第一篇判辭可以看得出,陳振聰在正審之前轉換了多間律師事務所,不單只用了很多冤枉錢,也影響了抗辯準備。當然,他的錢冤枉來瘟疫去,他分別人身家,他給人分身家,也是報應。從這角度看,龔如心又何嘗不是?
這一篇我沒有遐想,遐想恐怕要留給陳振聰,或者他可以寫獄中書簡,争產案秘辛之類的書,這類書可以改篇成舞臺劇或者拍成電影,又可撈一筆。
原審法官Andrew Macrae,是Nancy Kissel 案重審的法官(我寫了3篇: 奶昔謀殺案 、再談奶昔謀殺案 、三談奶昔謀殺案) ,Nancy Kissel 案在重審正審之前,以得不到公平審訊為理由申請永久終止聆訊,Macrae 駁回申請,判辭寫得十分漂亮,使標少拜服。陳振聰這件案原本也撥出20天作法律争拗,很有可能是永久終止聆訊申請,因為陳振聰嫌資深大律師胡漢清收費太貴,他負擔不起,申請押後又不獲批,陣前易帥,策略也改變了,不作正審前法律争拗,縮短了整件案審訊的時間。縱使陳振聰下流無恥,他攫取不義之財,面對刑事審訊,他同樣要獲公平對待。代表他的律師事務所,有些犯了專業失當,另外,面對香港傳媒鋪天蓋地對他唾罵,他何來公評審訊?
acordding information from news paper,do you think any judge dare to convict him with those evidence ?
回覆刪除Don't quite know what you meant. It is a jury trial anyway. The decision of guilt or innocence is in the hand of the jury. If it is a single judge to decide, I believe most of them will convict him. He is too notorious to let go. It is a finding of fact and does not involve any point of law. So easy to convict. I may run a different defence if I in the defence team, portraying a different picture.
刪除