Recently, Attorney Zheng Xuan of Beijing Juyou Law Firm received a second-instance ruling from a municipal intermediate court, achieving significant defense outcomes in a bribery case he was handling. Through thorough legal discussions between the attorney and the collegial panel, the court was successfully persuaded to adopt certain defense arguments. The case was remanded for retrial on the grounds that the original judgment lacked clear factual findings and sufficient evidence.
Case Background
When the lawyer became involved, the case was already in the second-instance proceedings stage. Based on the family's description of the case, the lawyer initially analyzed that: although there was some room for defense in terms of factual findings and sentencing evaluations, in current judicial practice, the rates of overturning judgments and remanding cases for retrial in second-instance cases are generally low, and the defense outcomes may not fully align with the parties' expectations. After Attorney Zheng fully informed the client of the risks and provided a legal analysis, the client, based on his recognition of King&Capital Law Firm and its professional capabilities, still hoped that Attorney Zheng would intervene as soon as possible and carry out the defense work.
Case Handling Process
After accepting the mandate, Attorney Zheng immediately traveled to the local court to submit the necessary paperwork and retrieve the case files. Upon reviewing the case materials and identifying the key points of contention, he noted that, during the defense work in the first instance and the early stages of the second instance, although the defense counsel had communicated with the court on multiple occasions, the core defense strategy was limited to sentencing considerations, and no objections were raised regarding the fundamental issue of the charge classification, which objectively resulted in a deficiency in the defense. Furthermore, after submitting the second-instance defense opinion, the focus ultimately shifted to whether the defendant could provide evidence of meritorious conduct, which effectively preempted the outcome of the second-instance trial.
In light of this, Attorney Zheng thoroughly reviewed the case files, organized the evidence on record, and redefined the defense strategy: In terms of determining guilt, he strictly adhered to the provisions of Article 385 of the Criminal Law regarding the elements of the crime of bribery, systematically compared the evidence materials and factual findings of this case with the statutory elements, and through an analysis of the conformity of the statutory elements, successfully prompted the judicial authorities to refocus their review on the determination of the charge; In terms of sentencing, the defense focused on the defendant's multiple statutory and discretionary mitigating circumstances, combined with the key points of similar case rulings, and continued to propose specific defense opinions on the sentencing range for this case.
Following the defense counsel's professional, standardized, and effective in-person communication and submission of written opinions, the appellate court issued a ruling, determining that the original judgment contained factual ambiguities and insufficient evidence, and legally remanded the case back to the original court for retrial.
Case Summary
The successful remand of this case was attributable to the collegial panel's rigorous review of the evidence on file, its focus on the elements of official misconduct and criminal liability, and its prudent adjudication in accordance with the law. It also fully demonstrated the professional value of accurately identifying the focal points of the case and reasonably formulating defense strategies, laying an important foundation for subsequent case proceedings.
