Font Size: a A A

Judicial Confusion And Thinking In The Case Of Mo Zhaojun

Posted on:2016-05-29Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:F Q HanFull Text:PDF
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
"Mo Zhaojun case" was a specific duty crimes occurred in Sihui City Guangdong Province, in 2001. Mo Zhaojun was a civil court judge in Sihui City, in 2001, he heard LI Zhaoxing sued Zhang Kunshi and other three people over loan disputes, Li Zhaoxing handheld promissory note, and requested the court to determine Zhang Kunshi to repayment. One of Zhang Kunshi denied the existence of the fact that the borrower, but did not provide any evidence. According to "who advocates, who burden of proof", Mo Zhaojun assigned the burden of proof to one of Zhang Kunshi, sentenced them to lose, then Zhang Kunshi couple poisoned themselves in the courthouse. After verified, promissory note was indeed forged; Mo Zhaojun was prosecuted in "alleged dereliction of duty" by procurator. Although Mo Zhaojun eventually was acquitted, he left the judges.The case caused a great impact at the time, aroused strong concern of the community, and there is still a lot of enlightenment significance. The case reflects the problems exposed in the judicial practice. This article aims to in-depth analysis of judicial practice, reflected in the case of specific problems, in order to evaluate Mo Zhaojun approach is appropriate, and finally give an overall evaluation of the case. The full text drawn the problem from the case, analyze the case again come to the conclusion that make the problem more practical, also make the analysis more thorough.This paper analyzes the case from the following three questions:Firstly, the factual basis of a civil judge. The factual basis of a civil judge decides that Mo Zhaojun approach is appropriate, so it bear the brunt. About this problem, starting from the "legal facts say" and "objective facts say", analyze two views of the grounds, on this basis, to draw my own point of view.Secondly, how to choose when there is a conflict between procedural justice and substantive justice. Procedural justice and substantive justice are both important to judicial impartiality. The conflict is often encountered both theory and judicial practice, also in this case. About this problem, this paper analyze separately procedural fairness and substantive justice, then further elaborate the relationship between them, how to choose when the conflict in the final selection. In the discussion, combine with the facts of the case analysis.Thirdly, the problem of the judge’s interpretation right and investigate and collect evidence right. Above two issues, naturally leads to this question. Research on the right to judge’s interpretation and the right to investigate and collect evidence is insufficient for the case at the trial of civil cases when Mo Zhaojun should be perfect, this problem is also a problem that many of the judges encounter in judicial practice. About this problem, mainly in the current law as the basis of our analysis of Mo Zhaojun approach.In addition to the above problems, the article concludes with a brief description of some of the problems still exist in this case.
Keywords/Search Tags:Mo Zhaojun case, legal facts, procedural fairness, the judge’s interpretation right, the investigate and collect evidence right
PDF Full Text Request
Related items