi province, villager Chen was beaten to death by more than a dozen of Chengguans, and his family blocked G320 highway with his body to protest Chengguan brutality, causing nearly ten thousand people to gather and watch.  
 
On October 27, 2009, in Fufa Community, Kunming, Yunnan province, Chengguans had a quarrel with pedicab driver Pan Huai and beat him to death.
 
On June 1, 2010, in Shenzhen, Chengguans argued with an old lady, ran their vehicle over her, and killed her.
 
Not unrelated to this case, victim Shen Kai was known for beating vendors on a regular basis, and Binghe police station should have records of police filing. For example, in July, 2008, he broke the arm of a female umbrella vendor. We had asked the court to investigate the incident and obtain evidence of it. But the court only allowed a smaller investigation than the defense had asked. Meanwhile, even if the court didn’t find record of the case report, it doesn’t mean such record doesn’t exist; even if the record doesn’t exist, it doesn’t mean the fact of him harming the vendor didn’t exist. Moreover, that Shenhe Chuangguans have regularly engaged in brutal enforcement is a known fact to many local residents even without the testimony of the vendor in this case.
 
Don’t think for a minute that these facts are unrelated to the case because they have no direct connection. These facts (whether or not Xia Junfeng had a full and clear understanding of Chengguans’ violent actions) have become the common sense of participants in this specific case, or a social recognition or subconsciousness. The actors had already deeply internalized these facts; these facts became the basis for their reactions, the basis for their snap judgements. To come at it from a different angle, Chengguans’ violent beatings and murders have not been punished with appropriate sentences and, in some cases, have gone completely unregulated; these are also “facts of life” known to both Chengguans and street peddlers. The price that Chengguans pay for attacking people is extremely low, and they have motive to beat people, while Xia Junfeng had no way of determining what would be the end result of his being beaten: it was entirely possible that he could have been beaten to death.
 
At that time, Xia Junfeng had been so badly beaten that he was unable to think clearly, to the point where he had lost the index finger on his right hand in self-defense, to the point where he was completely unable to remember whether he had stabbed Zhang Wei with a knife, and to the point where something happened that he had not predicted at all, something he did not hope for in the least -- the death of two and wounding of one. It would be totally unreasonable to demand that Xia Junfeng clearly estimate how badly he would be beaten, determine the consequences of his self-defense, and precisely control the amount of his self-defense, given his extremely anxious state and the very short amount of time that all of this took place. The new Criminal Law of China changed the wording of the 1979 version of the Criminal Law from “appropriate measures of self-defense exceeding necessary limits” to “appropriate measures of self-defense obviously exceeding necessary limits,” while the phrase “leading to unacceptable harm” was changed to “leading to great loss or harm.” It adds provisions for the right to unlimited self-defense, therefore lowering the criteria for excessive self-defense and expanding the scope of justifiable self-defense. These changes were made to encourage citizens to be brave enough to fight back against those harming them illegally, and to make them more active in combating violent crimes.
 
8. There is a lack of evidentiary support for the conclusion that Xia Lingjun had motive and committed homicide intentionally; it is not in line with the facts.
 
As previously stated, Xia Junfeng’s was prompted by the need to self defense. He sought to end the violence and disengaged himself as soon as he could while he was being illegally detained and harmed. The fact that Zhang and Shen could stand and talk after being stabbed several times shows that Xia Junfeng did not intend to kill them, and delayed treatment is one possible reason for their deaths. Evidence provided in the first trial shows that it took 19 minutes for them to reach the hospital and get emergency treatment, but the time it takes to reach No. 463 Hospital from the site of the incident is only 5 minutes, including stopping at a red light. According to Chengguan Zu Minghui’s testimony on May 16, 120 [aka 911 in the US] never came, wasting the most precious opportunity to save their lives. According to expert evaluation, the victims died from hemorrhage shock, which is different from death by acute hemorrhage shock. The latter is when the main artery bleeds, blood is lost rapidly, shock occurs rapidly, and so does death. In the case of hemorrhage shock,  it is the auxiliary or the vein that is losing blood, and timely treatment could have saved lives. This also goes to show that Xia Junfeng did not intend to kill.
 
Chengguan Cao Yang, a witness in this case, said: “When I came out, I saw Shen Kai walking towards the back gate where the service area was. When he came close he fell into my arms and said, ‘I’ve been stabbed by that kebab guy,’ then he fell down. Then I saw Zhang Xudong standing in the office, holding his abdomen, and falling down in about 2 seconds without saying a word.” From this testimony, you can see that, after being stabbed by Xia Junfeng, Zhang and Shen could walk or stand, albeit with difficulty. That means that after Xia Junfeng defended himself by stabbing the two, the two Chengguans could still stand and talk, that Xia didn’t continue to harm them to ensure their death. Therefore, Cao Yang’s testimony could also prove that Xia Junfeng did not commit intentional homicide. 
 
Chengguans at Shenhe Chengguan station beat Xia Junfeng without flinching, in front of the public, wrestling away objects Xia used for basic survival, and didn’t show even a hint of pity when Xia Junfeng’s wife knelt down to beg their mercy. They forcibly dragged Xia Junfeng back to their Chengguan office, and, under such circumstances, who on earth could believe that they would then patiently and kindly educate and persuade Xia? Xia Junfeng wouldn’t return blows in the market when he was beaten, he wouldn’t raise a hand when his property was stolen, he wouldn’t raise a hand when his wife begged them for mercy, he wouldn’t raise a hand when he was thrown into a car, he wouldn’t raise a hand when he was being taken into the office, but he would proactively attack Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong with a knife once he was inside the office and had lost his chance to escape? What sense does that make? The first verdict determined that Xia Junfeng deliberately committed murder; this is completely illogical and unreasonable. From the entire sequence of events in which Xia Junfeng was seized, beaten, and forced to commit acts of self-defense, he did not in any way wish, nor did he pursue, the deaths of the victims. His actions are completely inconsistent with the actions of one committing intentional homicide.
 
9. During both the first and second trials, no witnesses appeared in court, and their testimonies were not cross-examined in front of the court.
 
According to Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Law, “The testimony of a witness may be used as a basis in deciding a case only after the witness has been questioned and cross-examined in the courtroom by both sides, that is, the public prosecutor and victim as well as the defendant and defenders, and after the testimonies of the witnesses on all sides have been heard and verified.” Then, Article 58 of “The Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law” states that, “Evidence must be verified to be true in front of the court through court investigation procedures such as displaying in the court, identification, and cross-examination, or it may not be used as basis in deciding a case.”  “A witness appearing in front of the court must be questioned and cross-examined in the courtroom by the public prosecutor, victim as well as defendant, and defense lawyer. Only when the witness’ testimony is verified to be true, can it be used as a basis in deciding the case. Testimony by witness who does not appear in front of the court must be read, and verified in similar fashion, in the courtroom before it can be used as a basis for deciding the case.” Then, Article 141 of the “Interpretation”: “A witness must appear in front of the court, except in the following circumstances approved by the People’s Court: 1) witness is a juvenile; 2) witness is seriously ill or immobile on the court day; 3) witness’ testimony is not directly relevant to the case; and 4) other reasons.” And in Xia Junfeng’s case, Tao Ye, Cao Yang and other key witnesses do not fall into any of the above categories.
 
Article 4 of The Regulations on Reviewing and Deciding Evidence in Death Penalty Cases, effective since July 1, 2010, stipulates that “Only evidence that have been subjected to court investigative procedures, such as display, identification and cross-examination in the courtroom and are verified to be true can be admitted as basis for conviction and sentence.” Again, article 15 of the same Regulations stipulates that “When the written testimonies by witnesses who have not appeared in front of the court to testify are contradictory, and the contradiction cannot be explained nor can be evidenced, such testimonies can not be admitted as basis for conviction.”  In this case, the written testimonies of Zhang Wei, Yao Yan and Cao Yan all have major contradictions.  
 
Xia Junfeng case is a high-impact case that involves in the life and death of a citizen, yet there have been no witnesses and expert witnesses to appear in front of the court to be cross-examined. This not only shows how reckless the public prosecutors and the collegial panel are, it also has a direct impact on the appropriateness of the verdict. Zhang Wei’s testimony is contradictory in itself, testimonies by Tao Yan and Cao Yang are contradictory with that of Zhang Jing, Shi Chunmei, Zhang Jie, Jia Ziqiang, Shang Haitao, and Zhang Zhongwen. Cross examination would have easily found out who was telling the truth and who was lying. Without subjecting witnesses to challenging questions and reasonable questioning, without letting the court to observe them and hear what they say and how they say, how can you dispel whatever doubts people have about the case? How can you convince them of the fairness of the verdict? 
 
II. Death penalty reached by the first trial is a sentencing mistake.
 
1. The victims committed grave offenses, [and the defendant]should
 
not be sentenced to death.  
 
According to Article 10 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalty, when an administrative decree elaborates on administrative penalties that are already stipulated by the law, it must do so within the scope of what the law has stipulated with regard to behaviors, their types and degrees. Article 8 of the same law stipulates that the only types of administrative penalty are warning, fining, impounding illegal income, confiscating illegal properties; ordering to suspend production or business operation, suspending or canceling permit or business license, and administrative detention. It does not provide for distraining, permanently or temporarily, tools. Shenhe Chengguan had no legal basis to seize Xia Junfeng’s business tools.  
 
Chengguan enforcers handed administrative penalty to Xia Junfeng for operating business without license, but Chengguans had not identified who he was beforehand, so they could not have obtained evidence of Xia’s business registration status before handing out the administrative penalty. Nor did the Chengguans inquired Xia Junfeng about whether he had registered with the industrial and commercial agency. According to the Law of Administrative Penalty, enforcers must first of all display their IDs to the defendant, inform him of the facts, reasons and bases for administrative penalty,and  listen to his or her description and defense, and finally fill out the form for administrative penalty decision that is numbered. Therefore, Chengguangs’ enforcement on that day has serious procedural flaws.  
 
The victims engaged first in brutal enforcement, then in barbaric crime; they illegally detained Xia Junfeng first and then did violent harm to him; they abuses their power and then violated the law. The biggest cause in this case is the unlawful, criminal behaviors of Chengguans in Shenhe District, Zhan and Shen in particular. The victims not only misconducted themselves in the events leading to their deaths, but did so significantly and ostensibly. The victims’ misconducts and crimes directly contributed to escalating the confrontation and to Xia Junfeng’s self-defensive reactions. The Minutes of Nation-wide Court Meeting about Trials of Criminal Cases and the Maintenance of Rural Stability stipulates that “Whereas the victims committed obvious errors or is directly responsible for escalating confrontation, or the defendant(s) have done things that merit statutory consideration for lenient punishment, the defendant(s) should not be sentenced to immediate execution.”   
 
2. Xia Junfeng surrendered himself and confessed to all facts.
 
3、Xia Junfeng has been a well-behaved man without any criminal record.We have submitted the affidavit attesting his character by his friends and neighbors. Article 36 of The Regulations on Reviewing and Deciding Evidence in Death Penalty Cases, now effective, stipulates that “For the People’s Court to decide facts for sentencing, it has to not only review the statutory acts, it also has to review the following acts: (1) The cause of the case; (2) whether the victim(s) committed wrongs and, if so, to what extent, whether they were responsible, and how much they were, for escalating the confrontation; (4) How did the defendant(s) behaved in routine life and whether they are repentant; ….use death penalty cautiously when it cannot be excluded that the defendant(s) have done things that merit leniency.”
 
4. Xia Junfeng has sincerely repented, apologized to the families of the victims, and is willing to assume civil liability for damage.
 
5. Even though Xia Junfeng’s justifiable self-defense resulted in two deaths and one injury, his action imposed little social menace. On the contrary, justifiable self-defense should be affirmed by the law and encouraged by the society.  
 
6. Such self-defense, even when it is carried out excessively, it should be exempted from punishment or given mitigated punishment, or be given reprieve or short sentence according to the Criminal Law.      
 
        Number 2 clause of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that “If a person's act of justifiable defense obviously exceeds the limits of necessity and causes serious damage, he shall bear criminal responsibility; however, he shall be given a mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment.” In the case of excessive self-defense, very little ill-intention on the part of the defender is involved, and therefore it has little social hazard. Instead, excessive self-defense is an extension of the original, justifiable self-defense, and justifiable defense is by nature good for the society while committing a crime is to become a social hazard. Even when self-defense is so excessive as to constitute a crime, it is a very slight crime. When the Criminal Law stipulates that he or she “shall be given a mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment,” “shall” means “must”, not “may”. Furthermore, the first consideration should be given to “exemption from punishment”; and when that’s impossible, then the court should consider to “mitigate  punishment.”     
 
Even if Xia Junfeng committed a crime as a result of excessive self-defense, it cannot be voluntary manslaughter. As for what crime his excessive self-defense might have constituted,that is not the business of the defense lawyers, for the defense lawyers cannot make allegations against their client. As Xia Junfeng’s defense lawyer, my job today is to prove that the prosecutors’ charges against my client are invalid.  
 
 
 
   III. Closing argument: protect the dignity of the judicial system; prevent judicial tyranny; take caution in handing down death sentences; and avoid indiscriminate and improper killing.
 
The verdict of the first trial is crude and unreasonable. Evidence presented by the prosecutors was admitted in their entirety, while evidence presented by the defense counsels was ignored. No explanation was given about discrepancies in the evidence; no mention was made at all of the evidence that was impossible to explain. Not only can we not rule out serious doubts, the prosecutors have introduced more of such doubts. In words, and between lines, of this verdict of death sentence, we can see that the judges were even more eager than the prosecutors,and wanted to be the executioners who can hardly wait. It’s not difficult to see how the verdict works backwards from predetermined conclusions, with far-fetching argument to try to hoodwink and convince the world. In order to reach the conclusion that Xia Lingjun had committed intentional homicide, the verdict actually spills beyond the prosecution’s allegations: While the prosecution claimed that “Xia Junfeng stabbed the victims forcefully as he was quarrelling with Shen Kai, Zhang Xudong and others......”, the verdict believes that “the defendant stabbed the victims after the quarrel had been settled.”Obviously, “quarrelling” is not the same as “quarrel had been settled,” and Xia Junfeng stabbed the victims because of the “quarrel.” Nor could the court explain why this discrepancy exists between the prosecution’s allegation and the court’s verdict.  
 
    Of this 6500-character verdict, only 400 characters can be considered “argument” and they are in these two paragraphs:
 
“The nature of the case. According to the investigation, defendant Xia Junfeng stabbed the key parts of the victims multiple times; and the type of knife, positions of the stabbing, degree of force, and times of stabbing all indicate that the defendant intended to kill, and did kill, the victims. His action constituted intentional manslaughter and should be punished as such. Therefore we concur with the opinion of the prosecutors and reject that of the defense lawyers.”
 
How does “The type of knife” indicate that the defendant had intended to kill? With a short knife meant for cutting sausages? How do the “positions of the stabbing, degree of force, and times of stabbing” indicate that the defendant had intended to kill? How do you explain the directions of the stabbing wounds? How do you explain the wounds on the backs? How do you explain that the two Chengguans didn’t die on the scene when Xia Junfeng left there? At the moment when the stabbing occurred, what positions were the three of them in respectively? Why were they in those positions? What were the victims’ reactions when the first stab occurred? Why did they react so? Since the men who were stabbed were superior in number, height, psychology, and social status, how could Xia Junfeng have succeeded in killing them? Were there other factors at play that had contributed to the death of the victims, such as untimely treatment?    
 
Secondly, the verdict says that “with regard to the defense lawyers’ claim that the defendant self-defended himself when he was beaten, the investigation finds that witness Tao Yan had been only a few meters away from the scene throughout the event, and he testified that there had been no beating. With only the defendant’s claim without the support of other evidence, the court rules against this claim for lack of evidence. Therefore in this case, there was no self-defense involved, and the victims did not commit significant wrongs in causing the event. With regard to this dispute, the court supports the prosecutors’ opinion and rejects that of the defense.”
 
The absurdity of this statement by the court can be easily analyzed as follows:  
 
1. The verdict made almost no mention of evidence that support Xia Junfeng being beaten by Chengguans, nor did it cite the argument between him and the Chengguans.
 
2. Even though Yao Yan was only a few meters aways from the scene, but since Yao Yan “closed the door and heard little noises”(p.24, vol. 3), it would be normal for him not to see Xia Junfeng stabbing or the victims beating Xia, and his seeing neither cannot be used to incur that the victims did not beat Xia Junfeng. According to the logic of the verdict, since Yao Yan didn’t see Xia Junfeng’s act of stabbing, does that mean Xia didn’t stab anyone?
 
3. Xia Jufeng being beaten by Chengguangs is not “a claim made by the defendant only.” Xia Junfeng’s own complete, coherent statement is evidenced by photos of his injured arms, the positions and directions of the victims’ stabbing wounds, a sole that was trampled off the shoe, and testimonies of Zhang Jing, Shi Chunmei, Zhang Jie, Jia Ziqiang, Shang Haitao, and Zhang Zhongwen. These evidence do not exist separately; together they provide complimentary proof that Xia Junfeng was beaten.    
 
4. The verdict states that “there was no self-defense involved” in this case. If so, it neglects to explain the motive to kill, nor does it explain how Xia Junfeng, smaller in stature, could have managed to face three tall, ferocious Chengguans and kill two and injure one with a small knife over a very short time span.  
 
5. When the verdict states that “the victims did not commit significant wrongs in causing the event,” it essentially recognizes that they did commit some wrongs. What are these “wrongs” then? Why? How were these wrongs related to Xia Junfeng’s act of stabbing? Why had these wrongs not been taken into consideration when the court handed out sentence? Why did the court insisted on issuing death penalty to Xia Junfeng? Such is the tyranny and harshness of the verdict of the first trial.  
 
Chief judge and judges,
 
Since the Chengguan system was established in 1997, its drawbacks have been clear. The crimes it has committed have been many and have bred bitter resentment among the population. To date, there is no national “Urban Administration Law” or administrative statutes to govern it, and Chengguan “enforcement” has never had any legal basis. Nor has there been any consistency or standards in its enforcement approach as well as its leadership structure. It has had no legal oversight but still acts as law enforcement. Its members have no clear legal definition. Their personal qualities are as varied as to have thugs and hooligans in their midst. In many cases, they rob, and work for personal gain by harassing and harming citizens at will under the name of enforcement. 
 
In this system of vague legal status and inadequate oversight, Chengguan’s violent habit becomes a necessity, and a part of the system. Extralegal violence, thus employed to compensate for inadequate regulation and an absence of authority and legal deterrence, is no longer individual behavior. Such violence exists everywhere with the permission of the authorities. It is needed because of an overriding concern for “city image” and “urban management.” Finally, when extralegal violence is not monitored by the people and the media, and not punished by the law, it is only natural for Chengguan members to feel justified. Using violence with impunity enables the Chengguans to see violence psychologically as their “privilege,” a sign of status and pride. Since the legal and political status of Chengguan is unclear, it is only natural for its members to seek personal gain, vent their anger, and prey on the citizens they were intended to protect. Once violence starts, it has its own momentum, and, with a specific system enabling it and Groupthink encouraging it, it eventually becomes a habit and an addiction.
 
I believe Zhang Xudong and Shen Kan would have never displayed their cruelty and gratuitous violence toward their wives and children, because in a family environment they adhered to the principles of love and decency. But in the milieu of the Chengguan’s collective enforcement, they were overtaken by the desire and passion to inflict violence. Although, for Xia Junfeng’s interest and for the sake of the case reaching a just decision, I as the defense lawyer must point out that Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong’s actions at the time broke the law. Still, I don’t just blame them. They were my countrymen, living in the same imperfect world as the rest of us. They were no doubt victims of the Chenguan system as well. I hold deep empathy toward them, and can feel their family’s loss and pain, which are also the misfortune of all society.
 
In this case, the Chenguan system has already destroyed two families; do we have to destroy a third one? We have lost Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong. Several dozen citizens have been beaten to death by Chengguans. We have already paid a heavy price for the brutal Chengguan system, and now, do we have to sacrifice justice in order to endorse an ill-conceived system and the brutality committed by its members? Must we make the judiciary an avenging hand that puts Xia Junfeng, a husband and father of a nine-year-old, to death?
 
        Chief judge and judges,
 
In the worldwide trend against the death penalty, most countries have abolished it by law or in practice, and in the countries where it is still in use, it is reserved for the most egregiously violent crimes. It’s bad enough that we have been applying the death penalty in economic or non-violent criminal cases, are we now going to apply it in cases of excessive self-defense or justifiable self-defense as well? Cao Haixin was executed for self-defense, and the tragedy is a shame in the judicial history in Henan. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the same tragedy in Liaoning?
 
The death of two citizens is a tragedy for our society, but if Xia Junfeng were to be sentenced to death, it would be an obvious and gargantuan mistake, a tragedy unbearable and unacceptable to society that will cast a shadow on the Chinese judiciary for a long time to come. If Xia Junfeng were to be sentenced to death, many more innocent, helpless vendors will die at the hands of Chengguans. If one were to be sentenced to death for self-defense, he or she would be inclined to kill excessively and kill many more without qualms, because one can only die once. If one were to be sentenced to death for self-defense, there would be no boundaries between guilt and innocence, good and bad, life and death; and the power of the rule of law, already pathetically weak in our society, would be destroyed altogether by evil, chaos and brutality.
 
Without exaggeration, sentencing to death a citizen who was only defending himself will have disastrous repercussions for the whole society since it would embolden the attackers and intimidate those who resist unlawful violence. While evil-doers are encouraged, victims will be harmed the second time by the court after sustaining harm first from violent crimes. The act of self-defense in the face of unlawful harm is not only a virtue but an instinct. But instead of being protected and praised, if such an act is condemned with a sentence of death, then today’s verdict will hurt not only Xia Junfeng’s legal rights, but also the dignity of the law itself, social ethics, and the citizens’ sense of right and wrong.
 
         It is my hope that the court’s decision today will indicate that our judiciary system is still able to uphold the basic sense of right and wrong and some degree of independence. It is our hope that the judiciary process of Xia Junfeng’s case will show the world that the long-suffering Chinese people can draw lessons from their miseries and stand firm on the side of the rule of law and humanitarianism.
 
   
 
To: The Superior People’s Court of Liaoning Province
 
Liaoning Province Superior People’s Court
 
Defense counsel: Teng Biao, China University of Politics and Law
 
July, 2010
 
 
 
Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case
 
By Teng Biao
 
Xia Junfeng ( 夏俊峰) was a street vendor from Tieling county, Liaoning province (遼寧鐵嶺縣). 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 (瀋陽沉河區), 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, held in July, 2010, upheld the verdict of the first trial. The case has garnered wide online attention in China since its onset. It is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court in Beijing. Dr. Teng Biao was Xia’s defense lawyer in the second trial, and the following is an excerpt of his closing argument. Several volunteer translators, Yaxue included, have collaborated on a complete translation of Dr. Teng’s defense in the hope to shed light on, and call for attention to, the Xia Junfeng case and the ill system at its root. The Chinese original is here.
Painting by Xia Junfeng's son, now 12.
 
A painting by Xia Junfeng’s son Xia Jianqiang (夏健強), now 12.
 
Since the Chengguan system was established in 1997, its drawbacks have been clear. The crimes it has committed have been many and have bred bitter resentment among the population. To date, there is no national “Urban Administration Law” or administrative statutes to govern it, and Chengguan “enforcement” has never had any legal basis. Nor has there been any consistency or standards in its enforcement approach as well as its leadership structure. It has had no legal oversight but still acts as law enforcement. Its members have no clear legal definition. Their personal qualities are as varied as to have thugs and hooligans in their midst. In many cases, they rob, and work for personal gain by harassing and harming citizens at will under the name of enforcement.
 
In this system of vague legal status and inadequate oversight, Chengguan’s violent habit becomes a necessity, and a part of the system. Extralegal violence, thus employed to compensate for inadequate regulation and an absence of authority and legal deterrence, is no longer individual behavior. Such violence exists everywhere with the permission of the authorities. It is needed because of an overriding concern for “city image” and “urban management.” Finally, when extralegal violence is not monitored by the people and the media, and not punished by the law, it is only natural for Chengguan members to feel justified. Using violence with impunity enables the Chengguans to see violence psychologically as their “privilege,” a sign of status and pride. Since the legal and political status of Chengguan is unclear, it is only natural for its members to seek personal gain, vent their anger, and prey on the citizens they were intended to protect. Once violence starts, it has its own momentum, and, with a specific system enabling it and Groupthink encouraging it, it eventually becomes a habit and an addiction.
 
I believe Zhang Xudong and Shen Kan would have never displayed their cruelty and gratuitous violence toward their wives and children, because in a family environment they adhered to the principles of love and decency. But in the milieu of the Chengguan’s collective enforcement, they were overtaken by the desire and passion to inflict violence. Although, for Xia Junfeng’s interest and for the sake of the case reaching a just decision, I as the defense lawyer must point out that Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong’s actions at the time broke the law. Still, I don’t just blame them. They were my countrymen, living in the same imperfect world as the rest of us. They were no doubt victims of the Chenguan system as well. I hold deep empathy toward them, and can feel their family’s loss and pain, which are also the misfortune of all society.
 
In this case, the Chenguan system has already destroyed two families; do we have to destroy a third one? We have lost Shen Kai and Zhang Xudong. Several dozen citizens have been beaten to death by Chengguans. We have already paid a heavy price for the brutal Chengguan system, and now, do we have to sacrifice justice in order to endorse an ill-conceived system and the brutality committed by its members? Must we make the judiciary an avenging hand that puts Xia Junfeng, a husband and father of a nine-year-old, to death?
 
Chief judge and judges,
 
In the worldwide trend against the death penalty, most countries have abolished it by law or in practice, and in the countries where it is still in use, it is reserved for the most egregiously violent crimes. It’s bad enough that we have been applying the death penalty in economic or non-violent criminal cases, are we now going to apply it in cases of excessive self-defense or justifiable self-defense as well? Cao Haixin was executed for self-defense, and the tragedy is a shame in the judicial history in Henan. Today, in the 21st century, are we going to repeat the same tragedy in Liaoning?
 
The death of two citizens is a tragedy for our society, but if Xia Junfeng were to be sentenced to death, it would be an obvious and gargantuan mistake, a tragedy unbearable and unacceptable to society that will cast a shadow on the Chinese judiciary for a long time to come. If Xia Junfeng were to be sentenced to death, many more innocent, helpless vendors will die at the hands of Chengguans. If one were to be sentenced to death for self-defense, he or she would be inclined to kill excessively and kill many more without qualms, because one can only die once. If one were to be sentenced to death for self-defense, there would be no boundaries between guilt and innocence, good and bad, life and death; and the power of the rule of law, already pathetically weak in our society, would be destroyed altogether by evil, chaos and brutality.
 
Without exaggeration, sentencing to death a citizen who was only defending himself will have disastrous repercussions for the whole society since it would embolden the attackers and intimidate those who resist unlawful violence. While evil-doers are encouraged, victims will be harmed the second time by the court after sustaining harm first from violent crimes. The act of self-defense in the face of unlawful harm is not only a virtue but an instinct. But instead of being protected and praised, if such an act is condemned with a sentence of death, then today’s verdict will hurt not only Xia Junfeng’s legal rights, but also the dignity of the law itself, social ethics, and the citizens’ sense of right and wrong.
 
It is my hope that the court’s decision today will indicate that our judiciary system is still able to uphold the basic sense of right and wrong and a modicum of independence. It is our hope that the judiciary process of Xia Junfeng’s case will show the world that the long-suffering Chinese people can draw lessons from their miseries and stand firm on the side of the rule of law and humanitarianism.
 
RT @YaxueCao 滕彪 @tengbiao 的 夏俊峰案二審辯護詞英文全文 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTA-2Ngzx8uIwcQMD-rFDBDouC_4BcJhLB6Vas1Wwuo/pub … 最後陳述 http://chinachange.org/2013/02/18/teng-biao-defense-in-the-second-trial-of-xia-junfeng-case/ …  夏俊峰案二審辯護詞 (新版) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4886632001016v7m.html …
 

陳有西等: 夏俊峰案死刑覆核審辯護詞

2012-7-18 19:03:16
 
京衡刑事部 夏俊峰案辯護小組:周葵、陳有西、鐘國林、李道演 
 
瀋陽 夏俊峰死刑覆核案辯護詞
2011年6月13日完成,2012年7月18日公佈
 
 [陳有西2012年7月18日於倫敦]這份辯護詞,我們辯護小組已經保存了一年多,沒有公佈。去年六月最高法院死刑覆核審的合議庭三位法官會見我後,鑒於當時的社會輿論環境,和社會穩定需要,建議先不要公佈這份《辯護詞》,我同意了。近日一位網友看到了網上原遼寧省高級法院二審維持原判的消息,以為是今年的,網上發佈消息說 夏俊峰要死刑終審了,引起網上新一輪的討論。騰訊公司前天因此約我進行了一次微博訪談,我作了一些說明澄清。這個案件已經死刑覆核一年多了,最高法院法官很慎重,一直沒有作出決定。上個月,夏妻張晶來電,說沈河區公安局的人又在找當時的目擊證人取證。問是不是會有什麼名堂。我說這是好事,說明最高法院對我們律師提交的質疑證據引起了重視,在根據我們的質疑調查核實。與此同時,來電和網上問到 夏俊峰案的人不少,很多人不知道真相,對於“殺人、傷害、正當防衛、防衛過當”等四種定性的法律專業問題,更是有不少的誤解和不明。根據當前該案遲遲不作決定的情況,我覺得公佈這份辯護詞是有必要的。可以讓社會各界和法律專家,更加有針對性地瞭解這個案件。也期望最高法院儘快作出覆核決定,將本案撤銷原判,發回重審。
 
 
京衡律師集團
 
關於要求對遼寧 夏俊峰被控故意殺人案
 
不予核准死刑發回重審的
律師意見書
 
(死刑覆核審辯護詞)
 
(全文23000字)
京衡律師集團 夏俊峰死刑覆核審辯護組
陳有西   鐘國林
周  葵   李道演
 
(2011年6月13日)
 
  
最高人民法院刑事審判第一庭:
 夏俊峰死刑覆核案合議庭:
 
京衡律師集團事務所接受被告人 夏俊峰的委託,指派陳有西、鐘國林、周葵、李道演四位律師擔任其被控故意殺人案死刑覆核審的律師。此前我們已經向貴院提出約見申請、閱卷申請和調取證據申請,並提交了我們調查獲取的五份新證據。
現經過我們四位律師向原一審、二審律師調閱案卷和庭審筆錄,會見被告 夏俊峰、現場勘查、調查取證,瞭解了本案的基本事實。我們認為:一、本案據以定罪量刑的主要事實不清,正當防衛的基本事實不能排除,定性殺人的重大疑點不能排除;原審法院有罪推定辦案傾向明顯,採信證據不夠客觀公允,明顯偏頗。二、認定 夏俊峰故意殺人證據嚴重不足,定性故意殺人的基本證據不具備,定案證據發現嚴重偽證,虛假偽證得以採納。現有證據無法得出 夏俊峰故意殺人的結論。三、審判程式嚴重違法,應當出庭的客觀證人被限制出庭;旁聽席上的證人被違法作證並判決採信,已直接影響公正審判和審判品質。四、 夏俊峰故意殺人罪名定性錯誤,不能成立。 夏俊峰為制止不法侵害、逃離現場中的拔刀捅刺行為,符合正當防衛的基本要件,現有證據不足以證明該防衛行為的實施明顯超過了必要的限度,根據疑證利益應當歸屬被告、疑罪從無的原則, 夏俊峰對該行為不應負刑事責任。 夏俊峰在為逃離現場沖出門時捅刺張偉致其受傷的行為,現有判決對該情節事實沒有查清,系為逃離現場的持續防衛行為,頂多只能按假想防衛過失犯罪定性。五、本案城管執法及被害人對案件發生,負有重大過錯責任,可相應減輕 夏俊峰責任。原審沒有考慮明顯不當。六、本案沒有證據證明 夏俊峰預謀或報復實施犯罪,不屬於主觀惡性極深,人身危險性極大依法應處死刑的犯罪。七、 夏俊峰有明顯自首情節,到案後即承認基本行為事實沒有隱瞞,並完全配合偵查,如實講清事實真相,認罪悔罪。八、 夏俊峰家屬願意依法全面賠償被害人損失。因此,本案定性罪名錯誤,量刑明顯不當。請求貴院依法不核准 夏俊峰死刑判決,將本案直接發回一審法院重新審理。
具體事實和理由如下:
 
一、本案原審公、檢、法傾向性辦案明顯直接導致錯案
從本案公安的破案報告、偵查口供、被害人陳述、證人證言、檢察院起訴書、審判對證據的採信程度和查明的方向、判決的傾向,都充分顯示了瀋陽公安、檢察、法院辦案的傾向性。即將之作為一個針對城管執法公權力的“特大殺人案”在辦理,一開始就完全忽略了“正當防衛”性質的查明,導致大量有利於被告、防止錯判的關鍵證據缺失、關鍵情節模糊、證人採信嚴重偏差、基本事實出現基礎性的認定錯誤,直接導致了死刑錯案的形成。公安從現場勘察、屍檢分析、審訊被告不作客觀記錄、對客觀證人不取證只取證城管一方證言、對被告人到案經過進行虛假記錄、對本次事件中的關鍵證據小刀、血衣等沒有及時查獲就匆匆結案,無不體現以殺人案定性而為。沒有把著眼點定位在查清真相上。檢察機關沒有退查要求公安查明關鍵疑點就起訴,法院對辯方證據全部不採信,對律師申請的六個證人全部不同意出庭作證,對控方偽證證人在旁聽席上口頭自證釆信,嚴重違反法定程式,審判草率匆忙下判,無不為了體現保護城管而進行“從重從快”打擊。導致罪名定性錯誤,量刑基本界限錯誤。綜觀全案,傾向性辦案、按既定目標辦案,先定性殺人再按此思路走程式的態勢一目了然,將一個非常清楚的“正當防衛傷人案”判成了“特大故意殺人案”,這只要閱卷一遍就能夠看出。
 
二、本案基本犯罪事實不清,關鍵情節沒有查明
本案的關鍵情節,是在發生血案的室內八分鐘。而本案從偵、控、一審、二審,對這八分鐘事件起因、事件經過、現場痕跡、雙方究竟幹了什麼,一直沒有查明。《起訴書》和《判決書》都是含糊表達。對一個身高165CM的人在一個十多平米的執法辦公室內,為什麼能夠在幾分鐘內突然動刀,用一個小水果刀能夠迅速殺死兩個身高180CM、182CM的被害人,前因後果一直就沒有查清。只以 “兩死一傷” 後果來含糊認定責任,定性殺人。而對於“正當防衛情節”,“誰先行兇起事”、 “被告是怎樣情況下動刀”、“有無正在實施的加害行為”、“加害是否達到足以危及生命安全的程度”、“是否必須動刀才能脫離危險”、“雙方有沒有傷情及傷的形成原因”、“傷的部位”、“防衛有無超過必要限度”、“被告是如何離開現場”、“張偉身在室內還是室外,現場為何沒有他的血跡”、“門口的張偉是如何受傷”,這些關鍵情節一個也沒有查明。對八分鐘有沒有正當防衛的情節,故意不查,直接導致事實不清和錯誤裁判。
疑點如下:
1、 夏俊峰主觀故意和犯罪動機沒有查清;
2、作案基本過程沒有查明。誰先行兇沒有查明。是誰先動手的?是怎樣動手的?為什麼動手?在一個力量對比完全處於劣勢的夏,在街面上都無法反抗而被架入車裡服從的人,為什麼一進門會向兩個身高180CM以上的人主動行兇?
3、 夏俊峰是被三個城管帶到執法室進行調查和做處罰筆錄的。為什麼現場沒有任何詢問筆錄、紙、筆等執法記錄,而直接發生了打鬥行兇?
4、三人身上的傷是如何形成的?什麼兇器形成的?打鬥形成傷痕的經過是怎樣的?
5、執法室為什麼沒有錄影?真的沒有嗎?
6、為什麼短短不到八分鐘內會突然演變成如此激烈的事件?
7、張偉是在哪裡受傷的?室內還是門口?如果他真的進到室內,陶冶為什麼沒有見到?
8、現場沒有張偉血跡。據張偉陳述,其在現場南門邊(前門)上被 夏俊峰用刀紮傷左髂部,但現場卻沒有檢測到張偉的血跡。如果說張偉受傷後還跑到後門進入室內(行走路線至少80米以上)行走路線上更應留有血跡。但是現場勘察DNA檢驗卻沒有他的血跡。
9、死者申某七處表皮傷情是如何形成的?無法解釋。申某除刀傷外,尚有左背部一處條形傷痕、左上臂三處表皮傷、左手背兩處表皮傷、右上臂一處表皮傷。從傷情程度和傷情位置分析,兩前臂泛布表皮青紫,大小均為0.3-0.5CM,極似與他人廝打過程中手指扭拉抓捏形成。
10、陶冶如何撥打120、110電話。陶冶稱其在辦公室裡屋所以不知道勤務辦公區內的爭吵打鬥情況,那他怎麼又能聽到曹陽叫他撥打120、110,既然不知道裡屋外面情況,他又如何向120、110敘述病情和案情?陶冶選擇性作證跡象明顯。
11、陶冶為何躲進裡屋。陶冶和 夏俊峰在街道工作時就已認識, 夏俊峰剛進入勤務區即遭申某拳打,陶冶明顯是礙于情面回避 夏俊峰藉故離開進入裡屋。如果陶冶真的撥打了電話,應有電話記錄佐證。
12、對於張偉和曹陽前後不一的兩次證詞,公安、檢察、法院為何不追尋原因,要求當事人作出必要合理解釋,為何法院均採信他們不利於被告人的第二次偽證說法,而不釆信剛發案的原始記錄。
13、案發時所有城管都應有派出所的第一時間筆錄,為什麼只有部分移送法庭?原始筆錄在哪兒?
14、曹陽、陶冶均自稱是一直在勤務區內的衛生間和裡屋,為何都聽不到室內的打鬥爭吵聲音,為什麼沒有出來勸架?
15、公安為何不對現場進行試驗。兩人在一個面積不到70平米三個房間內的十多平米的客廳間(辯護人現場勘查目測估計的面積,據稱同單元六樓的一套有80平米)的老式住房內,不可能對外面客廳發生打鬥爭吵毫不知情,兩證人回避案情隱瞞事實跡象十分明顯,為何不進行聲傳試驗排除疑點?
16、曹陽、張偉對於其在現場看到的申、張兩被害人的情況前後不一,彼此矛盾,必有一假。
17、 夏俊峰的口供為什麼不如實記錄,審訊錄影同筆錄內容是否一致?
18、 夏俊峰的身上傷痕為什麼不全面拍照和記錄?他的手指斷了為什麼案卷中沒有照片、沒有病歷記錄?
19、死者的刀傷是在怎樣的體位下形成的?致命的刀傷是什麼角度?
20、砸 夏俊峰的不銹鋼茶杯為什麼沒有提取?沒有加以注意?
21、 夏俊峰是如何逃出現場的?
22、張偉是如何碰到 夏俊峰並被刺傷的?
23、曹陽是什麼時候到達案發現場的?他有沒有先進屋拉架並扶過死者?如果扶過應當身上有死者血跡,為什麼沒有任何記錄和血液鑒定?
對於一個死刑命案,出現這樣的大量事實不清和證據疑點,根本無法完成故意殺人的犯罪指控,更不用說辦成經得起歷史檢驗的“鐵案”了。
 
三、殺人罪定性,基本證據不足,關鍵證據缺損
經我們審查現有證據和一二審裁判,本案存在嚴重的證據缺損和證據偏向,根本無法確定發生的是故意殺人案。本案存在證據簡單、粗糙、欠缺,證據間矛盾和疑點難以排除等重大問題,不能達到死刑案件的事實、證據、程式、法律適用等死刑核准品質要求。
1、作案工具小刀沒有查獲; 夏俊峰扔棄血衣沒有找到;夏發案後只有數小時到案,不是時過境遷的陳年老案證據確實無法查獲。兇器小刀和血衣掉了扔了,都可以迅速尋找,提取到案。這是可以直接分析現場情況和作案情況的重要證據,為什麼這兩件最重要的物證都缺失?
2、沒有調查取證恢復被破壞的案發現場。現場十多平米的一個房間,發生這樣的凶案,特別是兩人均心臟均被刺破情況下應當有噴濺狀血跡,現場勘察錄影為什麼沒有到案?為什麼沒有詳細勘察筆錄?對於臨時起事的不能排除正當防衛的案件,現場還原和屍檢分析是定案的關鍵。這種證據缺損將直接辦案品質,甚至導致嚴重錯案。
3、現場勘查筆錄十分粗糙。一是現場血跡沒有專業描述,滴狀、塊狀還是噴射狀?無法瞭解具體形成形態;二是現場包括門把手在內等處有血跡均沒有提取指紋;三是對物品和被害人原來所處位置沒有記載和描述。四是在案沒有現場勘察圖。
4、屍檢報告缺乏死因分析和致傷原因分析。對傷痕成因沒有專家分析意見。法醫解剖符合要求,但對分析案情缺乏中間刑偵專家分析意見,導致八分鐘現場不是根據客觀證據定案,而是靠不在現場的偽證定案。
5、到案口供和證言證據簡單粗糙。
被告人僅有三次筆錄共13頁。筆錄內容顯示辦案機關似乎只求確定 夏俊峰拔刀刺人的事實,其他問題均被故意忽略不問不記。因此必須調取並審查審訊錄影。
三份筆錄內容扣除必要的程式性文字和重複內容, 夏俊峰供述涉及案情的文字不足千字。 夏俊峰供述多,公安機關記得少。有利情節均未記錄或未詳細記錄。可以肯定公安機關還有未移交檢察和法院的口供筆錄。對於“特大殺人案”的偵查不可能只有這樣的審訊記錄。
同樣的情形也出現在其他言詞證據上。提供言詞證據的,除 夏俊峰供述外,還有被害人張偉,證人曹陽、祖明輝、陶冶和張晶,其中張偉、曹陽兩次筆錄,祖明輝、陶冶、張晶各一次筆錄,內容都非常簡單,取證沒有緊扣事情經過和疑點,被調查人回答或敘述也不清晰完整,沒有任何追問問題,整個印象就是只要夏承認刺人了,其他人能夠印證這一點就行了。對於動機和前因後果故意忽略,這對於一個兩死一傷的案件來說,是不正常的。
6、沒有客觀證人的任何證言,只提取和釆信了被害人一方的四個城管的證言。無論是起因的街頭執法現場,還是室內的案發現場,當時都是能找到與案件無關的目擊證人的。但是卷宗沒有一份這樣的客觀證詞。偵查嚴重違反了要客觀平等收集被告人無罪、罪輕證據的《刑訴法》的規定。
7、偵查機關對證據間矛盾和疑點視而不見
張偉的兩次筆錄,第一次的筆錄離發案時間近,各種案外因素干擾少,明顯更接近事實。但是公、檢、法都採納了經過籌畫的後次證言。對於其中的明顯矛盾,辦案機關竟然未要求張偉作出說明或解釋,也未就此展開進一步的偵查活動。對於曹陽前後兩次內容不同的證詞也是如此。
8、本案城管被害人、證人集體造假,其陳述和證詞已然失去法律證明效力。
 
 
 
城管方為本案提供證據的有證人曹陽、陶冶、祖明輝和被害人張偉等四人。為揭示城管方證言虛假,假在何處,我們試析如下:
1)證人曹陽是沈河區行政執法局濱河勤務區副中隊長,其在2009年5月16日和5月21日前後兩次作證。主要內容是,2009年5月16日10時30分左右,濱河勤務區一行十六七人到五愛市場周邊清理無證商販。在南樂郊路與風雨壇街交叉路口隊長申某和隊員張某把一輛炸串的倒騎驢( 夏俊峰)攔下。申某和張某要扣這家的液化氣罐, 夏俊峰不讓扣,還把液化氣罐的閥門打開了,揚言要同歸於盡。當時其在申某和張某的身邊。扣液化氣罐的過程中 夏俊峰把申某的手台打掉在地上。後來我們就把液化氣罐搶下來放到我們的執法車上,我和張某還有司機陶冶上了這輛貨車, 夏俊峰主動上了這台車,我們一起來到行政執法勤務區。我先下車從後門進的屋,然後到前門打開捲簾門,當時看見張某和 夏俊峰在門口站著,陶冶不見了,貨車也不見了,事後聽說陶冶挪車去了。這時我著急小便就去了後門附近的衛生間上廁所了。我在衛生間呆了半分鐘左右(第一次筆錄說是大約三兩分鐘),就聽見勤務區辦公室裡發生了爭吵聲,我出來看見申某手捂前胸鮮血直流,從房間中間向勤務區的後門走,把門關好後,走到我身邊就倒在我懷裡說:“我被炸串那小子紮了”之後就倒下了。這時我又看見張某用手捂著腹部站在辦公室裡,能有兩秒鐘左右,沒說話就倒地了。不一會張偉敲後門,我為張偉打開後門,看見張偉身上也流著血。其急著搶救申某和張某,並用手機撥打了120。
曹陽還稱申某是在其進衛生間後進的屋。曹陽兩次證詞均沒有提及陶冶是否進屋,何時進屋。
2)證人陶冶,系沈河區濱河街道辦事處司機,其在2009年6月23日作過一次筆錄。主要內容是,2009年5月16日上午10點多,其配合沈河區行政執法濱河勤務區的同志,駕駛牌照號為遼AHC682的二排座解放牌貨車,一起到五愛市場周邊整頓占道商販。在小南教堂南邊的胡同停車,其沒下車,沒有看見車下發生的事情,大約過了5、6分鐘, 夏俊峰就主動上其駕駛的車輛,曹陽坐副駕駛,張某坐曹陽後邊, 夏俊峰坐我後邊,其負責開車。我們回到勤務區辦公室,曹陽先下車開的門,然後其就進屋到裡邊的辦公室準備打電話。大約一分鐘後,其就聽見外邊屋有一聲喊的聲音(辯稱其在屋裡辨別不出誰的喊聲),其剛想推門出去,就聽見曹陽讓其打120、110,於是回屋撥打電話,打了兩遍120,一遍110。電話打好後出門去接120了。其打電話用時大約2-3分鐘。
3)證人祖明輝,系沈河區行政執法局濱河勤務區副中隊長,其在2009年5月16日作過一次筆錄,主要內容是,2009年5月16日10時30分左右,我們中隊一行十六七人著裝來至五愛市場整頓周邊商販。在南樂郊路與風雨壇街交叉路口,我們隊長申某和張某攔住一輛倒騎驢是炸串。這個車是一男一女的,男的不讓我們扣倒騎驢上的物品,把液化氣罐的閥門打開了,揚言要和我們同歸於盡。我們將液化氣罐奪下來放在貨車上,這個男的主動上了貨車,要和我們回隊裡處理,這輛車就先走了。車上坐著曹陽、一個司機、還有張某和這個男的。等我回到隊門口門前時,先看見張某、申某倒在地上,身上有血,我就跟著搶救,後將他們送到463醫院。
4)被害人張偉,系沈河區行政執法局濱河大隊司機,其作為受害人,在2009年5月16日和6月22日作過兩次筆錄。主要內容是,2009年5月16日10時30分左右,其駕駛遼AV1013皮卡車,一行十多人坐四台車來到南樂郊路與風雨壇街交叉路口清理五愛市場周邊的小商販時,有一個賣肉串的男子和他妻子被我們攔下。由於其是司機就沒下車。不知什麼原因這個男子上了另一台車。其與申某一起11點左右回到單位,申某先下車進了辦公室。其把車停好後進入辦公室。當其剛走進辦公室,看見這個男子背對其,正在用刀紮張某,其看情況不好,過去拽了他一下,把他拽到牆附近,他回手就紮了其一刀。其用力推了他一下,就跑了(第一次筆錄稱,其回到隊門口時,看見 夏俊峰手裡拿著一把刀向其沖過來,迎面給其一刀,刺到其左大腿根部,其就往外跑,夏追其,後其跑到後門進屋,當時沒看見 夏俊峰刺人)。其跑到後門,曹陽為其開門進屋後,看見隊長申某和張某都躺在地上,流了很多的血。後來其他隊員回來,把其送到醫院。
除 夏俊峰本人供述之外,以上四人的作證和陳述,構成了城管案發現場發生的事件程序的全部內容。這些證言互相矛盾,同客觀證據和被告供述不能互相印證。
以上證據上的一系列問題,直接影響了本案事實真相的證明力,無法證明被告平白無故地去殺人。直接導致本案事實不清、罪名認定錯誤、量刑結果錯誤。
 
四、覆核審律師發現重要新證據,足以證明一審定案證言系偽證
覆核審期間,我們京衡律師集團的新任辯護律師受理本案後,重新到瀋陽進行調查取證,發現了足以推翻原一、二審基本事實認定的新證據。新證據已經提交貴院,包括新發現的現場處罰《查扣單》、兩個證人詢問筆錄(此前被一審法院以程式不到位為由被否定)和 夏俊峰的會見筆錄等。這些證據能夠同原案證據一起形成完整的證據鏈,證明原四個城管都作了偽證。而這些偽證構成了一審認定殺人罪的主要定案基礎,因此該案的死刑判決已經根本動搖,必須發回重審。詳述如下:
 
(一)證據證明曹陽偽證,他並未隨 夏俊峰同車回隊,城管四人說曹陽同車的一致證言和陳述,均為虛假,是統一口徑後向公安機關故意作偽證,故意加重被告犯罪情節。
在貴院覆核 夏俊峰死刑判決的審理過程中,辯護人向貴院遞交了以下一組證據:
1、瀋陽市城市管理行政執法局沈河分局第0120087號《行政執法證據先行登記保存通知書》,證明城管執法人員曹陽、唐鑫於2009年5月16日向 夏俊峰妻子張晶開具煤氣罐扣押通知的事實。
2、證人張晶2011年5月24日《詢問筆錄》,證人張晶系 夏俊峰妻子,其證言證實,其在案發日之前認識曹陽,“罰單”(指瀋陽市城市管理行政執法局沈河分局第0120087號《行政執法證據先行登記保存通知書》)當時是曹陽交給其,其不要,扔地上,曹陽再揀起來塞進其“倒騎驢”玻璃罩內的。曹陽開“罰單”時, 夏俊峰已經被城管執法車輛帶離現場,曹陽是在 夏俊峰被帶走,開好“罰單”後五六分鐘之後坐白色蘭字轎車離開的。當時有尚海濤、史春梅、 張傑等很多圍觀群眾都看見城管給其開“罰單”。
3、證人史春梅2011年5月24日《詢問筆錄》,史春梅是本案城管執法現場的目擊證人,其證言證實,2009年5月16日11點不到的時候,城管先有兩輛車到達執法現場,下來五六人在隨意推拉 夏俊峰,將 夏俊峰強行推上車,在 夏俊峰被強行帶走後,又來兩輛城管車,下來兩人給 夏俊峰妻子開具“罰單”後乘車離開,其不認識開“罰單”的執法人員名字,其在現場拾到 夏俊峰一隻鞋底。
4、被告人 夏俊峰2011年5月24日《會見筆錄》,其證明2009年5月16日同車前往濱河勤務區的有他和陶冶、張某三人,其是被城管從駕駛員一側的後門推入,坐在副駕駛座位後面,前面的副駕駛座椅是空。車到達勤務室後,是陶冶用遙控器打開的卷閘門(即前門),陶冶先進去,其跟隨張某進入室內,剛進入勤務室即遭到隨後趕到的申某毆打等。
該組證據綜合證明:案發當天即2009年5月16日城管執法人員扣押被告人 夏俊峰煤氣罐後,由執法人員曹陽、唐鑫在執法現場向其妻子出具《通知書》,此時 夏俊峰已經被帶離現場,與陶冶、張某同車駛往濱河勤務區。曹陽作為執法現場開具通知單的執法人員,其至前也只能是第三個到達案發現場的車輛乘坐人員(張偉和申某乘坐的車輛第二個到達),曹陽不可能如其證言所稱與陶冶、張某、 夏俊峰同車首先到達勤務區,不可能首先從勤務區辦公室後門開門進入室內,為張某、 夏俊峰、陶冶開啟前門。曹陽不可能自始至終在案發現場勤務區室內,不可能在 夏俊峰逃離現場後看見申某、張某受傷,扶助申某,為受害人張偉打開後門讓其進入室內。
由此可以證明,曹陽關於與 夏俊峰同車前往濱河勤務區之後的一切敘述,該敘述中的每一句話,甚至每一個字,都是虛假的。因為他根本不在現場,最多可能是事後趕到的,現場搏鬥和凶案都已結束。這種虛假,不可能全部來自于證人的記憶錯誤或表述瑕疵。曹陽作為濱河勤務區的副中隊長,具有大學文化程度,不可能對沒有親身經歷的過程,因為非主觀故意的因素,作出如此清晰準確的“回憶”和敘述。因此,曹陽證詞虛假涉嫌故意作偽證,是可以確定的。
另外證人陶冶、祖明輝筆錄中,均有曹陽與 夏俊峰等四人同車前往濱河勤務區的相關證言,陶冶還證明曹陽讓其撥打110、120電話,受害人張偉則證明曹陽在案發現場室內,為其打開後門讓其進入等,陶冶、祖明輝、張偉關於以上內容的證言和陳述,同樣被證明虛假。
至此,城管方所有四人均有虛假作證,其虛假證詞應該排除在本案證據體系之外。
 
 
現場提取的 夏俊峰的一個踩掉下的鞋底,一審案卷中出現
證明城管在第一現場就對 夏俊峰粗暴執法發生爭執。 
 
(二)排除城管四人的證言和陳述,控方證據只剩被告人供述和“兩死一重傷”的客觀事實及相關鑒定報告,原一、二審裁判已如海市蜃樓,嚴重缺乏事實和證據支撐,“故意殺人”罪名定性已經無法成立。
曹陽因為故意虛假作證,其證詞因其不具客觀真實性而無效,應當絕對排除。對於證人陶冶、祖明輝證言和被害人張偉陳述中,有關曹陽與 夏俊峰等四人同車前往濱河勤務區,曹陽讓陶冶撥打110、120電話,曹陽在案發現場室內,為張偉打開後門讓其進入的作證內容,亦系偽證無效,不能得以採信。至於三城管其他證明內容,鑒於已經查明的偽證事實,理應受到更為嚴格的審查,證詞相互之間矛盾、存疑沒有得到合理解釋或澄清的,必須排除。
(三)關於城管證言偽證以外的證言矛盾性
除了虛假作證之外,城管其他三人尤其是陶冶、張偉的作證內容,矛盾疑點隨處可見,嚴重降低其整體證明效力。
1、張偉前後兩份陳述,內容迥異且無合理解釋,兩份陳述均無其他證據佐證,令人無所適從。張偉第一次筆錄稱,其在勤務室前門口被正持刀往外跑的 夏俊峰刺中一刀,未看見 夏俊峰刺人以及申某和張某被刺的過程。但第二次筆錄卻說其進入室內看見 夏俊峰背對著其正在用刀紮張某,其去拽了夏一下,把夏拽到牆附近,被夏回手紮中一刀。對於前後兩次內容如此巨大差異,張偉對其中原因沒有任何解釋,公安竟也未探究竟,法院則完全憑張偉在旁聽席上的隨口一說,“以第二份為准”,未經審查判斷排查,就直接採信了張偉的第二份筆錄。
2、張偉如在室內被刺,理應在室內留有血跡,但在瀋陽市公安局出具的生物物證鑒定書中,為何未能血檢出張偉DNA資訊?
3、根據我們覆核審律師到案發現場勘查,從勤務室的前門繞到後門,至少有80米以上的距離,在前門的前面就是社區沿街第一幢房屋居民的北面入口,周圍有不少群眾。當時 夏俊峰隨即逃離現場,已不在室內,前門大開,張偉明知勤務室內有申某等人在內的情況下,為何不向群眾大聲求救,反而繞道後門舍近取遠進入室內?
4、張偉既然負傷繞道80米以上,則在行走路線上應該留下血跡,但現場勘驗為何沒見張偉血跡?這如何解釋?
5、陶冶在公安筆錄上說他當時在裡屋房門已關閉,分不清外面是誰的爭吵聲音,為何在其聽到爭吵聲後剛想開門出去時(說明尚未開門),就能聽清曹陽叫其撥打120、110的聲音,這難道不是選擇性“聽覺”嗎?陶沒有走出過裡屋,又如何向120、110敘述外面發生的病情、案情呢?
上述疑點問題,極大地降低了其證言的客觀性和證明效力,結合此前已查證的偽證行為,辯護人認為,城管方的所有四人的筆錄,都應該排除在本案證據體系之外。然而,城管四人的筆錄是原一、二審裁判中最主要最核心的言詞證據,是原判的重要基礎支撐,偽證事實的揭露徹底動搖了原一、二審裁判的證據基礎。
 
(四)城管方面的四人集體偽證行為,可以反過來證明 夏俊峰偵查筆錄和當庭供述的客觀真實性,提升 夏俊峰供述的證明效力。
城管方對於他們毆打 夏俊峰的行為,不願意為 夏俊峰作證是可以理解的。但是,他們為何要虛構曹陽坐第一輛車到達勤務室,自始至終在勤務室內的事實呢?合理的解釋只能是,他們必定有什麼東西需要隱瞞或掩飾。如果申某和張某真的沒有毆打 夏俊峰, 夏俊峰真的是故意殺人,他們還有什麼需要隱瞞或掩飾呢?完全可以如實證明真相。
城管集體偽證的行為表明,他們需要用集體一致的串通證言,共同對抗 夏俊峰指控申某和張某對其暴力侵害的事實真相,掩蓋他們的違法執法和暴力真相。而對於他們(尤其是陶冶,陶冶與 夏俊峰認識,出於情面不願意毆打 夏俊峰,在申某和張某毆打 夏俊峰時,藉故躲進裡屋)明知的 夏俊峰拔刀刺人的真正原因和當時迫不得已的狀態,他們則以“沒有看到、沒有聽到、分辨不出”等集體不作為的形式,掩蓋申某和張某首先毆打他人的事實。城管集體掩蓋申某、張某毆打 夏俊峰的偽證行為,完全反證 夏俊峰其被毆打的供述的真實性,能有效提升 夏俊峰供述的證明效力。
 
(五)對覆核審新證據效力的說明
對於我們提供證明曹陽等人作偽證的一組證據的效力,也有必要進行一些解釋、說明和澄清。
首先要分析的一個問題,是張晶、史春梅的證言會不會虛假。張晶作為 夏俊峰的妻子,是 夏俊峰案最密切的利害關係人,該事件已經經過兩年左右的時間,張晶的證言也有可能被污染。史春梅的證言亦存在類似可能。我們對這些問題進行了審慎的辯析。
1、張晶在我們查證前,並未意識到“罰單”的證據意義,可以排除張晶在“罰單”問題上虛假陳述的可能。
第一,我們的調查首先是從曹陽筆錄中“出具過證據登記通知單”這一細節發現並開始的。張晶稱在曹陽給她“罰單”時, 夏俊峰已被帶離執法現場。我們從這一細節中發現了重大問題,因為曹陽在筆錄中說自己是與夏同車回去的,所以才見到了捅人現場。如果曹陽還在第一現場,那麼所有城管都撒謊了。這種集體撒謊只有事先串通才有可能。
 夏俊峰被帶走後,城管還想扣押其“倒騎驢”的擺攤車,因與車輪上鎖了,城管打不開,抬不動,城管只好放棄。張晶回答我們詢問時,憑記憶陳述,沒有中斷也沒有過濾,她當時沒有意識到我們問這些細節的目的和意義。也不會向律師撒謊,不可能即時選擇性作答,她的回答是真實的。
第二,客觀查到的《查扣單》(張晶稱“罰單”)這個物證無可爭議地證明了張晶陳述的真實性。張晶至今保存該“罰單”,且未向一審、二審律師提及並出示,說明張晶此前並未意識到該“罰單”對於證明曹陽沒有與 夏俊峰同車離開、城管作假的直接證偽效力和價值。否則不會經過我們調取,才去找出來,她應早提供給一、二審律師了,因此她是不知道這張紙頭的重要價值的。
2、張晶在律師提到“罰單”時,會不會即時意識到其證明價值,從而故意編造 夏俊峰被帶離而曹陽還在場的事實呢?
也不會。因為我們詢問時,“罰單”並不在張晶身邊(“罰單”是我們下午1點繼續會見 夏俊峰時,張晶趁此間隙回家找來,在我們會見完畢後從看守所出來時交給我們的),她當時並不肯定“罰單”上是否有曹陽簽字,但稱曹陽親手給她“罰單”確是事實,不會記錯。
另外 夏俊峰的偵查筆錄也能印證張晶關於曹陽沒有同車前往勤務室的說法。卷宗顯示, 夏俊峰在一審開庭前的全部三份筆錄,雖然沒有明確指出當時同車人員只有張某、陶冶兩人,但從其供稱中從來沒有出現過車上有第四個人。只有三人,只有張某、陶冶和他自己, 夏俊峰的偵查筆錄和當庭供述從來沒有提到曹陽。在會見 夏俊峰之前,我們也以為曹陽確實在車上, 夏俊峰可能是記憶錯誤未提及曹陽。但會見中 夏俊峰明確指出車上確實只有三人,他就坐在副駕駛座位後面,看得清清楚楚,副駕駛位置是空的。我們會見詢問時只是按事情發展經過,核實閱卷發現的問題疑點和細節,在會見當時也尚未向張晶調查“罰單”,不知“罰單”內容及其證據意義,我們的詢問不可能對 夏俊峰形成任何誤導, 夏俊峰的這個說法,和以前的三次供述完全吻合,也與張晶的說法相印證,說明曹陽在執法現場開“罰單”時, 夏俊峰確已被帶離。
他們兩人,一個不知“罰單”,一個此前沒有意識到“罰單”的證據意義,彼此完全分隔,如果不是事實,是不可能有如此一致相互印證的說法的。
 
原一審律師向瀋陽中級法院的舉證,全部被一審法院不予採信,
而律師申請證人出庭,也沒有一個證人被允許。中國很多死刑案,就是這樣審理的。
 
3、關於證人史春梅有沒有被干擾,證詞是否可信。
史春梅是一個完全客觀的第一現場目擊證人,是撿到 夏俊峰鞋底的證人。是在單獨隔離的情況下,我們對她進行調查取證的。調查時緊緊圍繞作證動機、證人的感知記憶表達、作證內容所依附的主客觀條件等多個方面,通過不同角度不同側面的反復詢問,綜合求證。對於證人回答的每一個問題,我們都請她作出合理的解釋,以審查確定其證言的真實性和可信度。我們的調查和詢問並未發現其證言存在任何矛盾或疑點,她事先給一審律師提供過證言,沒有被允許出庭作證,證言一直沒有改變,未受案外因素影響或干擾。其作證的主要內容,也基本上能與張晶證言、 夏俊峰供述相互印證,證言真實可靠。
4、一、二審裁判中顯示, 夏俊峰有過“我記得當時屋裡有我、張某、申某、曹陽四個人,曹陽沒有打我”的供述,如何解釋?
確實,一審判決第10頁,二審裁定第10頁都出現了關於 夏俊峰供述“我記得當時屋裡有我、張某、申某、曹陽四個人,曹陽沒有打我”的認定。既然 夏俊峰都供稱曹陽在屋裡,不是與我們的證據相矛盾了嗎?
這是法院主觀臆斷、錯誤臆測造成的無證據認定。公安筆錄由於口音問題,錯誤記錄了一個人名“曹冶”。公安審訊把“陶冶”記成了“曹冶”,法院寫判決書中再將“曹冶”曲解為“曹陽”,一個錯誤的在場人就這樣出現了。法院的這個認定是嚴重錯誤的。 夏俊峰總共只有三次訊問筆錄。 夏俊峰第一次筆錄供稱,執法辦公室有四個人,其中有一個叫“曹冶”的我認識,當時他沒有動手打我,所以我沒紮他(證據卷第42頁)。第二次筆錄供稱,辦公室有張某、申某、“曹冶”還有我,動手打我的有張某和申某,“曹冶”沒有動手(證據卷第46頁)。第三次筆錄內容則沒有涉及執法辦公室的在場人員。
那麼,筆錄中的“曹冶”是誰呢?曹陽還是陶冶?還是另有他人? 夏俊峰說的這個“曹冶”,是司機,且與其同車抵達執法辦公室,在辦公室裡沒有打他,後來進了(執法辦公的)裡屋,與 夏俊峰認識。根據一審卷宗(第109頁)、陶冶的詢問筆錄、律師會見筆錄,可以斷定,公安筆錄上“曹冶”應是“陶冶”無疑。這是公安記錄人員因為“曹冶”與“陶冶”發音相近記錯,但是控審兩方均沒有及時發現和糾正這個錯誤,從“陶冶”錯記成“曹冶”的筆錄錯誤,最後發展了“曹冶”變成了“曹陽”的判決錯誤,出現在了一、二審裁判書中,導致了一二審《判決書》的重大事實錯誤。其實,偵查機關後來是發現了這個記錄錯誤的(證據卷第25頁第二行),可惜沒有及時糾正。
 
五、原一二審判決定罪罪名性質錯誤,不能排除正當防衛
現有的全部事實和證據,已經能夠形成清楚的證據鏈,本案確系正當防衛行為。疑問只在於防衛有沒有超過必要限度,是不是構成防衛過當。故意殺人罪是根本定不了的。
(一)沒有證據證明 夏俊峰具有故意殺人的主觀故意和犯罪動機
指控和認定故意殺人,必須證明行為人具有明確的犯罪故意和犯罪動機。但是,本案明顯缺乏對 夏俊峰犯罪動機主觀方面的分析和論證,也沒有任何直接證據或間接證據鎖鏈,能夠證明 夏俊峰具有故意殺人的犯罪動機或主觀故意。
法院定性故意殺人,那麼促使 夏俊峰故意殺人的行為動機是什麼,他為什麼殺人?如果說 夏俊峰有殺人動機,那麼這種殺人故意,是積極追求的直接故意,還是放任發生的間接故意?這些問題,有哪份證據或者哪組證據可以回答?
一、二審裁判試圖用“第二次衝突”來解釋殺人過程的起源,或以此替代關於 夏俊峰殺人故意的證明責任。若如此認定,案發現場的“第二次衝突”是誰挑起的?為什麼會發生“第二次衝突”,直接原因是什麼?哪份證據可以證實?
以沒有過錯歸屬的“衝突”一詞,是無法回避或替代控審兩方關於行為人犯罪動機的證明和審查責任的。同時,控審兩方從 夏俊峰的兇器類型、刺擊部位、刺擊力度、刺擊次數等方面,認定 夏俊峰具有故意殺人的主觀故意也是錯誤的。因為這些只是行為後果,並不是起因,無法合理解釋促使行為人產生殺人故意的原因,即犯罪動機。
事實上,控、審兩方一直以來都不敢也無法正面回答和評價辯方關於證明 夏俊峰犯罪動機的合理要求。一個沒有犯罪動機的故意殺人判決,是無法成立的。
(二) 夏俊峰致人死亡事實雖然清楚,但兩被害人被刺身亡的過程卻沒有證據證實
本案中,作為犯罪客觀方面的最重要內容,“殺人”的行為過程沒有證據證實。案發當時的在場人有申某、張某、陶冶和 夏俊峰本人。申、張二人已經死亡,陶冶自稱在裡屋,沒有見證發生在客廳的具體情況,曹陽被發現作偽證,其實未在現場,也未見證客廳的具體情況。能夠說清案發現場裡,發生的具體行為過程的,就只剩 夏俊峰一人,但其作為與案件直接利害關係的被告人的供述,公安機關沒有如實記錄,法庭記錄了沒有採信。
因此,要查清或證明兩被害人被刺過程,只有依靠現場勘查、屍檢報告、血跡指紋等這些具有高度證明效力的物證和鑒定證據才行,但是本案裁判未見這方面證據的引用、分析和論證。最重要的證據被架空,不在現場的四個城管偽證成了支撐判決的證據。
(三) 夏俊峰正當防衛不能排除,不能得出 夏俊峰故意殺人的唯一結論。
根據 夏俊峰的供述和當庭陳述、律師會見筆錄,結合被害人照片審讀,夏一進入執勤室南門(前門)即被申、張二人毆打,並被打得跪趴在地。在申、張二人在上面依然用不銹鋼杯和拳頭猛烈擊打其頭部背部時,其右手才打開摸到的水果刀朝頭上後、左上側、右上方等不同方向連續擊刺,突破圍打後脫身逃離危險處境。由此可見, 夏俊峰是在遭到被害人危及自身人身安全的不法侵害行為,為制止侵害、逃離現場,情急之中用刀捅刺。這一行為很清楚是屬於正當防衛。
對於 夏俊峰的正當防衛供述,審理法院以該供述證明效力較低,且屬孤證為由,不予採信。然而,誰都無法否認,夏的正當防衛供述確實具有合理性和可信度。城管敢於在光天化日之下隨意毆打推拉被告人,他們回到自己的辦公室,沒有作任何的紙筆筆錄,短短幾分鐘就發生如此嚴重的血案,主動權在誰手裡不言而喻。主動毆打被告人的可能性不但不能排除,而是很大。雙方體格力量的對比,夏完全處於劣勢,不可能主動挑起事端。
本案沒有任何證據能夠排除或否定正當防衛的存在。被法院採信的曹陽和陶冶的證言,只能達到未發現夏被毆打的證明效果,而不能達到法律要求的沒有毆打的確證。證明正當防衛的可能、排除其他可能性、證明故意殺人性質的舉證責任,都屬於控方。控方若無法舉證排除 夏俊峰正當防衛的合理可能,就無法唯一地認定故意殺人罪名成立。
 
六、 夏俊峰拔刀捅刺申某、張某的行為,屬於《刑法》第二十條第一款規定的正當防衛行為,且沒有證據證明該防衛行為明顯超過了必要限度。對張偉的傷害行為,系延續防衛和假想防衛,可能構成防衛過當
關於 夏俊峰拔刀刺人是否屬於正當防衛問題,兩審法院認為該節事實僅有被告人供述,沒有其他證據予以證實,庭審出示照片上的 夏俊峰手臂兩處傷情不能證實系案發現場形成, 夏俊峰行為不具防衛性質。
辯護人認為, 夏俊峰的正當防衛,不僅有直接證據證明,而且還有一系列的證明效力較高的間接證據形成環環相扣的鎖鏈,共同證明其正當防衛事實。
(一)直接證據
1、 夏俊峰的偵查筆錄和當庭供述。
這是其正當防衛的最直接證據。 夏俊峰在一審庭審時供稱,公安筆錄不真實不完整,許多情節沒有記錄在案。到案僅有的三份十三頁筆錄確能印證這一事實。而且只要調取到審訊錄影,就可以知道原供真相。 夏俊峰的當庭供述和律師會見筆錄證實了其被毆打反抗事實:
 夏俊峰在跟隨張某剛進入勤務室時,即遭隨後回來的申某的毆打,夏在轉身往外跑時又被張某拽住衣領向後仰脖,隨後被申某一腳踹到陰部大腿根處,夏當即被打得跪倒在地。申、張兩人依然以喝水的不銹鋼杯和折疊椅自上而下猛烈擊打夏的頭部、背部和手臂,夏臉朝地面,抬左臂護頭低檔,其右手碰巧摁到褲兜裡的水果刀,夏便掏出刀子,由下往上向自己頭後、左側、前方等不同方向連續快速捅刺,試圖使對方停止毆打得空逃出。夏在對方閃開後立即逃離現場。
 夏俊峰的供述證明,其拔刀刺人是在當場遭到申某、張某正在實施的嚴重暴力毆打,為有效抵抗不法侵害、逃離現場,被迫無奈的情況下實施的防衛行為。
 夏俊峰的供述中的所有內容或細節,目前無任何證據證偽,卻同現場勘察報告、屍檢報告可以印證。供述具有一定的可采性和證明力。另外,前述的城管偽證要掩蓋的恰恰就是 夏俊峰的供述內容,這恰好證明 夏俊峰的供述具有真實性。更重要的, 夏俊峰關於防衛行為中的過程細節,都可以下間接證據得到一定程度的印證。
(二)間接證據及鎖鏈
為便於論述,以下所稱的間接證據可能是獨立的一份證據,也可能是獨立證據或關聯證據上的某一或某一組事實。
2、 夏俊峰體表傷情
這是 夏俊峰防衛行為最重要的間接證據。庭審出示照片顯示, 夏俊峰手臂有兩處軟組織挫傷,這直接證明其遭到他人毆打。另據 夏俊峰供稱,其頭部、耳部、背部、陰部附近均遭申、張二人擊打,且兩三天后出現青紫瘀傷傷痕,看守所同監犯人可以證明。但是公安機關沒有全面取證、拍照,只有一幅手部瘀傷照片在卷。為此,我們特向最高法院遞交了請求提審當時同監室在押犯的申請,以查證 夏俊峰是否確有傷痕及傷情具體情況。如能查證屬實,則能完整反映 夏俊峰總體傷情狀況,印證 夏俊峰有關供述。
3、刺擊傷口的部位
屍體檢驗報告顯示,申某身高182CM,分別在左胸部和左背部各有一處刀傷,均處心臟高度以上的位置。張某身高180CM,分別在左胸部有兩處、左背部有一處、左腹部兩處共五處刀傷。其中左胸部、左背部的三處刀傷處於心臟高度以上的位置,左腹部兩處刀傷處肚臍水平線以上位置。申、張二人的刀傷部位與 夏俊峰描述的捅刺行為基本相符。以他們的身高,如果正面平刺,不可能形成這些傷情,只有非常近身俯打被向上捅刺才有可能。當時申、張兩人處於前後夾擊、近距離俯身或半俯身擊打 夏俊峰的狀態,而 夏俊峰單腿跪地右手持刀由下往上向頭後、左側向後方向亂捅刺,才有可能刺到張某身體左側位置較高的部位(實際張某的五處刀傷全部集於身體左側肚臍高度以上位置),向前上方方向捅刺則能刺到申某身體左側較高位置。 夏俊峰關於捅刺行為的供述已經得到申、張二人的刀傷部位的印證。本案水果刀很短,不是很近的意外被刺,如果不是一方往下打一方向上捅,不能造成如此嚴重後果。
申、張二人的刀傷部位基本能夠排除 夏俊峰與申、張二人站立對峙的可能。身高只有165CM的 夏俊峰,若與身高均過180CM的申、張兩人對峙又刺中對方,則全部傷口都集中于被害人身體左側較高位置的可能性非常微小,至少手部會有抵抗刀傷。如偶然刺中,其創道斜向上或斜向下的概率較大,水準方向刺入的概率極小。
4、刺擊傷口的形態
檢驗報告顯示,申、張二人的七處刀傷全部都是直刺創口,這也與 夏俊峰描述的捅刺路線基本吻合。 夏俊峰出於半跪頭向下手向上捅的狀態,持刀橫向劃動並傷及對方的可能性較小。同時,申、張二人身體無橫向形態傷口的事實,也基本上能夠排除 夏俊峰站立狀態持刀傷害被害人的可能。 夏俊峰的供述再一次能得以印證。
5、雙方的體格對比與兩被害人傷情
申某身高182CM,且屬退伍轉業軍人,張某180CM,兩被害人身高體格明顯強於身高只有165CM的被告人。 夏俊峰僅持一普通水果刀,就能直刺申某兩刀,張某五刀,且自身未受兩被害人的明顯反抗,這說明 夏俊峰必須具備某種特殊的行刺條件才行。這種條件應該是:
1)雙方距離極貼身,三人共處於緊密狹小空間;
2)兩被害人未發現 夏俊峰拔刀動作,完全意外沒有防備;
3)行刺行為必須連續快速進行,且在極短時間內完成,否則被害人會有反應出現抵抗傷情。
4)被告人在行刺過程中身體無明顯移動,沒有考慮後果地快速完成;
5)兩被害人在被刺過程中也沒有明顯的移動;
6)兩被害人在被刺過程中沒有有效抵抗。
以上條件,缺一不可。否則被害人均可能躲過被告人的捅刺,或依靠自身體格優勢及時制服被告人。這樣雙方就都會形成打鬥抵抗傷。
辯護人認為,唯一能夠合理解釋上述條件,都符合 夏俊峰描述的行為過程,能夠證明他的供述是真實的。
6、現場勘驗筆錄
現場勘驗檢查筆錄顯示,現場血跡集於辦公住宅的南門(前門)附近,這與 夏俊峰描述捅刺地點基本吻合。另外申、張兩人心臟均被刺破,按理在刺刀抽離瞬間在體內循環系統壓力下,血液必然向外噴射,現場地面或立面應能留下噴射狀態分佈的血跡。但現場勘驗並未檢出此種形狀的血液痕跡,說明必有其他物品阻擋或吸收兩被害人體內向外並未噴射的血液。那麼這個物質是什麼呢?在排除現場所能勘驗的一切之後,就只剩被告人的衣服和身體了。這就又一次證明 夏俊峰描述的當事情景,即他們三人的距離非常貼近。即兩被害人正在近距離俯身對其毆打。
7、血衣
被告人身上的血衣,儘管至今仍沒有找到,但我們還是要強調其在證據學上的意義。如果血衣能夠找到,且血衣上確有大量噴射狀血跡,則能直接證明兩被害人心臟被刺瞬間的相對體態,從而進一步印證或否定 夏俊峰的供述。為此,我們希望法院繼續要求偵查機關繼續尋找被告人扔棄的血衣。
8、斷指
 夏俊峰右食指在現場被自帶水果刀切割。這個事實證明,其當時所用的,確是可折疊的水果刀,現場確實發生緊張激烈的搏鬥,否則 夏俊峰對手指自切的疼痛,不會毫無意識,這個事實反映搏鬥已經不是是否存在的問題,而是是否足夠激烈的問題。
9、被害人、被告人均無運動傷痕
這說明兩被害人被刺是在正在毆打夏時意外突然被捅的,當時其注意力集中在其他方面,才會猝不及防。這也與 夏俊峰供述兩人在一起猛烈毆打他的陳述相符。不可能是一審認定的那樣一進門就主動對兩個180以上的人捅刺,能夠把兩人都這樣快加害致死。
綜上,以上多方面的間接證據反映的事實,均能在不同角度、不同側面印證 夏俊峰的供述是真實的,相互一致地證實當時行為情景。可見, 夏俊峰的供述,孤證不孤,真實有效。由 夏俊峰的供述和上述間接證據得到的結論是唯一的,真實的,可信的。
(三)行為的防衛性
前面證明的行為情景,可以直接證明 夏俊峰行為的防衛性。當時的情景是 夏俊峰遭到申、張二人的毆打,被打得跪趴在地,其時申、張二人繼續在上面俯身對夏擊打,說明 夏俊峰正在遭到申、張二人的持續進行的不法侵害,其反抗行為具有防衛性。
(四)行為的正當性
 夏俊峰實施的自下而上的向頭後,左後上方、右前上方等多個角度的捅刺行為,對於制止正在發生的自上向下的擊打侵害行為,是必要的,且無法控制後果。因為他無法抬頭,沒有辦法見到兩個打他的人的正面。沒有證據證明 夏俊峰在實施防衛行為過程中,其主觀意思已經轉化成為報復侵害人的、直接追求傷害或殺人效果的犯罪故意。其行為始終在正當性的界限範圍之內。
(五)防衛行為實施的限度
 夏俊峰防衛行為的實施沒有明顯超過必要的限度。因為在當時的情景下, 夏俊峰純體力明顯無法同兩個180CM以上的人抗衡。唯一可以跟對方力量對抗的就是身上的水果刀,其受到由上而下的不法擊打侵害,下意識地抵抗防衛方向必然是與侵害行為的方向相反,夏的防衛只能朝向加害的方向,不可能持刀來捅刺對方的雙腳或腿部。因此,夏捅刺加害人身體,不是當時選擇,而是下意識的防衛反應使然。
另外,夏在得空之後,放棄捅刺被害人、起來後沒有再有任何加害行為,而是立即逃離現場的行為事實,也證實其主觀上並無任何要傷害或殺人的犯罪故意,客觀上也未實施任何加害行為,因此,依法應該認定其防衛行為的實施沒有超過法律允許的限度,其對防衛行為產生的傷亡結果,因其正當性而不負刑事責任。
(六)對張偉的傷害行為,是為了逃離險境的延續防衛和假想防衛,是否防衛過當有待查明
本案張偉被刺的事實,僅有被害人的陳述,被告始終沒有記憶。不記得捅過第三個人。經仔細審查本案的就診病歷、手術記錄、病程報告、傷情鑒定等材料,從 夏俊峰自己手指切斷都沒有意識,基本可排除其他的傷害可能性,我們認為原審法院認定張偉亦系 夏俊峰捅傷基本無誤。
但是,對於張偉被刺地點和當時情景,根據當時的目擊證人(對面門房員,現尚未找到,系向夏妻陳述,公安沒有做該證人筆錄)的介紹,結合張偉被刺身體部位、現場未檢出張偉血跡事實,應該確定張偉是在 夏俊峰持刀逃離現場,走出門口與張偉對撞時順手刺傷的。目擊證人介紹,張偉下車後與該目擊證人邊打招呼便上臺階走進城管辦公室,剛好被持刀逃離現場的 夏俊峰隨手刺中,張偉被撞下臺階, 夏俊峰則快步逃離現場。張偉重上臺階,並扶救從裡邊走出來的被刺城管。
張偉第一次筆錄所稱的被刺地點和過程與此吻合,記錄人是派出所,時間是當天,其真實性可以確認。沒有繞行後門進入室內。
 夏俊峰的這一行為,應屬延續防衛和假想防衛。但可能超過必要限度。理由如下:
第一, 夏俊峰刺傷張偉的行為發生在執勤室門口, 夏俊峰逃離現場出門的必由之路,離夏掙脫兩人毆打站起來的地方只有幾米路,站起來就往前門跑,門口撞上張偉,為實現逃離而延續刺人,時間連貫,時間很短,中間沒有緩衝,為逃跑連續進行,隨手捅張撞開擋路後,沒有再另外加害。因此是一種延續的防衛行為。
第二,張偉系堵在逃離的必徑路口,在當時緊急情景下, 夏俊峰誤判張偉妨礙他逃離,害怕張偉一起加入侵害行為, 夏俊峰合理判斷張偉應該或可能是進門幫助申、張二人對其繼續毆打的城管人員。因此是一種假想防衛行為。
第三, 夏俊峰隨手刺中張偉一刀後即按原有逃跑路線逃離現場的事實,證明其假想防衛行為沒有明顯超出必要的限度,也沒有轉化為故意傷害的犯罪故意。只有一刀,可以認定其僅是為了逃離危險為度,沒有加重傷害。
因此,辯護人認為, 夏俊峰的此節行為,在主觀上一直處於假像的防衛範疇。但是,由於張偉實際上沒有參與加害行為,對張偉撞開一邊也能夠逃離來看,這種用刀防衛也可能超過了必要限度。必須認真開庭核對事實後,才能夠認定。如果假像防衛沒有明顯超出其假像防衛的限度,應按過失犯罪處理,如果假想防衛過當,其行為導致張偉重傷,應適用《刑法》以防衛過當的傷害罪,適當追究刑事責任。
 
七、一二審審判程式嚴重違法直接導致錯判
本案一審法院的審判程式,至少在以下兩方面的嚴重違反刑事訴訟法的程式規定。
1、拒絕辯方六位目擊證人出庭作證。
卷宗顯示, 夏俊峰的一審辯護律師在開庭審理之前,已經向瀋陽市中級人民法院遞交了請求法院通知現場目擊證人史春梅、丁玉林、尚海濤、張忠文、賈子強、 張傑等六位證人到庭作證的申請書,以幫助法庭依法查明發生在執法現場的有關案件事實。
最高院、司法部2008年5月21日《關於充分保障律師依法履行職責,確保死刑案件辦理品質的若干規定》第七條規定,律師書面申請人民法院收集調取證據,申請通知證人出庭作證,申請鑒定或者補充鑒定、重新鑒定的,人民法院應當及時予以書面答覆並附卷。
但是,對於一審辯護律師的書面申請,瀋陽中院並未及時予以書面答覆,而是以不作為的形式,實質拒絕了六位目擊證人出庭作證請求,從而使城管及被害人的重大過錯未能得以認定,嚴重影響了本案的公正審判。
2、庭審程式嚴重違法,“邀請”旁聽席上的被害人當庭陳述或作證。沒有任何簽字,嚴重違反作證程式。但這一違法作證被作為了死刑判決認定依據。
一審庭審記錄(一審卷宗第112-123頁)顯示,在本案一審法庭調查控方舉證階段,當控方舉示被害人張偉的陳述,辯護人提出張偉前後兩份筆錄不相一致異議時,審判長突然向旁聽席上被害人張偉發問,由張偉確認以第二份筆錄為准,並請求張偉當庭陳述案發現場的情況。
據查,張偉既未提起刑事附帶民事訴訟,也沒有作為被害人參與訴訟,不屬於參與訴訟的人員。同時,張偉既沒有經控方申請,也沒有辯方申請到庭作證,不是到庭證人。他一直在旁聽席上旁聽案件的審理,因為缺乏相關的申請程式,其並無向法庭陳述案件事實或提供有關證言的資格。法庭主動“邀請”其陳述案件事實,確認有關證據的做法,嚴重違反刑事訴訟法的程式規定。
3、有的重要的原始筆錄沒有全部移送法院,法院也沒有注意並進行調取。
陶冶作為自始至終都在套內房間的唯一重要證人,當天的原始筆錄被隱藏,法庭沒有調取。法庭上出現的陶的證言是在案發後當38天的(5月16日案發,6月23日作證)。他作為城管司機,唯一在場證人,公安偵查規範必須當天取證,而且肯定有筆錄。這個證人會找不到嗎?不出示第一份筆錄,顯然另有隱情。公安也沒有對為什麼38天后才對這一關鍵證人取證作出說明。可以推定案發當天的原始筆錄被故意隱藏。
4、二審審判沒有認真補強證據,沒有審理排除合理懷疑。
同樣沒有讓一個證人出庭作證。其審判人員公開在判後釋疑的報導中歪曲事實,說 夏俊峰當庭承認沒有被打。查遍一二審庭審筆錄,夏自述被嚴重毆打的筆錄一直在卷。作為主審法官喪失基本的獨立客觀立場,故意曲解證據認定。二審裁定並未查清一審法院審判程式的違法事實。辯方證人出庭作證的申請未得到許可,辯方證據無一得以採信,而控方的城管四人言詞全部得以採信(並且採信的是哪一份筆錄都由當事人自行確認)的事實,二審程式成了完成既定目標的走過場。法院應有的居中裁判的立場蕩然無存,公正審判無以保證。
 
八、被告投案自首情節沒有查明,直接影響量刑
辯護人經過會見被告和實地勘查發現,公安機關出具的《抓捕經過》嚴重失實。《抓捕經過》記載 夏俊峰是在文萃路的順峰酒店附近抓獲的,《破案報告》裡寫的是經手機技術定位在“順豐酒店”附近抓獲,但沒有提供收集定位的原始證據材料。據我們現場走訪勘查,文萃路或與北文萃路交叉口路口附近,並無“順峰酒店”。順峰酒店實際位置是在五愛街上,距離文萃路口(文萃路與五愛街垂直)300米左右,距離北文萃路口500米左右。按《抓捕經過》理解,順峰酒店應該在文萃路上或與文萃路交叉口附近,但這與實際的地理資訊明顯不符,《抓捕經過》嚴重失實。
 
 夏俊峰的本人供述證實其自動投案經過。 夏俊峰供稱其是在離五裡河派出所十米、離瀋陽軍區總醫院一百米(其手右手指斷了想去就醫)、市住宅公司宿舍對面的地方,舉起雙手向四五位便衣員警主動走去,投案自首的。到案後又如實交代了主要案件經過。實地查訪證實 夏俊峰的這一說法。
 夏俊峰是在去治醫院治斷指途中,路過五愛派出所門口,見到四五個便衣員警盯著他在看。他就放棄治手指,舉起雙手走問民警,說我是 夏俊峰,城管是我捅的。到案後,全部承認並交代清楚了事情經過和捅人經過。根據這些事實, 夏俊峰的行為完全符合投案自首的要件,依法應當認定自首,予以從輕處罰。偵查機關為了證明自己“抓獲特大殺人案罪犯”,故意隱瞞了這一情節,導致法院這一重要事實沒有查明,結果誤判。
 
九、本案從輕因素均被嚴重忽略,量刑明顯錯誤
(一)城管方及被害人對本案發生存有重大過錯和責任。
1、城管主體及其執法資格未見證據證明。
本案發生在城管執法過程中,控方理應出示相關證據,證明被害一方的執法主體及其到場人員的執法資格。但從庭審記錄和裁判書所列示引用的證據看,並沒有這方面的證據。
當時執法人員到底有多少人?曹陽和祖明輝說有十六七人之多,張偉則說十多個人,陶冶沒說具體多少人。到底多少公安沒有查證。這些人員是否具有城管執法資格,沒有相關書證予以證實。根據網上公示資料,兩位元被害人沒有列在城管編制內。他們有沒有行政執法資格的事實沒有查明。其在現場扣押煤氣管、強制帶人的合法性更存疑問。
2、城管當場搶奪扣押 夏俊峰煤氣罐程式違法。
《行政處罰法》第三十七條第二款規定,“行政機關在收集證據時,可以採取抽樣取證的方法;在證據可能滅失或者以後難以取得的情況下,經行政機關負責人批准,可以先行登記保存,並應當在七日內及時作出處理決定,在此期間,當事人或者有關人員不得銷毀或者轉移證據。”
但是,根據目擊證人和當事人 夏俊峰、張晶的陳述,城管執法人員到達現場後未經任何調查問詢,即便攔住 夏俊峰等人,當場搶奪扣押 夏俊峰經營所用的煤氣罐。城管根本不是收集證據,而是搶奪收繳物品。
另外,城管先行登記保存 夏俊峰煤氣罐的行為,事先未履行法律規定的批准程式。我們調查得到的《通知單》顯示,負責人簽字是空白,沒有負責人簽字,說明本次先行登記保存煤氣罐並沒有得到有關負責人的批准同意。未經批准,現場執法人員就無權登記扣押 夏俊峰的煤氣罐。城管違法法定程式,當場搶奪扣押 夏俊峰張晶煤氣罐的違法行為,直接引發了現場衝突,導致事態擴大矛盾升級,甚至發展為推拉毆打強制帶人。
3、城管申某、張某等十幾人的粗暴野蠻執法是本案發生的前置條件和重要起因。
在執法現場,城管執法人員申某、張某等人直接就把未能及時逃離擺攤現場的 夏俊峰、張晶抓住,馬上就搶張晶護住的煤氣罐,將 夏俊峰直接推拉毆打強制帶離送至城管接受“處理”,在場城管就像土匪一樣將 夏俊峰、張晶的鍋碗瓢盆扔得滿地都是,對於張晶的跪地求饒無動於衷。 夏俊峰被強制帶離之後,留在現場的曹陽等其他城管人員仍然試圖將張晶的“倒騎驢”與車架分開扣押,後因連接鎖死無奈放棄。
以上事實,有一審辯護律師提供的史春梅、賈子強、 張傑等六位目擊證人證詞,以及我們提交的證人張晶、史春梅證言, 夏俊峰被踩棄留現場的鞋底,被告人 夏俊峰的供述,形成的證據鎖鏈相互印證予以證實。城管曹陽、張偉、陶冶等人雖否認現場執法存在過錯,但其與待證違法行為存在直接利害關係,其言詞證據證明效力較低,不具有對抗辯方證據效力,不能採信。
上述事實表明,城管執法人員極不尊重 夏俊峰張晶基本的人格尊嚴,以傲慢、輕視、爭搶、隨意推拉、毆打、扣押 夏俊峰等粗暴野蠻執法,該行為是本次血案發生的前提條件和重要原因。城管及申、張二人對本案發生負有不可推卸的重大過錯責任。
試想,如果當時的城管執法是文明規範的,為何眾商販一聽“城管來了”便聞風喪膽、望風而逃?如果城管能夠稍微顧及 夏俊峰等人的人格尊嚴,給予最起碼哪怕是最可憐的一點點的尊重,不去主動製造“衝突”,張晶就不會護住煤氣罐、跪地求饒。如果城管能夠適度收斂他們專橫膨脹的心理,沒有“教育”“修理” 夏俊峰的思想, 夏俊峰就不會被推得東拉西倒“站不穩腳”、最後被強制帶離送往城管。所謂的“第二次衝突”也不會發生。城管這些漸次增強放肆擴大的執法過錯,自始至終都在主導本案矛盾的產生、發展、升級,也是最終引發本次血案的前提和重要起因,其過錯明顯且較大。
(二) 夏俊峰防衛行兇,系被迫自衛,主觀惡性不深。夏在“第二次衝突”過程中拔刀刺人,雖造成二死一傷嚴重後果,但其仍不屬於主觀惡性極深、人身危險性極大的犯罪分子,依法不適用死刑。
我國刑法第四十八條規定,死刑只適用於罪行極其嚴重的犯罪分子。所謂“罪行極其嚴重”是指主觀惡性極深、犯罪情節特別惡劣、犯罪後果特別嚴重。
辯護人認為, 夏俊峰不屬於主觀惡性極深、人身危險性極大的犯罪分子。理由如下:
1、 夏俊峰自技校畢業參加工作,四年後下崗,案發半年前開始擺攤炸串,以此養家糊口維持生計,平時本分老實,沒有任何不良劣跡。不偷不搶不騙,沒有犯罪紀錄或侵犯他人人身財產犯罪的行為傾向。
2、本次血案完全排除 夏俊峰預謀犯罪可能,兇器不是為任何犯罪而事先準備的。其使用刀具系擺攤常用、實際用於炸串割花的水果刀,是其經營所需的一般工具,並非為實施犯罪所準備,說明其潛在的人身危險性較小。
3、 夏俊峰拔刀刺人,是在城管方存在重大過錯發生“第一次衝突之後”,在“第二次衝突”正在被毆打過程中實施,因防衛而起,並非無緣由或基於個人卑劣動機而主動侵害他人身體,主觀惡性不大,人身危險性較小。
(三) 夏俊峰歸案後認罪悔罪態度較好,家屬願意全面賠償被害人損失。
 夏俊峰歸案後,如實供述了自己的行為經過,對於自己行為造成兩死一傷後果悔恨不已,其家屬多次主動上門道歉,表示願意窮盡一切努力和可能,全面賠償被害人損失,期望獲得被害人家屬的寬容和諒解。此種努力雖然沒有得到被害人接受,但也足見其努力修復保護客體的社會關係的誠意和行動。
(四)投案自首情節和被害方過錯應當法定從輕
根據最高法院《量刑指導意見》和其他規定,除《刑法》有關自首、酌定從輕的法律規定和司法解釋之外,本案還以應當適用以下條款:
1、最高人民法院2007年1月15日《關於為構建社會主義和諧社會提供司法保障的若干意見》第十八條規定,“因被害方的過錯行為引發的案件,案發後真誠悔罪並積極賠償被害人損失的案件,應慎用死刑立即執行”。
2、最高人民法院2010年2月8日《關於貫徹寬嚴相濟刑事政策的若干意見》第十七條規定,“對於自首的被告人,除了罪行極其嚴重、主觀惡性極深、人身危險性極大,或者惡意地利用自首規避法律制裁者以外,一般均應當依法從寬處罰”。
3、第二十二條規定,“對於因戀愛、婚姻、家庭、鄰里糾紛等民間矛盾激化引發的犯罪,因勞動糾紛、管理失當等原因引發、犯罪動機不屬惡劣的犯罪,因被害方過錯或者基於義憤引發的或者具有防衛因素的突發性犯罪,應酌情從寬處罰”。
綜合以上事實,辯護人認為,本案城管確有粗暴野蠻執法,隨意毆打、非法扣押被告人 夏俊峰的違法行為,對本案的發生發展負有不可推卸的重大過錯, 夏俊峰在判決書至今未確定原因的“第二次衝突”過程中拔刀刺人,雖造成二死一傷嚴重後果,但其仍不屬於主觀惡性極深、人身危險性極大的犯罪分子,且有自首情節。歸案後認罪悔罪態度較好,家屬願意賠償被害人損失。本案應當適用上述法律規定,依法對 夏俊峰予以從輕處罰,且不適用死刑。
 
十、本案一二審判決的社會“維穩”效果極差
不言而喻,本案偵查如此有傾向性,一、二審審判如此粗糙,有兩個因素直接影響:一是因為針對公權執法過程犯罪,必須嚴懲;二是殺人償命的簡單觀念,導致未對犯罪事實和量刑情節進行慎密審查。這兩個因素都是人民法院要嚴格防止的。
針對公權執法的犯罪,應當同針對平民的犯罪一視同仁。要根據具體的犯罪情節進行具體細緻的分析。不能為了保護公權執法,而遠離法律的公平正義。本案一二審判決後,社會反響如此強烈,人們一致同情小販而譴責城管,不是偶然的。因為有很多群眾確實看到了此先的粗暴執法,同情處於社會生存底線的人群。我們要防止民粹主義,防止借此否定城管執法全域的情緒,同時也要防止用高壓維穩,進一步激起底層群眾的憤怒和反感。這種維護公權效能,社會效果更不好。只有實事求是還原真相,合理合法適用法律,才能實現真正的社會和諧穩定。
 
十一、本案應裁定撤銷原判,發回一審法院重新審理
綜合以上十方面的意見,我們認為,本案一審、二審的判決,主要事實不清、殺人定罪證據不足、原審中偽證被釆信作為判決的主要證據、原定罪證據體系已經查明偽證致其證據鏈崩潰、審判程式嚴重違法、對被告到案投案經過沒有查清、原審罪名定性錯誤、原審正當防衛沒有認定,原一二審量刑情節沒有認真權衡,量刑明顯不當。根據《刑事訴訟法》和《最高人民法院關於覆核死刑案件若干問題的規定》,請求貴院依法撤銷原判,將本案直接發回原一審人民法院重新審理。
 
請合議庭高度重視我們的上述意見,審查採納。嚴格把好死刑覆核關。
 
京衡律師集團事務所律師
陳有西   鐘國林
周  葵   李道演
二0一一年六月十三日
http://www.daifulawyer.com/newsshow.asp?id=1279&big=9

 

[Visit: 1549]
Tags : | | | | |

相關文章: 共 6 篇

<< 索南英尼晉美嘉措 Jigme Gyatso >>
© 2012 64wiki 支持我們 | 關於我們 | 聯絡我們