At the end of last year, Ms. Lo was approved for death, but her family did not approve of the outcome, so they decided to continue with the appeal process. What's even more surprising is that they also sued the well-known lawyer who previously provided free ** for Lao Rongzhi. In the death penalty review stage, there were two well-known lawyers in the death penalty review stage, one was Professor Wu Danhong, who participated in the second trial, and the other was lawyer Liu Changsong. Both lawyers were free of charge**, and although Lo Rongzhi's death sentence was ultimately upheld, Professor Wu Danhong won the trust of many clients for his excellent defense at the trial stage.
During the death penalty review stage, lawyer Liu Changsong also joined in and defended Lao Rongzhi free of charge. However, Lo's family was not satisfied with the lawyer's work, and they accused Mr. Liu of being inconsistent with Mr. Lo's account because he had endorsed the testimony of a witness. The witness claimed that Lao Rongzhi was one of the victims of coercion in the extortion and kidnapping case by Fa Ziying and Gao Zheng, and that the family believed that this testimony could overturn the death sentence of Lao Rongzhi. However, Lao Rongzhi's ** lawyer did not recognize the witness, and lawyer Liu Changsong later told the family that Lao Rongzhi did not know the witness.
After the Supreme Court issued an opinion on the case of Lo Rongzhi, the family of Lo Rongzhi issued a statement accusing the lawyer who had provided them with free **. They accused the lawyer of failing to endorse the witness testimony and contradicting Lo's account. After the execution, Lo Rongzhi revealed that he knew the witness when he met with his family. Lao Rongzhi's family was dissatisfied with lawyer Liu Changsong, and finally chose another lawyer, Xiong Da**, at the appeal stage.
Lo Rongzhi's case has been tormented for more than four years, but it is now over. Although Lo Rongzhi's family continues to appeal and prosecute the lawyer, the chances of success are slim and largely theoretical. This incident has aroused a high degree of attention and social influence, and many people are concerned about the progress of the case and the fairness of the legal process. Compared with similar cases in the past, the case of Lo Rongzhi has also aroused people's attention to judicial fairness and key evidence in the trial process.
Although Lo's complaint and the family's prosecution of the lawyer may not bring substantive results, the incident is food for thought. We need to reflect on whether the justice system has always been in line with the principles of fairness and transparency, and whether there are potential flaws in the trial process. The end of Lo's case has not been satisfactory, and there are still many outstanding issues that may recur in similar cases in the future. Therefore, we need to think about how to ensure that the principles of fairness and equality are fully reflected in the justice system, and that similar cases are scrutinized in greater detail to ensure that convictions are just.