庭审结束时间：前日23:30，昨日22:30，今日22:40。
今日大午案完成914寻衅滋事和621寻衅滋事的举证质证。
受不了了
庭前，审判长还没有到庭。李建立、何志刚和陪审员底晶开玩笑说开庭时间这么长，审判台、法官座椅又比一般的桌子高，腿脚很难踩实地面，太累。检察官建议拿个小凳子放在脚底下垫着。李建立等表示这是合理化建议。合议庭成员何志刚开玩笑说让王誓华律师申请他回避，太累了，他受不了了。王誓华律师说他说了不算，他只能启动程序，同意不同意领导说了算。
值得表扬
刘金滨律师质证过程宣读公诉人未宣读的对被告人有利的证据，合议庭成员李建立建议不再宣读证言，刘金滨称这些有利于被告人的证言辩护人有权利出示，王誓华律师质证时间80分钟左右，张鹏律师质证时间30分钟左右，他只需要15分钟左右。李建立说：“很好，这个值得表扬。”
谁犯罪？
多位律师指出9·14寻衅滋事案是被害人王素霞等在大午路一侧摆摊售卖泳衣，相关路段发生多次交通事故，造成2人死亡。为清理路边摆摊设点，要求到不阻碍交通更安全的地点。王素霞等人不满，躺到在路上堵塞道路，有证人证明有孕妇堵在路上，已见红临产，要求通过。有人喊：“不让过，最好一尸两命。看孙大午怎么办！”
刘金滨律师和周海洋律师认为证据可以证明的事实不是孙大午等大午公司人员构成寻衅滋事的问题，而是堵塞道路的人构成聚众扰乱社会秩序或聚众扰乱交通秩序罪，刑法第290条和291条总有一款适合他们。现在尚未超过追诉时效，周海洋律师建议法院和检察院勇于担当，从维护保定良好的营商环境角度考虑，对上述犯罪线索移交有关部门处理。
有些事不想说
刘金滨律师举证2014年8月12日9·14案“被害人”王素霞即有倒地堵路3个小时的“前科”，还撕扯现场警察，可是没有得到处理。
孙大午说，王素霞和郎五庄村几个通过村委喇叭煽动村民堵路的人并没有得到追究。无奈，员工进行游行演练，表达不满。之后，公安机关只对三名村民拘留，也没有拘留王素霞。可是，三名被拘留者没有按期限执行，都是早早就走出了拘留所。孙大午还说王素霞女儿李敏的丈夫和张宝军曾到大午集团闹事，公安机关只是处理了张宝军，李敏的丈夫并没有得到处理。“这不是有保护伞吗？有些事情我不想说！这是很明显的涉恶团伙。”
Yes,sir!
下午开始对621寻衅滋事案进行法庭调查。
孙德华在回答律师发问时称，指居期间房屋没有窗户，春节后才给放风。之前没有见过阳光。孙德华坚称郎五庄村与保定国合农场争议的土地应该归郎五庄村所有。只是因为取证过程中政府各部门不配合，没法打赢官司。没办法，他们才在争议土地上“抢种”玉米。
王誓华律师询问孙德华认为“抢种”的做法对不对时。孙德华说：“我问过上面的领导，上面的领导说地该要，要依法依规。我们找的北京律师，到处找证据，可是各个部门都不配合，律师不给干了。”法官要求孙德华“直接回答对还是不对！”孙德华大声喊：“对！”王誓华律师表扬了孙德华：“Yes,sir!非常正确！”
很有水平
许来福称他是按照领导指示通知了几个人到过“抢种”现场周围，所站位置距离“抢种”区域一百米左右，没有做什么也没有说什么话。后来根据孙大午之子孙萌的意思起草了“租赁协议”。
王誓华律师对许来福发问：“你到地里没有说话，没有做什么你认为犯罪了吗？”
许来福：“王律师，这个问题我一会儿再说。您先问下一个问题吧？“
王誓华：“你按照孙萌的说法起草租赁合同，你认为犯罪了吗？”
许来福：“第一，我在上次开庭前会议时，我就直观感觉我是错的。专业方面我也不太懂。我相信法院、检察院会给我公平公正的处理。第二，包括后面的妨害公务罪，我也是这样的看法。当时我认为很平常的一件事。温泉度假村的人也去了‘抢种’现场。可是没有追究他们，是不是说明我的行为不严重？第三，我说这些话建立在认罪认罚的基础上。都说法不容情，能不能在法律限度内考虑一下我的情况？我父亲车祸去世，前年哥哥因脑瘤没有工作能力，侄子因病去世。家里只能靠赚钱维持生活。家是小国，国是大家。不要因为判了我给家庭造成悲剧，给社会造成悲剧，给国家造成悲剧。希望法庭认真考虑我家庭的情况。”
审判长贾士辉：“很有水平，既不得罪王律师，又表达了心声。”
围剿？假证？
孙大午说：“证人证言大部分都是谎言，就是为了围剿孙大午。”
孙德华说：“两委干部证言全是假的。杨学明是‘抢种’的直接的指挥者、策划者。我跟孙大午闹了矛盾，老死不相往来，没有自己去过孙大午的办公室，都是杨学明带我去的。”
王楠律师：“没有杨学明就没有621，就没有8·4寻衅滋事、妨害公务、聚众冲击国家机关，也就没有大午案。杨学明必须出来作证。”
王誓华律师：“卷宗中的宗地图制图日期2018年4月3日，审核日期是2017年4月3日。为什么审核时间比制图时间早？明显制造假证！”
王楠律师还指出证人马建华、连娇、姚伟伟、李松笔录存在大段复制粘贴情况，侦查人员明显制作伪证。
孙德华：如果公权力公开造假，这个案子还能审下去！
大午案法律团队
2021年7月20日
The court session ended late [three days in a row]: at 23:30 the day before yesterday; at 22:30 yesterday; and at 22:40 today.
During today’s session, the prosecutors finished presenting their evidence relating to the September 14 [2015] incident and the June 21 [2020] incident, and the defense lawyers completed their cross examination of the evidence.
The trial is so exhausting it’s unbearable
As the day’s proceedings were about to begin but the presiding judge had yet to arrive in court, collegial judges Li Jianli (李建立), He Zhigang (何志刚), and People’s Assessor Di Jing (底晶, 人民陪审员) commented that the court sessions were so long and tiring because the judges’ seats were higher than ordinary and their feet couldn’t touch the ground. A prosecutor suggested that a small stool be placed under their feet. Judge Li and others concurred that this was a reasonable suggestion. He Zhigang, a member of the collegiate panel, joked that he would ask Lawyer Wang Shihua (王誓华) to apply for his recusal so that he could get off this unbearably exhausting trial. Lawyer Wang Shihua said that it was not up to him; all he could do was request a recusal, but it’s up to the higher-ups to decide.
This is commendable
During the cross-examination, lawyer Liu Jinbin (刘金滨) read aloud part of the evidence that was not left out by the prosecutor but was beneficial to the defendant. Li Jianli, a member of the collegial panel, suggested that there should be no more reading out of the evidentiary testimonies. Lawyer Liu Jinbin stated that the defense lawyers had the right to present testimonies beneficial to the defendants. He said, “Lawyer Wang Shihua’s cross-examination lasted about 80 minutes, lawyer Zhang Peng’s (张鹏) cross-examination lasted about 30 minutes, and I only need about 15 minutes.” Li Jianli said: “Very good, this is commendable.”
Who committed the crime?
Several lawyers pointed out that the September 14 [2015] case of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事) was instigated by the “victim” Wang Suxia (王素霞) and others who set up stalls on the side of the Dawu Road to sell swimsuits, and which led to multiple traffic accidents and two deaths. In order to clear the roadside stalls, [the Dawu Co.] asked them to move to a safer location that did not obstruct traffic. Wang Suxia and others were unhappy, and lay down in the middle of the road and blocked the traffic. Witnesses said that a pregnant woman in labor was blocked on the road. When she asked to get though, someone shouted: “Don’t let her pass, it’s better to kill both the mother and the baby. Let’s see what Sun Dawu will do about that!”
Lawyer Liu Jinbin and Lawyer Zhou Haiyang (周海洋) believed that it could be indisputably established based on evidence that Sun Dawu (孙大午) and other Dawu employees never “picked quarrels or provoked trouble” but that people blocking the road committed the crime of “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order” (聚众扰乱社会秩序) and “gathering a crowd to disrupt the course of traffic” (聚众扰乱交通秩序). Either Article 290 or 291 of the Criminal Law fit their crime. Since the statute of limitations period for these crimes has not yet expired, Lawyer Zhou Haiyang suggested that the court and the procuratorate should courageously take responsibility by handing over the above-mentioned criminal leads to the relevant departments for action in order to maintain a good business environment in Baoding.
There are things I don’t want to talk about
Lawyer Liu Jinbin presented evidence that indicated there was a precedent of Wang Suxia, the “victim” in the September 14 [2015] incident, doing the same thing: On August 12, 2014, she lay on the ground in the middle of the road and blocked traffic; she also had scuffled with the police officers at the scene, but was not dealt with.
Sun Dawu said: “Wang Suxia and several other people in Langwuzhuang village who instigated villagers to block the road using the village’s loudspeaker system were not held accountable. The Dawu staff had no choice but to demonstrate and march to express their dissatisfaction. After the demonstration, the public security bureau only detained three villagers but did not detain Wang Suxia. However, the three detainees did not serve the full terms of their sentences, and were released from the detention center early.” Sun Dawu also said, “Wang Suxia’s daughter’s Li Min’s (李敏)’s husband and Zhang Baojun (张宝军) had come to the Dawu Group and smashed up things. But the public security bureau only dealt with Zhang Baojun, not Li Min’s husband. Doesn’t this show that Wang Suxia’s family has protection from the authorities? There are things I don’t want to talk about! This is obviously a criminal gang.”
“Yes, sir!” [said lawyer Wang Shihua.]
In the afternoon, the court began its investigation into the alleged June 21 [2020] incident of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
When answering a lawyer’s question, Sun Dehua (孙德华) stated that the room he was detained in during RSDL had no windows, and that he was only let out for some fresh air after the Spring Festival, before which he had not seen a ray of sunshine. Sun Dehua insisted that the land disputed between Langwuzhuang (郎五庄) village and Baoding (保定) State Farm should be resolved in favor of Langwuzhuang village. It was only because various government departments did not cooperate in the process of obtaining evidence that the village could not win the [land ownership] lawsuit. Left with no other choice, they tried to “get out in front of” the state farm and plant corn on the disputed land.
When lawyer Wang Shihua asked Sun Dehua whether he thought it was right to “move ahead,” Sun Dehua said: “I asked the higher ups who said that it’s legitimate to try to get the land back but it has to be done in accordance with the law and regulations. The Beijing lawyers we had engaged looked for supporting evidence everywhere, but the various government departments did not cooperate and the lawyers gave up.” The judge asked Sun Dehua to “answer directly whether it is right or wrong!” Sun Dehua shouted: “Right!” Lawyer Wang Shihua praised Sun Dehua: “Yes, sir! That’s correct!”
A very skillful testimony
Xu Laifu [许来福, a defendant] testified that he indeed had notified several people to go to the corn planting site as instructed by his boss. They stood about 100 meters away from the planting area, and they didn’t do or say anything. Later, he drafted a “lease agreement” per the instructions of Sun Meng (孙萌), Sun Dawu’s eldest son [and Chairman of Dawu Group].
Lawyer Wang Shihua asked Xu Laifu: “You did not speak or do anything on the field. Do you think you have committed a crime?”
Xu Laifu: “Lawyer Wang, I’ll answer this question later. Can you please ask me the next question?”
Lawyer Wang Shihua: “You drafted a lease agreement per Sun Meng’s instructions. Do you think you committed a crime?”
Xu Laifu: “First, at the pretrial meetings, I intuitively felt that I did something wrong, although I don’t understand it from a legal perspective. I believe that the court and the procuratorate will give me fair and just treatment. Second, with regard to the crime of obstructing officials in the discharge of their duties, I am of the same opinion. At the time, I thought it was no big deal. People from the hot springs resort also went to the corn planting site, but they were not pursued legally. Doesn’t this indicate that my actions weren’t serious? Third, I’ve said these words premised on my admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment.”
“Even though people say that the law has no mercy, can you consider my situation within the limits of the law? My father died in a car accident. The year before last year, my older brother lost his ability to work due to a brain tumor, and my nephew died from an illness. The family now relies solely on me to make money and survive. A home is a small nation, and the nation is a large home. Don’t bring tragedy to my family, to society, and to the country by sentencing me to jail. I hope the court will seriously consider my family’s situation,” Xu Laifu said.
The presiding judge Jia Shihu (贾士辉) said: “A very skillful testimony. You expressed yourself well without offending Lawyer Wang.”
A concerted campaign to nail Sun Dawu? A fake document?
Sun Dawu said: “Most of the witnesses’ testimonies are lies, just to get Sun Dawu.”
Sun Dehua [Sun Dawu’s younger brother and the General Manager of Dawu Group] said: “The testimonies of the cadres of the two committees [Langwuzhuang Village Committee and Lanngwuzhuang Communist Party Committee] are all false. Yang Xueming [杨学明, Langwuzhuang Party Committee Chair] planned and directly orchestrated the advance corn planting tactic. I had a conflict with Sun Dawu, and we were never in direct contact with each other. I have never been to Sun Dawu’s office alone. It was always Yang Xueming who took me there.”
Lawyer Wang Nan (王楠) said: “Without Yang Xueming, there would be no June 21 incident. Without the June 21 incident, there would have been no August 4th incident of ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble,’ and subsequently no ‘obstructing officials in the discharge of their duty,’ nor ‘gathering a crowd to assault state organs,’ and there would have been no Dawu case. Yang Xueming must testify.”
Lawyer Wang Shihua said: “In the case file, the map attached to the land use contract was dated April 3, 2018, the date it was drawn, and the map’s verification date is April 3, 2017. How could the verification date be earlier than the drawing date? This is obviously a fake document!”
Lawyer Wang Nan also pointed out that there were large passages of copy-and-pasting in the transcripts of witnesses Ma Jianhua (马建华), Lian Jiao (连娇), Yao Weiwei (姚伟伟), and Li Song (李松). The investigators clearly produced forged evidence.
Sun Dehua said: “If the authorities blatantly falsified evidence, how can this trial proceed?”
Dawu Legal Team
July 20, 2021