论文部分内容阅读
2013年5月8日,最高人民检察院申诉厅邀请五位法学专家(包括笔者)就一起拟抗诉案件进行论证。我们在认真审阅案件材料并询问了解有关情况的基础上,分别发表意见。大家一致认为本案中证明被告人有罪的证据不足,远不能排除他人实施该杀人行为的可能性;一致认为最高人民检察院应该提出抗诉,要求最高人民法院决定再审该案。后来,我们得知该案的被告人名叫于英生。1996年12月2日中午,安徽省蚌埠市公安局110报警指
On May 8, 2013, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Office of Appeal invited five legal experts (including the author) to argue against the proposed protest. We carefully comment on the case materials and ask for more information about the situation on the basis of their respective opinions. We all agree that the evidence in this case, which proved that the defendant was guilty, is far from sufficient to rule out the possibility of others to commit the killings. He agreed that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate should file a protest and demand that the Supreme People’s Court should decide to retrial the case. Later, we learned that the defendant in the case was named Yu Ying-sheng. December 2, 1996 at noon, Bengbu City, Anhui Province Public Security Bureau 110 alarm means