劳荣枝二审的辩护律师吴法天，水平真的高到可以推翻一审了吗？

Question

如题所述

Answer 1

很多人对劳荣枝的印象不好，一审被判死刑后，她选择了上诉，不承认之前的说辞，二审的时候，她的辩护律师是吴法天，他是水准很高的律师，能够推翻一审的判决吗？可能性很小。原因有三个：一个是证据链完整；一个是关键细节的审理，已经完结；还有一个是民意不可违。

一、吴法天律师水平的确高，但劳荣枝的罪证确凿

吴丹红律师（网名是吴法天）的履历很厉害，中南政法的本硕，中国人民大学法学院的博士，北京大学法学院的博士后。在司法实践中，他的履历没有发挥作用，他的实力起作用了。“吕同元故意伤害案”一审判9年，他作为吕同元的辩护律师，从“证据”和“程序”两个方面入手，将案件发回重审，二审改为无罪。

吴丹红律师的履历上，有好几个这样的案子，他是中国政法大学疑难证据中心主任，对于证据的抓取和质疑，是他的专长。所以，他给劳荣枝辩护的时候，会在证据链上下手。就算不是，也会在程序上下手。

有些人觉得，吴丹红律师出手，案子改判或者发回重审的几率很大。要是发回重审，那就可能出现改判的现象。不能否认的是，吴丹红律师的职业素养很高，他对证据的把控，是为了促进我们司法发展的重要方式。但是，劳荣枝案件跟其他案件不同的是，劳荣枝和法子英是共犯。

劳荣枝在阐述事实的时候，到了关键节点的时候，就说自己出去了，有不在场证据等。用检察机关工作人员的话说，一次不在场，两次不在场，那么多次都不在场？真将自己当“傻白甜”了？从案发的证据链来看，劳荣枝和法子英是共犯，并不是劳荣枝所说的被胁迫。

她解释的理由是，要是自己走了，他会伤害自己的家人。这个理由有多苍白，自己跟着法子英走南闯北那么长时间。法子英在得知劳荣枝已经离开了，还笑了。这说明两个人的感情很好。既然感情那么好，为何会有伤害她家人的说辞？显然是在掩饰。

二、在关键证据上，已经确认清晰了

吴丹红律师的长项在于证据链的细节和审理程序的严谨上。只要有一点点疏漏，让他抓住，他就可能推翻之前的审理结论。在法庭上，双方就劳荣枝案件的细节，展开了“交锋”。劳荣枝认为，这些事情是法子英做的，她没有参与。而法子英已经被枪毙了，死无对证。

有人说，既然劳荣枝没有证据证明，那么她的嫌疑很大。还有人说，既然是检察机关认为是劳荣枝做的，就应该提交相应的证据，说明她是直接参与者，要是没有的话，说明劳荣枝是无罪的，因为我们实行的是“疑罪从无”原则。很多受害人的家属，不愿意再提及此事，这让案件的难度增加了。

即便如此，检察机关还是找到了一些当事人，对他们进行了笔录。从笔录中发现，劳荣枝和法子英的关系很好，两个人还配合默契，可以不说话，就知道要做的事情，从这个角度来说，劳荣枝不是被胁迫的，而是主动参与此事。劳荣枝的证据没有问题，剩下的就是讨论司法程序上是不是存在瑕疵。

在审讯期间，并没有对劳荣枝采取过激手段，也没有打骂的现象。只是按照法律程序，对其进行了笔录。在程序上，符合法律要求。吴丹红律师和检察机关在这些方面进行了探讨，内容比较专业，我们吃瓜群众，听不大懂。能够知道的是，劳荣枝案件，将择日宣判。

三、劳荣枝案件的民意，偏向于死刑。要是吴法天想逆袭，可能性很小

很多人觉得，民意不可违。罗翔老师曾说，给予死刑犯辩护，是为了尊重他们的人权，也是为了让他们有尊严地站在法庭上。吴丹红律师能够站在法庭上给劳荣枝辩护，也是为了维护法律的尊严。有些人觉得，都是死刑犯了，为何要辩护？是为了尊重法律，也是为了尊重人情。

法律不外乎人情，这是我们朴素的观念。我们需要面对的是，每一个人。在法律判决之前，他们是公民，是犯罪嫌疑人。劳荣枝在一审的时候，被判死刑。她上诉了，是对法律的尊重。吴丹红律师愿意为之辩护，也是尊重法律的表现。很多人希望劳荣枝被判死刑，这是民意。

民意是不是能取代法律？不能。没有证据的情况下，犯罪嫌疑人，会被判无罪的。有了证据，有了大家认可的证据，想要改判，那就是难于上青天。大家认为，劳荣枝和法子英的做法，实在坏透了。坏人得不到惩罚，是对善良的嘲讽。所以，劳荣枝就应该被判死刑。

有人说，辛普森杀妻案的判决，就与民意相违背。的确是，那是在没有证据的情况下，或者说证据链不准确的情况下。劳荣枝案件与辛普森的案件，不一样。所以，劳荣枝的案件，改判的可能性很小。对此，大家是怎么看的？欢迎大家留言！

Answer 2

劳荣枝二审案件在网络上掀起了狂热的讨论，一审以故意杀人罪判处劳荣枝死刑，劳荣枝不服提起上诉，二审劳荣枝的辩护律师吴法天极力辩护，由于一审证据确凿，而且民愤极大，案件性质极其残忍恶劣，所以劳荣枝的辩护律师吴法天想推翻一审改判是基本不可能的。

一、决定劳荣枝最后承担什么样后果的依据是其所犯罪行

关于劳荣枝的所作所为，用千夫所指来形容可谓十分精准，大家惊愕的原因在于，不仅作案手段残忍、多人殒命，而且还在于她是个女人，是个教师，由此颠覆了很多人的认知。从有关案情推断，劳荣枝确实是罪大恶极，即便她不承认，相信最后法院也一定能够找到突破口，找到她犯死罪的证据。这一点，我深信不疑！所以，劳荣枝必死无疑。

二、对于社会关注度很高的案件，罪犯肯定会被从重判罚

社会关注度高是因为案件的性质极其恶劣，手段极其残忍，影响极其巨大，法律必须惩治犯罪并安抚大众情绪。死者及其家属必须得到一个公道，必须还社会一个健康、法制的环境，所以，劳荣枝也肯定死刑无疑。

三、律师是人不是神，不可能颠倒黑白

我理解律师最大的职责，就是不让犯罪嫌疑人承担不应该承担的责任。法律讲究证据，以事实为依据，以法律为准绳。当然，法律有时难免存在漏洞，很多律师都会精心寻找法律的漏洞，千方百计为犯罪嫌疑人辩护、开脱，如果真被他找到了，那也是法制建设过程中社会必须付出的代价，但我深信，劳荣枝一案绝对没有翻案的可能。否则天理难容！

结论：杀人偿命，天经地义。劳荣枝必死无疑！任何人都救不了她。

Answer 3

吴律师提出的十一项质疑，包括管辖权、疲劳审讯、合议庭人数、字迹鉴定、法院增加罪名等，大部分没有新意，有的甚至可笑，比如管辖权的问题，这种显而易见毫无异议的问题，还要摆上来重提，而合议庭人数的质疑则更是荒唐，稍微懂点刑事诉讼法的就明白，三个审判员组成的合议庭是完全没有问题的。最可笑的是质疑法院增加罪名，一审起诉时明明白白地起诉了故意杀人抢劫绑架，这都是公开资料，何来的增加罪名。所以这么多项质疑无一例外全部被驳回。

至于最后提供的新证据，就是那个同学的采访视频，绝对有惊天地泣鬼神的黑色幽默效果。但凡你吴律师稍微上点心，也要请劳荣枝的同学当庭坐证吧，再不济也要重新再录个视频吧，你现在网上搞了个剪辑过的采访视屏来做证据，真的是要笑死人吗，是欺负劳荣枝家人不懂法律，感觉你吴律师已经很卖力了？

综上所述，吴律师在这次二审中就是来了一出很可笑的闹剧，骗骗完全不懂法律的法盲和劳荣枝的家人，搞的雷声很大，拖了三天时间，给人的错觉像是要翻案了。但只要稍微懂点法律的就知道，吴这次的表演是很低级搞笑的，没有一丝一毫翻案的可能。检方心里都在暗笑了，这厮就是来蹭劳荣枝的流量的。

最后说一下，吴律师真实水平如何不作评价，但无论哪个律师来，都不可能推翻一审。因为唯一可能推翻一审的那个人早就被枪毙了，对，就是法子英，只有他才能为劳荣枝作证，证明劳是被胁迫的，但现在他开不了口了，而他和劳先前留下的合作犯案的证词再也无法推翻，怪谁呢，怪法子英没文化，以为只要作证劳没有亲自行凶，就能帮劳逃避死刑，没有帮劳荣枝绑架抢劫仙人跳取钱这些事实全部撇清，而劳荣枝被捕后妄想坦白后能减轻处罚，所以交待的很积极，这样他俩的供词和犯罪现场的所有证据都得到了相互的印证，这就形成了完整的证据链，是足够足够判劳荣枝死刑的，怎么会有翻案的可能。

Answer 4

大家都希望劳荣枝最终被判死刑，对劳荣枝“二审”的辩护律师吴法天颇有怨言，但是换一个角度来看，吴法天并没有错，因为中国的法律要的是证据而不是逻辑，在没有证据的情况下，就要疑罪从无。劳荣枝二审的辩护律师吴法天，水平真的高到可以推翻一审了吗？

吴律师提出的十一项质疑，包括管辖权、疲劳审讯、合议庭人数、字迹鉴定、法院增加罪名等，大部分没有新意，有的甚至可笑，比如管辖权的问题，这种显而易见毫无异议的问题，还要摆上来重提，而合议庭人数的质疑则更是荒唐，稍微懂点刑事诉讼法的就明白，三个审判员组成的合议庭是完全没有问题的。最可笑的是质疑法院增加罪名，一审起诉时明明白白地起诉了故意杀人抢劫绑架，这都是公开资料，何来的增加罪名。所以这么多项质疑无一例外全部被驳回。

吴丹红这人确实十分也得，自称“吴法天”，现年44岁可谓年富力强，他20出头就相继获得了中南政法学院法学学士、硕士学位，随后在中国人民大学就读博士， 是北大博士后，现任中国政法大学疑难证据问题研究中心主任、博士生导师。吴丹红接手这个案子有使命感，就是“想通过个案的程序公正，推动中国法治向前走”。他自诩早实现了财务自由，不是为了钱。

一审量刑过重，程序违法，证据不足都是吴法天的说辞。在吴法天洋洋洒洒二万八千多字的辩词中，没有一句能够提供劳荣枝没有杀人的证据。他一直在推理中推算可能出现的不公正，意在拖延时间，意在发回重审，好在再审中试图找到劳荣枝不死的机会。泱泱大国，朗朗乾坤。如此民愤极大，影响极坏，性质恶劣的重大凶杀案，凭他三寸不烂之舌，想翻案，想一辩成名，真是痴心妄想。我们迎来的将是法律公正的判决。

Answer 5

If a lawyer's defense can transcend the law and interpret the law, it shows that our legal system construction is still on the way and needs to be further improved. Because this fully shows that there are still loopholes in the whole structure of the law, and lawyers can successfully exploit them. A perfect legal system can give lawyers space, but that is within the framework of legal interpretation, to help identify the facts and to qualitative and quantitative analysis of the criminal plot.

It has been 23 years since the case of Lao Rongzhi occurred nine years ago. Considering the limited conditions for handling cases in those years, the process of handling cases in those years was relatively impossible to be fully standardized, and the material evidence left in those years was relatively limited. The most important thing is that the accomplice, FA Ziying, has also obeyed the law, and the slip of the tongue left is also an isolated evidence. However, this does not mean that in this case, lawyers have a great space to play. They can reverse the facts and deny the characterization of the case and the bad nature of Lao Rongzhi's crime as a whole.

It is true that in the first instance, Lao Rongzhi did not accept the entrustment of his family, but used a free legal aid lawyer. However, the lawyers of the first instance also defended the fuzziness of some of the plots and the incoherence of the evidence. However, the lawyer of the first instance clearly knew that Lao Rongzhi and France Ziying committed a joint crime, and there was no distinction between the principal offender and the accessory offender, let alone the so-called victim of Lao Rongzhi. Therefore, the defense lawyer of the first instance defended within the scope of clear legal characterization.

Naturally, after being sentenced to death in the first instance, this kind of defense made Lao Rongzhi very dissatisfied. He has the idea of Jedi survival, he wants to erase his criminal facts less, he wants to define himself as a victim, and he may also dream that he can be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment as an accessory. Under such circumstances, the lawyer Wu fatian, the second instance lawyer hired by the company, may have taken on the heavy responsibility that Lao Rongzhi expected, but his performance may have disappointed people in the legal profession.

Because on the morning of the first day of the second trial, lawyer Wu fatian proposed the so-called intention of objecting to jurisdiction. If it is successful, the case must be sent back to the court with jurisdiction for retrial. It can be imagined that at least two to three years of survival time has been contested for Lao Rongzhi. However, Lao Rongzhi is from Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province. He also committed the massacre in Nanchang. How can Nanchang and Jiangxi Province have no jurisdiction over it? Therefore, this is a very low-level judicial objection, which was rejected on the spot.

Of course, during the three-day trial of the second instance, lawyer Wu fatian and Lao Rongzhi also raised various objections. In fact, they want to take advantage of the problem of isolated evidence, the possibility of annihilation of evidence due to the age, and the loopholes in the case handling process in those years. Negating all the accusations made by the procuratorate finally allowed Lao Rongzhi to escape the punishment of the law. But how could this be possible? In those days, there were physical evidence and witness evidence, and the most crucial thing was the rationality of the crime.

For example, the carpenter and the victim in the cage were killed. Lao Rongzhi said that when he left at night, the victim was alive, but the incident report showed that he had actually died in the afternoon, and France Ziying had confirmed that the victim was still alive when he left. Today's question may show that Lao Rongzhi personally killed the victim. At the same time, Lao Rongzhi was at the scene when the carpenter was injured. The kitchen and bedroom were three meters away. How could she deny that she had escaped from the incident?

Therefore, the lawyers of the second instance may raise objections on some plots, but from the perspective of the coherence of the whole vicious incident, as long as Lao Rongzhi is defined as a joint crime, she can not escape the death sentence of the first instance. Now that the law is perfect, it is not the so-called language genius of lawyers' sophistry that allows criminals to escape.