Family of Lao Rongzhi: Legal aid lawyer said that Lao Rongzhi has appealed and applied to continue receiving legal aid

  On September 16, Lao Rongzhi’s family told The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) that the defender of the first instance of Lao Rongzhi’s case had met with Lao Rongzhi recently, and said that the court had received a letter of appeal signed by Lao himself and that the second instance was still pending. Hope to accept a written application for assistance from a legal aid lawyer.

  On September 9th, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province publicly sentenced Lao Rongzhi on suspicion of intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping in the first instance.

The Nanchang Intermediate People's Court found that the defendant, Lao Rongzhi, was guilty of intentional homicide, robbery, kidnapping, and several crimes, and decided to execute the death penalty, deprive him of political rights for life, and confiscated all his personal property.

  On the day of the sentencing, Lao Rongzhi expressed dissatisfaction in court and lodged an appeal.

Lao Rongzhi’s family said in an interview that they would entrust a non-legal aid lawyer as their second-instance defender.

  On the morning of September 15, entrusted by Lao Rongzhi's family, lawyer Li Xun went to Nanchang No. 1 Detention Center to apply for a meeting.

Li Xun stated that at 9 o'clock on the 15th, he had a phone call with the judge of the first instance of the case, and the other party said that he could accept the interview procedures and instructed to submit the case to the litigation service hall to provide the corresponding case number. "The judge said that until the last day of the appeal period, Lao Rongzhi will be arraigned, and she will identify the defense lawyer.” But soon, the judge informed him, “Because Lao Rongzhi herself requested that the second instance does not require a lawyer from his family and asked the legal aid lawyer to continue to provide legal aid, she could not meet with him. ."

  On the same day, the defender of the first instance also informed the family of Lao Rongzhi of the news.

  Lao Rongzhi’s second brother, Lao Shengqiao, said that the legal aid lawyer introduced in a phone call to his family on the 15th that they had met with Lao Rongzhi recently. Because he is currently wearing handcuffs and shackles, he is inconvenient to eat and move. In order to keep him in the detention center In his life, he needs some money from his family.

Lao Shengqiao said that the legal aid lawyer also stated that when Lao Rongzhi learned that his family had hired a Beijing lawyer for him, he replied with the word "no need" and wrote a written application, hoping to still receive the assistance of the legal aid lawyer.

  On September 16, Lao Rongzhi’s family dismissed the entrustment from the lawyer they had previously entrusted, and re-entrusted lawyers Jia Fangyi and Guo Chengxi, who have now sent relevant materials to the court.

Lao Shengqiao hopes to allow his family to meet with Lao Rongzhi.

  On September 16, The Paper tried to contact the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court and the defense lawyer of the first instance in the Lao Rongzhi case to verify the above news, but none of them received a reply.

  The Paper previously reported that on September 9, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court publicly sentenced Lao Rongzhi in the first instance of Lao Rongzhi's case.

  The Nanchang Intermediate People's Court found that the defendant Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying (a judgment in a separate case) were lovers.

Between 1996 and 1999, the two conspired and divided labor. Lao Rongzhi was engaged in escort services in entertainment venues, and the target of the crime was identified. Faziying carried out violence in Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, and Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province. , Hefei City, Anhui Province jointly carried out 4 robberies, kidnappings, and intentional homicides.

After the incident, Lao Rongzhi absconded using pseudonyms such as "Shirley" and was arrested by public security officers on November 28, 2019.

  The Nanchang Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Lao Rongzhi constituted the crime of intentional homicide, robbery and kidnapping.

In response to his defense at the first instance, saying that he was coerced by Faziying, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court believed that Lao Rongzhi played a major role in the joint crime and was the principal offender and should be punished in accordance with all the crimes in which he participated.

  The Nanchang Intermediate People's Court believes that Lao Rongzhi intentionally killed five people; the robbery caused one death, the amount of the robbery was huge, and there was a plot of house robbery; the kidnapping caused one death, and the ransom was more than 70,000 yuan. The crime plot was particularly bad and the methods were special. It is cruel, subjectively malignant, personal and socially harmful, and the consequences and crimes are extremely serious and should be punished in accordance with the law.

After Lao Rongzhi returned to the case, he truthfully confessed the facts of his kidnapping in Changzhou. Although there were confessed plots, it was not enough for a lighter punishment.

  The Paper noted that Lao Rongzhi’s defender pointed out during the previous court session that he had no objection to the fact that Lao Rongzhi was suspected of robbery and kidnapping, but the existing evidence was insufficient for causing the death of others and intentional homicide.

The evidence presented by the prosecution in court was mostly Lao Rongzhi's confession, Faziying's confession that year, and physical evidence and witness testimony at the time of the case.

Among the biological evidence presented in the court trial, there is no evidence that directly points to Lao Rongzhi's murder, and the remaining parts of the physical evidence are also lost due to age.

  In the judgment of the first instance, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court also explained the loss of the physical evidence.

Nanchang Intermediate People's Court stated that part of the original material evidence of the case was kept in Hefei Intermediate People's Court. During the trial, Nanchang Intermediate People's Court all retrieved and made copies, and explained the reasons for the loss of the evidence.

  Reporter Wei Jiaming

Keywords: