[ad_1]
In this case, 25 defendants were tried for homicide with the maximum death penalty; 4 defendants were tried for crimes against the executor of the public service with a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. At the trial there were also legal representatives of the victim (3 policemen died) and 3 defense lawyers.
“The accused is very sorry”
On the first day of the trial, the panel questioned the group of defendants tried for murder with the main mastermind and direct criminal acts, including: Bui Viet Hieu (77 years old), Le Dinh Cong (56 years old), Nguyen Van Tuyen (46 years old), Le Dinh Doanh (32 years old), Le Dinh Chuc (40 years old).
|
According to the indictment, after learning that the Hanoi Police coordinated the Air Defense – Air Force (Ministry of Defense) to protect the construction force to build the Mieu Mon airport fence on Dong Senh land, Mr. Le Dinh Kinh has joined Mr. Le Dinh Cong, Bui Viet Hieu and many others to contribute money to buy 10 grenades, make dozens of gas bomb bottles, buy iron pipes with knives … to attack the functional forces. On the morning of September 9, when the police force arrived at the gate of Hoanh village, Dong Tam commune (about 50 meters from Mr. Kinh’s house) to protect the target as planned, the defendants In the case they sounded the alarm and fired artillery. . The competent forces used loudspeakers to call on the subjects to immediately stop their violations and surrender, but to no avail. In the process of preventing criminal acts, the defendants in the case used bricks, gasoline bombs and knives to attack the police force, provoking 3 police officers: Nguyen Huy Thinh, Pham Cong Huy and Duong Duc Hoang Quan. sacrifice. |
As the first person called for questioning, the defendant Bui Viet Hieu admitted that he and Le Dinh Kinh established a “consensus team” since 2012 on the grounds of the fight against corruption that occurs in the town.
During the process of the “consensus team” operation, the defendant himself felt tired of withdrawing from 2018, but could not “because he had to continue TB.” In front of the court, the defendant Hieu did not admit the role of mastermind, did not argue with others to oppose the government, but the testimony showed many contradictions, sometimes saying that the night of the case went to the house of Mr. Le Dinh Kinh. go back to sleep for fear of being kidnapped; Sometimes someone else would call me. The defendant also admitted to dropping two gasoline bombs the night of the crime … how external developments could not be captured from the inside.
On the other hand, the defendant Hieu also said that the accusation was not correct when he said that all the land of Dong Senh (Dong Tam commune) was acquired as Mieu Mon airport. According to the defendant, only 47.3 hectares of Dong Senh’s land was recovered for defense purposes, the rest was agricultural land.
Statements of the Defendant Understand that the judgment of the presiding judge is inconsistent, even in court. The Panel filed the defendant’s Statement of Understanding at the investigating agency, which shows that the defendant clearly knew that the origin of the Dong Senh land is defense land, but as he was dragged away, he participated in opposition to the government. .
At trial, defendant Le Dinh Cong did not admit to the role of mastermind or discussion with other defendants in the case against functional forces. However, this defendant admitted that it was he who instructed the other defendants to buy weapons such as knives, iron pipes, cookers, preparation of gasoline pumps and purchase of grenades with money donated by some people. persons.
When the presiding judge asked, “Why did the defendant tell the Panel to buy grenades?” Defendant Cong said with the purpose of keeping the land. The defendant also stated that the plan of the “consensus team” consists of 3 steps, depending on the level of the authorities that use bricks, gasoline pumps and finally grenades. In the incident that occurred on September 9, the defendant Le Dinh Cong admitted having stoned, petrol bombs and grenades.
Answer the question: “How does the defendant perceive this case?” of the Panel, the defendant Cong said: “After being arrested, only 3 policemen died. The accused is very sorry. For the defendant to sincerely apologize to 3 families, I hope that 3 families of soldiers and soldiers will forgive the defendants in the case. The defendant has realized his mistakes and has sincerely declared that he hopes to receive the leniency of the law.
Likewise, the defendant Nguyen Van Tuyen also requested clemency and said: “The defendant’s wife is ill, the defendant’s children also need care, so I hope that the Party and the state will relieve the defendant.” This defendant confessed to having participated in the “consensus team” in 2017, after hearing Mr. Le Dinh Kinh’s propaganda about the corruption of the commune land by officials, the family of Kinh’s followers would be divided. .
Defendant Le Dinh Chuc |
Uncle suggested summoning Mr. Nguyen Duc Chung
Earlier in the process, the lawyers asked the Panel to consider a series of recommendations before the trial took place. Consequently, on August 31 and April 4, the group of defense lawyers for the defendants submitted a petition to the Panel, which proposed to summon 22 participants to the trial (including Ms. Du Thi Thanh – his wife Le Dinh Kinh and his wife Le Dinh Uy); summoned Mr. Nguyen Duc Chung, Chairman of the Hanoi People’s Committee; propose a new investigation of the case …
In response to these recommendations, the judge, President Truong Viet Toan, said that the lawyer had proposed subpoenaing Mr. Nguyen Duc Chung and others, but found that these people were not directly related to the case. judgments for the Panel not to convene …
Regarding the investigation of the case, Judge Toan said that according to the Investigation Ordinance, the case occurred in Hanoi, so the investigation by the Hanoi Police was in accordance with the law. With the request to quote Ms. Du Thi Thanh, his wife Kinh; and Le Dinh Uy’s wife, said the Panel, which it deemed necessary to convene. With the attorney’s request to return the files and re-investigate the case, the Panel said that during the questioning and interrogation process, if deemed necessary, this issue will be considered.
[ad_2]
