“编程随想”阮晓寰夫人贝震颖致上海高级人民法院的投诉信件
致上海高级人民法院
投诉对象：上海高级人民法院刑事厅，须梅华
投诉事由：作力承办法官渎职，侵犯被告的合法辩护权利并涉嫌行骗（案号：2023 沪刑终15号)
被告阮晓寰，在押，一审由上海二中检提起公诉，上海二中院于2021年10月13日立案审理，2023年2月10日公开宣判，判决书(2021) 沪02刑初67号。 2023年2月17日一审董玲法官致电阮妻贝震颖， 告知阮晓寰于2023年2月10日通近看守所提交上诉书，委托一身辩护的陆律师上诉，贝震颖明确反馈会另请律师作为二审辩护。 贝震颖于2月20日和尚宝军、莫少平2位律师签署辩护委托协议。 随后尚宝军律师联系了一审董法官，法官说案件在移交上海高级人民法院的过程中，让尚宝军律师到上海高级人民法院阅卷。
2023年2月22日，上海高级人民法院立案（案号：2023沪刑终15号），2月28日，分派承办法官，须梅华。 之后尚宝军律师多次电联，总是无法联系到须梅华法官。 尚宝军律师预约了2023年3月9日上午到看守所会见， 按时到达却被看守所告知上海高级人民法院已指定了两名法律援助律师，所以不让会见。 贝震颖联系看守所要求让尚宝军律师会见，看守所说因为收到上海高级人民法院公函通知有法援律师，要上海高级人民法院撤销法援才能安排。
2023年3月13日上午，贝震颖电话朕系上了须梅华法官，得知二审法援律师指定的是一审辩护陆律师，并又增加了 陆律所另一个律师。 阮晓寰妻告知2023年2月20日自己已另行聘清了二审辩护律师，不需要法律援助。 须梅华只是重复：阮晓寰自己要“法律援助”的，要2个的，要尊重阮晓寰自己的意愿。 因为此处阮晓寰“要”的是一审家属请的辩护律师，贝震颖疑阮晓寰不知道家属另请了辩护律师，对须梅华所说的阮晓寰的真实意愿存在强烈质疑。 须梅华最后说她知道情况了，会去看守所问一下，过几天再看。 贝震颖希望能尽快澄清，须梅华说没这么快。
2023年3月13日当天贝震颖致电一审陆律师了解情况。陆说：他2023年2月13日会见阮晓寰代为书写上诉书并交到中院董玮法官手里（说明：此时陆的身份是阮晓寰妻付费聘请的一身辩护律师） ，过了几天中院联系他去看守所会见阮晓寰并签了二审辩护委托协议（一审法官为何介入二审辩护律师事宜？）。 陆说由于阮晓寰是在押状态，所以委托协议在“付费方式”处标注力“法律援助”。
2023年3月14日，贝震颖再次致电须梅华，要求解决对法援的质疑。 须梅华说不是她一个人能决定的，她会汇报。
2023年3月15日，贝震颖联系法律援助中心，因为家属已经请了辩护律师而要求解除法援律师。 工作人员说那就不指派法援了，让家属委托的律师直接工作就可以了。 贝震颖坚持要法援律师解除书，因为看守所需要。他稍后回电。 几小时后，回电说阮晓寰案子特殊，法律援助是“通知案件”，而不是“申请案件”，是上海高院发公函要求法律援助，并且是法院、检察院、公安一起指定的2名法援辩护律师。法援中心不能撤销，要让高院撤销。
2023年3月16日，因无法联系到须梅华法官，贝震颖委托的律所将辩护委托书等手续用顺丰寄给须梅华，单号从略，2023年3月17日上午，上海高院签收。2023年3月17日下午，贝震颖致电须梅华，要求按诉讼法解释第51条给予被告对辩护律师的选择权。须梅华推脱。
贝震颖多次致电12368投诉须梅华，要求：1.撤销法律援助，2.如果用法援是阮晓寰选择后自己的意愿，提供阮晓寰在清楚知晓家属已请了尚宝军、莫少平2位辩护律师而仍然选择法律援助的阮晓寰签名的书面证据（派单号：003283406，003286982）。一直没有须梅华对此的回复。
上述事实均有书面或录音证据。须梅华身为承办法官，对家属合法要求置之不理；利用“法律援助”名义指定2名辩护律师，渎职并侵害被告的辩护权，干扰司法公正。同时，涉嫌通过一审律师骗取在押被告签署二审委托和所谓的“被告自己要求法律援助”以侵占辩护席位。请求彻查纠正。尽快撤出侵占辩护席位的2名法援律师，让家属委托的辩护律师得以行驶被告的合法辩护权利。
投诉人：贝震颖（被告阮晓寰妻子），联系手机： 2023年3月 日（日期没有填写）
英文翻译
“Programming Thoughts” Letter of complaint from Ruan Xiaohuan’s wife Bei Zhenying to the Shanghai Higher People’s Court
To Shanghai Higher People’s Court
Complaint object: Criminal Department of Shanghai Higher People’s Court, Xu Meihua
Reason for complaint: Judge Zuoli was negligent in his duties, violated the defendant’s legal defense rights and was suspected of cheating (Case No.: 2023 Shanghai Penalty Final No. 15)
The defendant Ruan Xiaohuan is in custody. In the first instance, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court initiated a public prosecution. The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court opened the case for trial on October 13, 2021. The verdict was publicly announced on February 10, 2023. The judgment (2021) Shanghai 02 Xingchu No. 67. On February 17, 2023, Judge Dong Ling of the first instance called Ruan’s wife, Bei Zhenying, and informed Ruan Xiaohuan that she would go to the detention center to submit an appeal on February 10, 2023, and entrust lawyer Lu, who is a defense attorney, to appeal. Bei Zhenying made it clear that she would hire another lawyer. As a second instance defense. Bei Zhenying signed a defense entrustment agreement with two lawyers, Shang Baojun and Mo Shaoping, on February 20. Later, lawyer Shang Baojun contacted Judge Dong of the first instance. The judge said that during the transfer of the case to the Shanghai Higher People’s Court, lawyer Shang Baojun was asked to go to the Shanghai Higher People’s Court to review the files.
On February 22, 2023, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court filed the case (Case No.: 2023 Shanghai Xingzhong No. 15), and on February 28, the judge assigned to the case, Xu Meihua, was appointed. Afterwards, lawyer Shang Baojun called many times but was always unable to contact Judge Xu Meihua. Lawyer Shang Baojun made an appointment to meet at the detention center on the morning of March 9, 2023. When he arrived on time, he was told by the detention center that the Shanghai Higher People’s Court had appointed two legal aid lawyers, so he was not allowed to meet. Bei Zhenying contacted the detention center and asked for a meeting with lawyer Shang Baojun. The detention center said that they had received an official letter from the Shanghai Higher People’s Court notifying them of a legal aid lawyer, and that they could only arrange it if the Shanghai Higher People’s Court revoked the legal aid.
On the morning of March 13, 2023, Bei Zhenying contacted Judge Xu Meihua on the phone and learned that the second-instance legal aid lawyer appointed the first-instance defense lawyer Lu, and added another lawyer from Lu Law Firm. Ruan Xiaohuan’s wife informed that on February 20, 2023, she had hired a separate defense lawyer for the second trial and did not need legal aid. Xu Meihua just repeated: Ruan Xiaohuan himself wants “legal aid”, he wants two, and Ruan Xiaohuan’s own wishes must be respected. Because what Ruan Xiaohuan “wanted” here was the defense lawyer hired by the family in the first trial, Bei Zhenying suspected that Ruan Xiaohuan did not know that the family had hired another defense lawyer, and she had strong doubts about Ruan Xiaohuan’s true wishes as stated by Xu Meihua. Sumeihua finally said that she knew about the situation and would go to the detention center to ask about it and see again in a few days. Bei Zhenying hoped to clarify as soon as possible, but Xu Meihua said not so soon.
On March 13, 2023, Bei Zhenying called the first-instance lawyer Lu to learn about the situation. Lu said: He met with Ruan Xiaohuan on February 13, 2023 to write a letter of appeal on his behalf and handed it to Judge Dong Wei of the Intermediate People’s Court (Note: At this time, Lu’s identity was the paid defense lawyer hired by Ruan Xiaohuan’s wife). A few days later, The court contacted him to go to the detention center to meet Ruan Xiaohuan and sign a second-instance defense entrustment agreement (why did the first-instance judge intervene in the second-instance defense lawyer matter?). Lu said that because Ruan Xiaohuan was in custody, the entrustment agreement marked “legal aid” in the “payment method”.
On March 14, 2023, Bei Zhenying called Xu Meihua again and asked to resolve the doubts about legal aid. Xumeihua said it was not her decision alone and she would report it.
On March 15, 2023, Bei Zhenying contacted the legal aid center and requested that the legal aid lawyer be dismissed because the family had already hired a defense lawyer. The staff said that they would not assign legal aid and just let the lawyers entrusted by the family work directly. Bei Zhenying insisted on getting a release letter from a legal aid lawyer because the detention center needed it. He called back later. A few hours later, I called back and said that Ruan Xiaohuan’s case was special and that legal aid was a “notification case” rather than an “application case”. The Shanghai High Court issued an official letter requesting legal aid, and two legal aid defenders were appointed by the court, procuratorate, and public security. lawyer. The Legal Aid Center cannot be revoked and must be revoked by the High Court.
On March 16, 2023, because Judge Xu Meihua could not be contacted, the law firm entrusted by Bei Zhenying sent the defense letter of attorney and other procedures to Xu Meihua by SF Express, with the tracking number omitted. On the morning of March 17, 2023, Signed by the Shanghai High Court. On the afternoon of March 17, 2023, Bei Zhenying called Xu Meihua and requested that the defendant be given the right to choose a defense lawyer in accordance with Article 51 of the Interpretation of the Procedural Law. Xu Meihua shirks.
Bei Zhenying called 12368 many times to complain to Xu Meihua, requesting: 1. Withdrawal of legal aid; 2. If Ruan Xiaohuan chose to use legal aid according to his own wishes, provide evidence that Ruan Xiaohuan knew that his family had invited Shang Baojun and Mo Shaoping 2 Written evidence signed by Ruan Xiaohuan, a defense lawyer who still chose legal aid (dispatch number: 003283406, 003286982). There has been no reply from Xu Meihua.
There is written or audio recording evidence for the above facts. As the presiding judge, Xu Meihua ignored the legitimate demands of the family; he appointed two defense lawyers in the name of “legal aid”, derelict in his duties, violated the defendant’s right to defense, and interfered with judicial justice. At the same time, it is suspected that the first-instance lawyer defrauded the detained defendant into signing a second-instance commission and the so-called “defendant himself requested legal aid” to usurp the defense seat. Request a thorough investigation and correction. The two legal aid lawyers who occupied the defense seats should be withdrawn as soon as possible so that the defense lawyers entrusted by the family can exercise the defendant’s legal defense rights.
Complainant: Bei Zhenying (wife of defendant Ruan Xiaohuan), contact mobile phone: March 2023 (date not filled in)