Trial of the Dong Tam case: Highlights of the first instance trial

The first instance trial of the case of “Murder” and “Resisting a person on official duty” that occurred in Hoanh village, Dong Tam commune (My Duc district, Hanoi) has ended the debate, the Trial Council deliberated and is expected to announce the verdict on the afternoon of September 14.

After 4 days of trial, the court was noted with positive changes of the parties participating in the proceedings.

Those changes are reflected in the reasonable and creative management of the Trial Council; the recognition and appropriate adjustments of the representative of the People's Procuracy; and above all, the sincerity and repentance of the defendants at the trial.

Review of visual testimony

During the questioning session, the Trial Panel showed clips summarizing the entire process.land disputesIn Dong Tam, My Duc; the defendants' wrongdoings in the early morning of January 9, 2020 led to serious consequences, causing the deaths of 3 police officers and soldiers.

Defendant Le Dinh Chuc gave his final words before the court announced the verdict. Photo: VNA

Among them, there are clips quoting the defendants’ statements at the investigation agency. It is worth noting that through these statements, many contradictions in the defendants’ own statements at the trial were revealed.

Thereby, many defendants have recognized their mistakes, admitted their crimes and asked the Council to consider reducing their sentences.

On the afternoon of September 7, at court, defendant Bui Viet Hieu testified about the origin of the land in Dong Senh and said a part of it was agricultural land.

Before this testimony, the Trial Panel showed a clip of defendant Hieu's testimony at the investigation agency and announced defendant Hieu's petition sent to the Trial Panel on the morning of September 7, right before the start of the trial.

In it, defendant Hieu asked for a reduced sentence, and at the same time, he clearly stated that he had signed the land handover, received full compensation, and acknowledged that Dong Senh land was national defense land. After this comparison, on the morning of September 8, defendant Hieu apologized to the Trial Council for falsely declaring the origin of the land in Dong Senh.

Next, defendant Hieu stated that he actively participated in the “Consensus Group” with the aim of preventing and fighting corruption in the locality. However, when the Trial Council announced the clip of defendant Hieu’s testimony at the investigation agency, in which the defendant stated that he felt tired and wanted to leave the “Consensus Group,” butLe Dinh Kinhprevented: "Once you've started something, you have to see it through" so the defendant continued to participate with this group. Faced with that contradiction, defendant Hieu had to admit that his statement at the investigation agency was true.

At court, defendant Hieu continued to state that on the evening of January 8, 2020, he went to Le Dinh Kinh's house to sleep because he was afraid that the "mafia" would hire someone to kidnap him, so he went there to "take refuge." But in the testimony in the clip shown in court, defendant Hieu stated that Le Dinh Cong called him to go to Le Dinh Kinh's house to sleep, so he went.

Faced with this contradiction, on the morning of September 8, defendant Hieu asked to testify again and admitted that it was Le Dinh Cong who called him to sleep at Le Dinh Kinh’s house that caused defendant Hieu to leave. Defendant Hieu apologized to the Trial Panel for these statements and hoped that the defendant would receive leniency from the law.

In court, defendant Le Dinh Chuc confessed that he had committed acts that were the direct cause of the deaths of three police officers and soldiers, such as using an iron pipe with a knife attached to it to repeatedly stab the police force; and directing Le Dinh Doanh to carry a bucket of gasoline and pour it into the pit where three police officers and soldiers fell. At the same time, defendant Chuc also confessed that he was the one who poured gasoline into the pit many times.

In addition to the testimony of the defendant Chuc, the Trial Panel showed images and clips of the events that took place the night of the crime. The defendant Chuc admitted that there were images of him using various weapons to resist the police.

During the debate, some lawyers questioned the origin of the clips shown at the trial. The representative of the Procuracy said that these clips were taken from two sources. One was a public source, interviewed by press agencies and reporters and shown on television for the people of the whole country to know, and had evidentiary value, so the Investigation Agency collected it; the other source was made during the interrogation and recording of statements of the defendants according to the provisions of Article 183 - Criminal Procedure Code 2015, which can be recorded in audio and video in parallel with the recording of statements in the records of the file.

Timely records of the People's Procuracy

The jury. Photo: Doan Tan/VNA

In this case, the Hanoi People's Procuracy issued an indictment to prosecute 29 defendants, of which 25 defendants were prosecuted for the crime."Killing". Overall assessment of the interrogation process, the representative of the Procuracy found that the actions of these 25 defendants had sufficient grounds to constitute the crime of “Murder” through contributing money to buy grenades, buy gasoline, make petrol bombs, make steel wool soaked in gasoline… to attack the authorities. The indictment of the Procuracy prosecuting these defendants for the crime of “Murder” has a legal basis.

As for the 19 defendants, including Le Dinh Uy, Le Dinh Quang, Nguyen Van Quan, Bui Van Tien, Bui Van Tuan, Trinh Van Hai, Le Dinh Quan, Bui Van Nien, Bui Thi Noi, Tran Thi La, Nguyen Van Due, Nguyen Thi Bet, Nguyen Xuan Dieu, Nguyen Thi Lua, Bui Thi Duc, Mai Thi Phan, Dao Thi Kim, Le Thi Loan, Nguyen Van Trung, the representative of the Procuracy said that most of these defendants were farmers. When they heard Kinh, Cong and Hieu's incitement and promise to be divided land, they joined the "Consensus Group", committed illegal acts, affecting the local order and security.

Each of the 19 defendants participated in the crime at a certain stage and level. Among them, there was a defendant who acted as treasurer, gave money, contributed money to buy gasoline, bought grenades; there was a defendant who directly made petrol bombs, steel wool, gasoline, bought flares, prepared bricks and stones; there was a defendant who participated in transporting and preparing tools and means to help Cong's group commit murder.

Through public questioning at the trial, the representative of the Procuracy said that these defendants basically knew that because of limited legal awareness, due to promises, they blindly trusted and followed Le Dinh Kinh. The defendants were aware of their wrongdoings, confessed honestly, and repented.

In essence, these defendants were not fierce opponents, did not participate to a certain extent, committed crimes with indirect intent, and especially did not directly commit the acts that resulted in the deaths of three police officers and soldiers.

Therefore, the Procuracy has applied the criminal law policy and the State's lenient and humane policy to apply lighter charges and accordingly apply lighter penalties below the lowest level of the penalty framework for a number of defendants, creating conditions for the defendants to have the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

On that basis, pursuant to Article 319 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code, the Hanoi People's Procuracy decided to change the prosecution charge against the 19 defendants named above from "Murder" to "Resisting a person on official duty" and requested the Trial Council to consider reducing the defendants' sentences, so that the defendants can see the leniency of the law and feel secure in reforming and cultivating themselves into good citizens, useful to society.

No defendant pleaded guilty.

Throughout the trial, from the questioning to the debate, all defendants recognized their mistakes, admitted that their actions violated the law and hoped that the Trial Council would consider reducing their sentences and giving them leniency under the law.

Defendant Le Thi Loan gave her final statement before the court announced the verdict. Photo: VNA

None of the defendants pleaded guilty or claimed that their actions did not violate the law. Most of the defendants expressed remorse and apologized to the families of the three police officers who died.

During the debate, many defense attorneys requested the Trial Panel to return the case file for further investigation. In response to this argument, the representative of the Procuracy holding the right to prosecute at the trial said that there was no basis to return the file for further investigation. Attorneys defending the legitimate rights and interests of the three families of the victims also requested the Trial Panel not to return the file for further investigation.

Even some defendants share the same wish not to return the case file, because for them, prolonging the proceedings in this case would worsen their situation.

Defendant Bui Van Tien, in his final statement, admitted that although he did not directly participate in the murder of three police officers and soldiers, he realized that he was partly at fault. He hoped the victims' families would forgive him and ask for a lighter sentence.

The defendant thanks the representative of the People's Procuracy for transferring the charges to the defendant, and thanks the lawyers who participated in defending the defendant. The defendant hopes that the defense lawyers will not request the case file to be returned, so that the defendant can soon return to his wife and children. The defendant has 3 very young children, and the defendant himself has many serious illnesses.

In their final statements at the trial, the defendants expressed their wish for the Trial Council to consider reducing their sentences so that they could return to society and their families soon, and promised not to violate the law. The six defendants asked their lawyers to stop defending them, and wanted the case to stop. It is worth mentioning that before the first instance trial, all six defendants and their families proactively invited defense lawyers.

After thanking the lawyers who defended him, defendant Le Dinh Doanh asked to stop and no longer need the lawyers to defend him. Defendant Doanh asked for clemency from the State and to return to being a useful citizen to his family and society.

Defendant Nguyen Quoc Tien affirmed that he did not invite and did not need a lawyer to defend him. Defendant Bui Thi Duc admitted his wrongdoing and asked the lawyers to stop defending him. He promised that he would not do anything illegal against the law, the Party and the State in the future. Dao Thi Kim and Tran Thi Phuong thanked the lawyers for defending them. The defendants themselves recognized their guilt and asked the lawyers not to continue defending them.

In a case, for justice to be served, it requires a fair and objective investigation, prosecution and trial process, but more importantly, the honesty of the defendants. Each defendant himself needs to be aware of his mistakes, honestly confess his crimes and awaken his conscience, thereby repenting, truly wishing to correct his mistakes and become a useful person to society./.