After three first-instance trials and three appeals, Jiang Yongrong, former deputy director of the Vehicle Management Division of the Traffic Police Corps of the Guizhou Provincial Public Security Bureau, was found guilty of accepting bribes and sentenced to three years in prison.On November 21, Guiyang Intermediate Law made the above-mentioned final judgment.The judicial process in this case was full of twists and turns, and many pieces of evidence were originally deemed illegal and excluded, but were finally recognized as legal.Both Jiang Yongrong's relatives and lawyers said they would continue to appeal.
The third second-instance judgment of the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court showed that after Jiang Yongrong's third appeal, the court formed a collegial panel in July 2018. After reviewing the files and interrogating the appellant, it decided not to hold a trial.However, both Jiang Yongrong's sister and the defense lawyer stated that they had never been notified that the second trial would not be held.Jiang Yongrong's sister told the Caixin reporter that on November 26, Jiang Yongrong received a notice from the judge of the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court to communicate with him about the case.Debate
Nurse lawyer Zhou Ze also said that according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, even if the second-instance case does not go to court, the verdict should be announced publicly.Which are not clear.
Jiang Yongrong was placed under residential surveillance on January 18, 2014, and was criminally detained five days later. On September 14, 2016, he was released on bail pending trial.Based on the three-year fixed-term imprisonment, there are four months left in the sentence.Caixin reporter learned that Jiang Yongrong has been re-arrested.
It has been nearly five years since the Jiang Yongrong case happened.On January 18, 2014, Jiang Yongrong was involved in a bribery case due to an online real-name reporting material.The Nanming District Procuratorate of Guiyang City filed a public prosecution with the Nanming District Court on April 28, 2014, accusing Xie Baocheng, chairman of Guizhou Hannuo Technology Co., Ltd.Xin’s three motor vehicle security inspection stations were able to pass the inspection as soon as possible and connected to the remote security inspection sign verification and issuance system online to recover funds as soon as possible, so they asked Jiang Yongrong, then deputy director of the Vehicle Management Division of the Traffic Police Corps of the Guizhou Provincial Public Security Department, for help.Later, the newly built motor vehicle security inspection equipment of Hannuo Company successfully passed the project acceptance and was connected to the Internet. Xie Baocheng thanked Jiang Yongrong for his help. From 2012 to 2013, he gave Jiang 350,000 yuan in benefits in three installments.
Since then, the judicial process of the Jiang Yongrong case has fallen into a tug of war.In April 2015, the Nanming District Court found Jiang Yongrong in the first instance for accepting 350,000 yuan in cash from Xie Baocheng, committing the crime of accepting bribes, and sentenced him to ten years in prison.Jiang Yongrong refused to accept it and filed an appeal.In July 2015, the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court revoked the original judgment on the grounds that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and the case was remanded for retrial.
In October 2016, after the first retrial, the Nanming District Court still found Jiang Yongrong guilty of accepting bribes, but his sentence was changed to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 yuan.Jiang Yongrong still refused to accept and appealed again.In February 2017, the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court once again revoked the original judgment and sent it back for retrial on the grounds that the original judgment violated legal procedures.On April 3, 2018, the case was held for the third time in the Nanming District Court. Jiang Yongrong was still sentenced to three years in prison for accepting bribes.After the third judgment was pronounced in the first instance, Jiang Yongrong appealed again.
Zhou Ze questioned that the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court had sent back the case for retrial on the grounds that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and there was no new evidence later. Why did the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court uphold the judgment of the second retrial this time?He believes that from the facts, Jiang Yongrong has no possibility of accepting bribes. The project payment has been recovered, and the final payment of tens of thousands of yuan will be recovered according to the contract. How could Xie Baocheng give Jiang Yongrong 350,000 yuan for these tens of thousands of yuan?
At the same time, what the traffic police check and accept is not the equipment, but to inspect the site after the equipment is installed to see whether the equipment can be connected to the system normally and whether the site is eligible for vehicle inspection.acceptance by the department.
The exclusion of illegal evidence has been the focus of the case.Jiang Yongrong stated in the trial that when he was sent to the Xiuwen County Detention Center in Guizhou Province on January 23, 2014, investigators threatened him.During the period of residential surveillance, he was tortured to extract a confession in the residence designated by the investigation agency, and the investigation agency did not provide him with the necessary food and medicine, and did not guarantee his rest time., 22, and 23 days during the period of designated residential surveillance made the guilty confession.
Judicial documents show that in the first instance and the first retrial, the court twice determined that some evidence was illegal and excluded it, but paradoxically, all the evidence was revived in the second retrial.
For example, on April 8, 2015, the Nanming District Court ruled in the first-instance judgment: Regarding Jiang Yongrong’s confession during the period of residential surveillance at a designated location, it can be seen from the video that the person who executed Jiang Yongrong’s residential surveillance at a designated location was a member of the procuratorate.Public security organs other than those stipulated by law shall be excluded.
At the same time, regarding Jiang Yongrong's confession on January 22, 2014, since it cannot be ruled out that he made a guilty confession because of his mental suppression, this confession should also be excluded.In addition, the recording materials submitted by the procuratorate are also excluded because the collection procedure is not legal.
On October 9, 2016, the Nanming District Court made its first retrial judgment on the Jiang Yongrong case, in which the determination of illegal evidence has changed.The verdict stated that the synchronous audio and video recordings of the confessions on January 22 and 23, 2014 provided by the procuratorate showed that there was no torture to extract confessions, which cannot be ruled out.However, regarding Jiang Yongrong's confession at the Xiuwen County Detention Center, the court held that there was no simultaneous recording and did not comply with legal procedures, so the evidence was excluded.
In June 2018, the Nanming District Court made a second retrial judgment, saying that after investigating the legality of evidence collection in court, it was concluded that Jiang Yongrong did not commit suicide against his will under the threat of violence or illegal restriction of personal freedom.The collection of evidence by the investigators is legal.This means that all previously excluded illegal evidence has been revived.
The final judgment of the Guiyang Intermediate Court further explained that every revocation of the original judgment by the higher court includes the revocation of the substantive and procedural conclusions of the original judgment.After the case was remanded for retrial, the procedure for the exclusion of illegal evidence was re-started to review the issue of exclusion of illegal evidence raised by the defendant and the defender in the original trial, and finally dealt with according to the review situation.After the original judgment was revoked, it no longer has legal effect, and there is no conflict between several judgments.
The final judgment also mentioned that the issue of illegal residential surveillance proposed by Jiang Yongrong is only due to flaws in the subject of residential surveillance, which does not affect the interrogation and questioning of Jiang Yongrong by investigators.In response to Jiang Yongrong's question of the illegal collection of evidence by the investigators, the original public prosecution agency has explained to the court the legality of the evidence collection and presented the legal materials on Jiang Yongrong's residential surveillance at the designated residence, the surveillance video of Jiang Yongrong's escape during the residential surveillance at the designated residence, and the investigation.The explanations of the personnel and caregivers who appeared in court, and the explanations written by the investigators on the legal conduct of the interrogation and investigation activities in Jiang Yongrong’s case, confirmed that Jiang Yongrong was not subjected to verbal threats or torture to extract a confession during the period of residential surveillance in a designated residence.Written voluntarily, from legal sources.
Regarding the above response, Zhou Ze questioned: Jiang Yongrong was imprisoned on January 17, 2014, why did the transcripts start on the 22nd?Zhou Ze also said that the final verdict stated that he was not tortured to extract a confession when he made the transcripts on January 22 and 23, but the content of the confession and what happened to Jiang in the previous few days are inseparable.
In previous court trials, Zhou Ze repeatedly pointed out that apart from Jiang Yongrong's confession, the briber Xie Baocheng's testimony was also formed under the circumstances of being prosecuted and losing his personal freedom.Xie Baocheng's description of the time, place, and amount of bribes to Jiang Yongrong has changed many times, and is inconsistent, lacking a reasonable explanation, and there is a major reasonable suspicion of being forced to make a false statement.The judgment of the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court stated that after examination, Xie's testimony was voluntary from beginning to end.
