[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
The highly anticipated second trial of the Lao Rongzhi case will be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 18 at the Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court.

 

During the first trial of the Lao Rongzhi case, Lao claimed she was coerced by Fa Ziying, played a supporting role, had no prior conspiracy with Fa, and lacked intent to kill, arguing she should not be convicted of intentional homicide. The first-instance court, Nanchang Intermediate People's Court, held that the relevant evidence was sufficient to prove Lao's crimes.
 
On the morning of September 9, 2021, the first-instance court, Nanchang Intermediate People's Court of Jiangxi Province, publicly announced the verdict, sentencing Lao Rongzhi to death for intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping, with combined punishment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property.

On August 10, Lao Rongzhi's second elder brother, upon learning of the upcoming trial, expressed a desire to attend the hearing as an observer to see Lao, whom he had not seen in person for many years. He also believed that the first-instance verdict in Lao's case contradicted that of Fa Ziying's case, and that one direction for the defense in this second trial might be to argue insufficient evidence in the first-instance verdict, hoping for a remand for retrial.
 
 
Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 227 
Defendants, private prosecutors, and their legal representatives, if dissatisfied with a judgment or ruling of first instance from a local people's court at any level, have the right to appeal in writing or orally to the next higher people's court. The defender and close relatives of the defendant may file an appeal with the consent of the defendant.
Parties to an incidental civil action and their legal representatives may appeal against the part of the judgment or ruling of first instance from a local people's court at any level that concerns the incidental civil action.
The defendant's right to appeal shall not be deprived on any pretext.
 
Article 230 
The time limit for appeal or protest against a judgment is ten days, and against a ruling is five days, calculated from the day after the written judgment or ruling is received.
 
Article 234 
The court of second instance shall form a collegial panel and hold a trial for the following cases:
(1) Appeal cases where the defendant, private prosecutor, or their legal representatives raise objections to the facts or evidence determined in the first instance, which may affect the conviction or sentencing;
(2) Appeal cases where the defendant has been sentenced to death;
(3) Cases where the People's Procuratorate files a protest;
(4) Other cases that should be tried in court.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
Generally speaking, there are three possible outcomes in the second instance: first, upholding the original judgment; second, amending the judgment; third, remanding the case for retrial. For Lao Rongzhi, she was sentenced to death in the first instance, but she insists that she had no intention to kill and does not constitute intentional homicide. Her second brother even believes that the evidence in the first instance is insufficient and hopes for a remand for retrial. Due to the long passage of time and the wide-ranging implications of this case, and since the other perpetrator, Fa Ziying, has already been executed, the determination of facts in Lao Rongzhi's case remains controversial. If during the second instance it is found that the original judgment's facts are unclear or the evidence is insufficient, the court of second instance may amend the judgment after clarifying the facts, or it may rule to revoke the original judgment and remand the case to the original trial court for retrial.
 
The second trial of the Lao Rongzhi case is imminent. Although Lao Rongzhi is universally condemned like a rat crossing the street, since the law has established a second-instance system, it should ensure equality for all and fully protect human rights. Procedural justice is known as "visible justice," meaning that a case must not only be judged correctly and fairly, fully complying with the provisions and spirit of substantive law, but also make people feel the fairness and reasonableness of the judgment process. As the saying goes, "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done."