On August 7, Zhang Yingying's family and lawyer held a press conference. The lawyer stated that the murderer placed Zhang Yingying's body into three garbage bags and dumped them into a trash bin outside the apartment.These garbage bags were transported to a private landfill, where they were compressed at least twice.As a result, Zhang Yingying'sremains may be smaller than a mobile phone in volume,，且被buried under at least 30 feet (about 9 meters) of garbage.。

In fact,The prosecution learned as early as November 2018 of the possible whereabouts of Zhang Yingying's remains.At that time, the defense offered to provide information on the location of Zhang Yingying's remains in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, but the offer was rejected. (This excerpt is from People's Daily, Phoenix Net, and Shijian.)

　　Why did the prosecution not immediately disclose the location of the remains?

This involves a typical judicial system in the United States—plea bargaining,which refers to negotiations between the prosecutor and the defense attorney before the judge's trial, where the prosecutor agrees to drop charges, reduce charges, or recommend a lighter sentence in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea.

If a criminal suspect knows that conviction is inevitable, they can have their lawyer negotiate with the prosecutor, exchanging a guilty plea for a reduced charge or lighter punishment. This type of deal is not the most ideal approach, but its greatest advantage is that it can strike a balance between fairness and efficiency, which is beneficial to society to some extent, avoiding lengthy court proceedings and saving judicial resources.

In the case of Zhang Yingying, if the prosecution accepted this deal from the defense,it would mean accepting the defense's request for a reduced charge against the suspect, i.e., abandoning the death penalty charge against suspect Christensen.On the other hand, because the information provided by the defense is protected by immunity, the prosecution cannot disclose it to Zhang Yingying's family before the trial ends.

This has also led netizens to raise many questions about the U.S. judicial system:

　　Which is more important, the victim's right to life or the suspect's right to remain silent?

Since the suspect's arrest, his silence has shown us how well American law protects suspects. "You have the right to remain silent, but anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," which is the suspect's "right to silence," known as the Miranda rights or Miranda warning. This phrase is not just a line from movies and TV shows; it has strong constitutional backing.

　　A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,This right does not exist in our country. According to Article 120 of China's Criminal Procedure Law:

When interrogating a criminal suspect, investigators should first ask whether the suspect has committed a crime, allowing him to state guilty circumstances or innocent defenses, and then pose questions to him.The criminal suspect shall truthfully answer the questions raised by the investigators.However, he has the right to refuse to answer questions unrelated to the case. When interrogating a criminal suspect, investigators shall inform the suspect of his litigation rights, the legal provisions that truthful confession of his crimes may lead to lenient treatment, and the law on pleading guilty and accepting punishment.

　　This provision means that, except for questions unrelated to the case, when facing investigators' questions, the suspect must not only answer but also answer truthfully.

The Miranda warning is based on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, originally intended to eliminate coercive interrogation.

However, an obvious reality is that if the rights of the perpetrator are overly protected, the rights of the victim may be harmed. The Zhang Yingying case exposed a key issue in this system: in a crime, should the rights of the victim or the rights of the suspect be prioritized? If the victim is in a dangerous situation like Zhang Yingying, every moment earlier that the suspect's mouth is pried open increases the victim's chance of survival. Should the suspect's right to silence still be guaranteed under such circumstances?

In other words,In an emergency, which is more important: the victim's right to life or the suspect's right to silence? This is also a dilemma between substantive justice and procedural justice.

　　The trial in the United States is like a performance.

The trials in the United States, like their soap operas, are so lengthy that they feel neither satisfying nor worth abandoning. During U.S. court proceedings, the courtroom speeches of good prosecutors and lawyers are no less impressive than those of excellent actors, and their acting skills are even more superb because they have no script.

This is because the people they need to persuade are not judges, but ordinary citizens who know little about the law. For such an audience, purely legal arguments are clearly insufficient; only by vividly engaging their emotions and drawing them into the perspective of their own side can they achieve ultimate victory.

Moreover, jurors are easily influenced by their own emotions, as well as by the general public and the media, often making trials as dramatic as movie plots.

This scene often reminds me of a popular Chinese online debate show in recent years, "Qipashuo." The American judge is equivalent to the host, Ma Dong—not a director, let alone a referee, but merely a maintainer of order in the courtroom and a reader of the rules and outcomes. The true judges are the jurors, who decide who wins and who loses. The audience of the trial includes not only those present but also those who learn about the proceedings through various channels; every spectator hopes their supported side will win.

The case of Zhang Yingying has revealed a fatal flaw in the American jury system. Jurors do not understand the law, yet law is a highly specialized discipline, and many of its principles cannot be grasped without systematic study. Additionally, jurors are more susceptible to their own emotions and external influences. Therefore, entrusting a case to such a group for judgment makes it extremely easy to reach a verdict inconsistent with the legal facts of the case, leading to unjust rulings.

　　Some scholars argue that having people without legal knowledge engage in judicial activities relies not on the law but on personal knowledge and will, which is not the rule of law but the rule of man. The author agrees with this view.

(If any images in this article infringe copyright, please contact for removal.)