Recently, King&Capital partner Li Jingyu represented a rape case. The case had already been transferred to the court when Mr Li intervened. In addition to the defendant and the victim, there were two witnesses. However, there were significant discrepancies between the witnesses' testimonies, and between the testimony of the witnesses before and after. This makes the truth of this case confusing. In the face of such a situation, Li Jingyu lawyer decided to court through the ‘cross-examination’ technology, to expose the evidence of false words, restore the truth of the case. In the end, the witness ‘collapsed’ in court, told the truth, the panel agreed with the prosecution to withdraw the charges, the defendant was righted.

First, the victim intentionally create evidence of being infringed upon.

Premeditated false accusation

Zhongmou online acquaintance of the victim Goumou, Goumou see Zhongmou people stupid money, profitable, they took the initiative. The two of them in each other WeChat less than 2 hours, Goumou said ‘love’ on Zhongmou. Zhongmou and Goumou hit it off, and immediately decided to cross the city ‘run now’.

And Goumou together to Zhongmou city to meet his girlfriend Hu, Gou Hu two people together by Zhongmou arranged into the local hotel. During the Hu Mou excuse out, Gou Zhong then voluntary sexual relations.

To people's surprise, Hu returned to the hotel, Goumou then said it was Zhongmou rape. Even to Hu showed the evidence of their own rape - stained with vaginal blood toilet paper.

The strange thing is that Gou Hu did not first call the police, but chose and Zhong Mou shopping, drinking. Nearly 24 hours after the incident, Gou called the police and Zhong was detained. Li Jingyu lawyer involved in the case after the case there are many strange things.

Second, the witness false statement.

All the evidence points to the defendant lying

Rape cases because of its intimate often appear one to one evidence of the pattern. Whose story is more credible is the key to determining whether or not there is a rape. This case is unique in that there are two eyewitnesses: one was present at the scene; the other was not, but was sufficient to verify the truthfulness of the first witness's testimony and the voluntariness of Gou's sexual relationship with Zhong.

The complexity of this case is also that the case has reached the trial stage, has been the so-called ‘expert’ many times, so that the evidence in the case has been completely different, the true and false testimonies are intertwined, it is difficult to clarify the truth. This has made the defence of the case even more difficult.

According to Wigmore Sen, ‘Cross-examination is man's greatest invention for discovering the truth, the most effective legal device for discovering the truth.’

Cross-examination, in essence, one party to the other party's witnesses by way of in-court questioning to test, which focuses on the authenticity of the other party's witness testimony for evidence review.

After repeated communication with the presiding judge of the case, the presiding judge also believes that the verbal evidence in this case has been all over the place, and it is difficult to judge which is true and which is false for a while. Therefore, on the one hand, before the trial, the presiding judge personally re-examined the witnesses involved in the case; on the other hand, the defence cross-examined the witnesses in court. In this way as far as possible to make false exposure in the ‘cross-examination’, exposed in the court above.

Third, the cross-examination has a strange effect, the witnesses retracted their confessions in court.

Even before the court, the latest witness testimony there are a number of objective evidence contradictory content, can not be justified. But the witness Hu Mou is still ‘no tears’, decided to false testimony to the end.

Such all the pressure is concentrated in the trial.

The court questioning, in addition to the gradual relaxation of witnesses, but also to follow the basic questioning requirements of the relevant legal provisions. The ultimate goal is to lead the witness to make subjective statements that can be disproved. In the trial, after three major items, more than twenty sub-questions of detailed cross-examination, the witness in the courtroom finally could not withstand the pressure and collapse. Not only did he tell the truth about his previous false statements, but he also told the truth about the case. Thus, the truth of the case was revealed.

The successful defence of this case and the result of acquittal, the defence's perseverance and professionalism is certainly important, but also inseparable from the prosecutor's careful listening; inseparable from the judge's iron shoulder moral justice. In the end, under the joint efforts of the public, prosecution, law and lawyers, the delusion was broken, and the suspect was cleared.