[ad_1]
|
The presiding judge asked the medical department to measure and examine the defendant’s blood pressure so that the defendant lay down on a bench in the court.
The judge, the presiding judge of Nguyen Thi Nhu Xuan, decided to suspend the trial and hand over the accused to the family to take care of his health. Defendant Tran Thi Ngoc Nu was brought out of court at 10:35 am on March 18.
|
Do not accept the subpoena request from former Chief Justice Bien Van Hoan
The defendant, when questioned by the court, also proposed to subpoena Mr. Bien Van Hoan. The defendant also proposed changing the representative of the Phan Thiet City People’s Prosecutor’s Office to carry out the prosecution in court.
The defendant also brought many photographs to court, claiming that they were photographs taken with Mr. Bien Van Hoan during private activities.
The president asked the defendant to calm down: “The court asks what the defendant claimed. This is not the controversial part ”.
|
|
Also at the opening of the trial, the defendant Tran Thi Ngoc Nu also asked the court to summon “the defendant’s two brothers to testify.” According to the defendant, these two people accompanied the defendant to court on June 28, 2018.
“When the defendant came to court, there were two of the defendant’s brothers with him, one was a police colonel and one was working in court,” defendant Tran Thi Ngoc Nu said in court.
The presiding judge explained to Tran Thi Ngoc Nu that, during the trial, when someone needed to convene, the court would convene him.
“The defendant is frustrated because the verdict is condemned to only one sense.”
During the interrogation portion, the president asked the defendant: “What did the Binh Thuan Province People’s Court do on June 28, 2018?”
The defendant said that due to an appointment with Presiding Judge Bien Van Hoan and Judge Luong Thanh Chin, he came to ask why the ruling on the division of the property of the Huynh Vu Mai Vuong couple (for which the defendant was authorized to participate in the prosecution). litigation – Speaker) when there are differences with the sentence issued.
|
However, when they arrived at the court, the judge and the judge did not allow them to see them. “Due to this frustration, the defendant filmed and said some sentences,” the defendant presented.
The president asked, Was it found that the defendant could do it? It was wrong? Defendant Tran Thi Ngoc Nu testified: “Due to the defendant’s frustration and limited understanding of the law, I expect the court to follow the rules.”
The President asked again, why did the defendant understand the limited law and accept permission to participate in Ms. Vuong’s dispute procedure? Right now, Tran Thi Ngoc Nu is silent.
Seriously affects the reputation of the courtAccording to the indictment of the Phan Thiet City People’s Protection Institute, on June 28, 2018, Tran Thi Ngoc Nu and her husband Tran Van Doan and Ms. Huynh Vu Mai Vuong went to the provincial People’s Court headquarters. from Binh Thuan to meet with Judge Luong Thanh Chinh and the Chief Justice. Van Hoan inquired about the property division ruling after Ms. Vuong and her husband’s divorce, but Nu was authorized to participate in the resolution of the case. But earlier, the Binh Thuan Provincial People’s Court issued a resolution decision, so the Chief Justice and the judge did not meet. Tran Thi Ngoc Nu used her phone, filmed live images and sound (live broadcast) online through her personal account. The woman who went from the first floor to the third floor cursed and called Judge Bien Van Hoan and Judge Luong Thanh Chinh.
Until 12 noon, the woman left the court, then until 2:00 p.m. she went to the court to film and curse directly online, causing the meetings of the provincial People’s Court to relocate the meeting room many times, the other sessions of the court are of judgment is also affected. According to the indictment, the fact that Tran Thi Ngoc Nu went to the headquarters of the Binh Thuan Province People’s Court cursed, disturbed, insulted the officers and then broadcast live on social media (2 times a day, each time constituting an independent crime). directly affects judicial operations. This has seriously affected the credibility and performance of the court; causing discontent in public opinion, for which the Court has sent a written request to criminalize women. |
[ad_2]