“We hope that the Supreme Court of the People’s Courts will open procedures to review its own decisions”

Master Tai shared: “I know a little about criminal procedural law. I have had 16 years of practical experience. When I learned the information from the Chief of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate who was appealing the case. According to the cassation procedure, I think that the Supreme People’s Court will cancel all the first instance and appeal sentences, to return to the first instance investigation and trial process in accordance with the general procedures, records, but through the monitoring of the case from 2014 to now, the procedural violations reported by the Press are true. When such a violation exists, they must cancel the case to re-investigate and convince them. “

When the Council agreed to “reject all protests” from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, how did you feel?

– I am very disappointed with that decision of the appeal review panel. Because there are many irregularities in the examination and investigation of the scene. And, these crimes are unacceptable in court proceedings, even in less serious cases. What is this killing two lives, the case is particularly serious …

In my opinion, when proceedings are such serious crimes, regardless of the accused’s psychological attitude in the report, the trial panel should cancel the sentence. It is impossible for the reason that canceling a sentence does not solve the violations that should be allowed. To do so is to create a bad precedent, later the practice of investigating activities will be easy and comfortable, as long as the accused pleads guilty. And, another consequence that cannot be measured is to lose the rigor of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Using the published press information that shows that the case investigation process has many errors, how do you think about the previous issue?

– Obviously, the investigation process has “deadly” errors, but today I don’t know how to explain why.

The first mistake is not picking up the cutting board and not looking carefully to catch the knife. A professional with a keen sense of coming to the scene and seeing the wounds on the victim’s body will be able to immediately imagine that the victim was killed with a sharp object (mainly a knife), other injuries will also cause The investigator determined that the author he had used additional hard objects (Tay) during the murder.

At that time, the scene review committee is required to examine every nook and cranny there, search and confiscate all objects, including cigarette butt samples, must also be seized. The fact that makes the process of such a complicated case come from this first fundamental flaw.

The second unacceptable problem is blood and fingerprints. There is no reason why the CQĐT should not issue a decision to request an immediate evaluation of suspected blood samples from perpetrators at the scene. Next, the fingerprint pattern, it is mandatory to collect all fingerprint samples from the suspect object for comparison and from that, the CQDT gradually removed the suspect. But, they did not collect fingerprints from anyone other than Ho Duy Hai. When they concluded that the accused’s fingerprints did not match, they also ignored them. I honestly don’t understand.

Regarding the murder weapon in this case is a knife and a cutting board, there is information that CQĐT asked buyers in the market when conducting field experiments, what do you think?

– As I said, when investigating the scene and investigating, CQDT must collect weapons for crime. When a seizure is not made, based on the description of the offender and the witness (if applicable), CQDT has the right to allow the suspect and the witness to identify the same object.

It’s not wrong to go buy a knife, a cutting board, or bring things home for identification. This problem is incorrect because only a knife and a cutting board (they must have at least 3 items) for the defendant to identify them, leading to the incorrect identification process, makes an edge. The identifier has no value at all.

Witness Dinh Vu Thuong is the only witness in the case, but said he was not summoned during the trials; There are contradictory details in the testimony provided by the police investigation agency and the lawyer, very contradictory … How do you see and evaluate this witness in the case?

– According to the information published in the press in recent days, the investigation process, CQDD has not exploited the information that this witness had. This is also a serious mistake. In the case of a murder case, it is a blessing for the CQDT if someone knows the information or sees the author.

From the testimonies and testimonies of witnesses about the author will help to test the offender without problems. I feel that the CQDT has something close at hand when it comes to this important topic.

I only hope that this case is opened by the Supreme People’s Court to review the decision. If this continues to carry out Ho Duy Hai’s death sentence, perhaps not many people agree.