Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A21-C1
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号:A21-C1

Release Date: July 14, 2003
发布日:2003年7月14日

Topic: Attorney Zhang SiZhi: "Notes from the Wei Jingsheng Case"
标题:在中共的法庭上有一群替民运人士辩护的正义律师(张思之:《魏京生案辩护纪实断篇》)

Original Language Version: Chinese
(English at beginning, Chinese version at the end)
Please visit our website if you have problem to read Chinese in this issue
此号以中文为准(英文在前,中文在后)



Editor's words:

In the spring of 1998, I was detained by the secret police in China,
a harrowing experience that I surely hoped would never happened to
me and will not happen to anyone.  When my sister found out about it,
she went to the top lawyer who was well respected in our city, Hefei,
a metropolitan area of several hundred thousand inhabitants.  She
did not know much of the reason for my detention besides my support
for the 1989 democracy movement in China and my involvement in
transferring a lot of humanitarian donations to the June 4 massacre
victims and families over the years.  The lawyer was very sympathetic
to me and the 1989 movement, but told her that there is no way for
him to get involved, for "there is no way to defend yourself against
the Chinese government, and I do not want to get into trouble myself
either."

Knowing that I could be charged with the crime of "damaging the
national security" with the prospect of anywhere from 3 years to
life or even the death penalty, I had the most horrifying days in my
life for refusing to cooperate, including signing a confession.  I
have been "punished" ever since as promised by the Chinese government. 
Knowing how tough it was, I would never blame the many who had to
sign the confessions, for I could only blame the Chinese Communists
for the brutality without humanitarian consideration.  And I would
not blame most lawyers who would refuse the case, for the Chinese
government made their state power over the legal system.

So, when I read Attorney Zhang SiZhi's note about his defense for Wei
Jingsheng, I recalled my own case and found great respect for this man.
Nevertheless, I found out I have been living in a free world for so
long that I just could not write in the same fashion as he did; for
example, "in the city that suffered the huge earthquake 20 years ago"
(relative to the year of 1996) instead of a direct reference to
"Tang Shan".  And I remember the beautiful yet sad poem that was
quoted by Zhang SiZhi in the middle of his note.  It was written by
Lu You a millennium ago to describe the tragic separation of life
and death.  Attorney Zhang quoted the end of one paragraph as "No!
No! No!" but not the end of the other paragraph in parallel:
"(It is) wrong! wrong! wrong!"

In 1998, I had a tough time to accept that I was facing the possibility
of a death penalty, so I have great admiration for those people who
faced it without surrendering themselves such as Wei Jingsheng.  Nevertheless, Attorney Zhang surely won another layer of my admiration for his determination
to defend a person that is not defendable in Communist China.  He
surely has won for these cases that surely would be lost.  He struggled
his way for the rights of the human rights defenders.  He represents
the conscience of the Chinese lawyers.  On the way toward Chinese
democracy, they are the essential elements.

-- Ciping Huang


This editor recommends the following article to our readers, although its contents do not represent either Mr. WEI Jingsheng or the Wei Jingsheng Foundation's opinion or stand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Notes from the Wei Jingsheng Case"
-- Attorney with Conscience at the Court of the Communist Party

Note: In communist China anyone who defends a dissident must have intellectual
quality and courage.  According one such lawyer in private, they do not fear a Mafia-type reprisal, but fear a systematic machine that disregards the spirit and procedure of the law.

A lawyer who defended June 4, 1989 dissidents expresses the opinion to reporters that older defense lawyers have weathered the political upheavals, so they have a different outlook. In short, they emphasize more the relationship of human dignity and the law.

Zhang Sizhi is an esteemed figure in Chinese law. He has defended the infamous "Gang of Four". He also defended Wei Jingsheng and Bao Tan.  After this fiercely independent lawyer defended Bao Tan, the Justice Department revoked the license that he needs to practice law - his livelihood. Then, when a judiciary group planed to visit the USA, it was known that the Americans would ask about Zhang's license.  Zhang was asked if the Americans do ask about his license, could they
reply that he has the license?  Zhang insisted that they tell the truth.  Otherwise he would issue a rebuttal.  So Zhang's license was reinstated.

There is another irony. After Zhang's defense of Wei Jingsheng ended in conviction, the government wanted to honor Zhang with a commendation.  Zhang refused.

Zhang is the Chair of the Beijing Law Consultancy, Vice-chair and Secretary General of the Beijing Bar Association, professor of the Chinese Politics and Law University, professor of Central Broadcasting University, Chief editor of "Chinese Lawyer" Journal, and Researcher of the Taiwan Legal Research Institute.

----------------------------------------

ZHANG SIZHI: "NOTES FROM THE WEI JINGSHENG CASE"

Rumor has it that Wei Jingsheng would again be indicted. There is no confirmation. Not sure if it involves politics.

Shortly after Wei's release, Mr. S, an old friend from the law consultancy, called that Wei wanted to appeal the injustice. I replied that Wei was on parole, not release. The reason for parole is to give an opportunity to repent.  Appeal is a right.  It is not too late to appeal after serving the sentence.

I don't know much about Wei - I only know about him on the Democracy Wall. I don't know why he did not take my advice. Unfortunately I anticipated what happened to Wei.

Foreign news reported that the former head of the French Department of Justice and others were forming a law group to come to China to defend Wei.  It is pointless to assess the motive.  As everyone knows there are matters that transcend international boundaries.  Some don't.  Even though these people are experts in their field, it is questionable whether they are permitted to practice law in China. It is just a publicity gesture. Their hypocrisy has hurt the feelings of the 80,000 Chinese lawyers.

Professor P called, conveying the sincere wish of Wei's family for me to defend him.  At the same time, One of Wei's family members came to my residence with a woman friend.  There was no way out.  I stressed two points:
1. if the case has not been filed, lawyer can't get involved;
2. I need a younger lawyer, Mr. Li to work with me. His consent must be obtained immediately. 

The next day they found out that the case was filed.  We formalized the representation on December 7.

I had previously scheduled to fly to the Northeast on another case.  That provoked some anxiety.  I explained that when the court receives a representation authorization, it arranges to make the case files available and a meeting with the defendant, and then sets the date for the trial.

There should not be any 'action' with 8 days.  Yet something unexpected occurred.

The afternoon of the 9th, while in Dalian I heard that Wei's case was scheduled in 3 days.  After phoning Mr. Li, I got to Sheng Yang city airport as fast as I could, worrying about a case that we knew nothing of as yet.

I Called after I landed to find out the court date was the morning of the 13th.  The court has instructed that before the court date we could not meet the defendant and the files would not be available.  The next day, in conference, the court demanded:
1. no innocent plea;
2. complete black out.

The schedule can't be changed. The Wei family previously engaged attorney Q who had read the files and met with Wei.  Now the change of lawyers made it hard for scheduling.  The court can't be blamed for that.

I responded that it was hard for us to fulfill our duties and that I would persuade the family not to change lawyers, or the trial can proceed with no lawyer.

The Justice Department official said: it might not look good if Wei has no lawyer.  That according to Attorney Q, Wei admitted most charges. So it might not take too much time.  We need to consider the appearance.

My reaction was: what does it mean by "appearance"? Does it mean that it affects the image of the Chinese legal system?  China is a sovereign state. No one can interfere with China's internal affairs.

I concluded that these decisions were set by higher up and could not be changed.  So Mr. Li and I immediately went to the Intermediate Court in the western suburbs and accepted the case.  The time was December 11, 11:45 am.

After a hasty lunch we went to meet Wei, accompanied by a Justice Department woman as "recorder".  I urgently wanted to know the details of what charges Wei had admitted.

At 2:20 pm we met Wei, who, with a slight smile said that he had waited for us for 2 days.  After he signed the representation authorization, Wei calmly, clearly and thoroughly denied item by item the charges in the indictment.  All through this process, he was calm, had great grasp of the issues in depth.  He left no doubt of his innocence.  All charges in the indictment had no factual credibility.

We had no opportunity to read his files.  So we advised him to be very careful in court testimony.  I did not explain that article 103 in his indictment was a trap to punish him severely, fearing that would put too much pressure, making him nervous and tense.  In less than 40 hours I realized that I underestimate my client! I should not have to worry.

Our meeting lasted less than 2 hours. Wei told us that he wrote a defense outline for Attorney Q for his advise.  Wei hoped that we could have that outline as reference with his revision.  The woman who accompanied us immediately called and requested the return of that outline.

At 4:15 pm our meeting was over. When we said goodbye, Wei said: I love to smoke.  Please bring some cigarettes next time you come. There was a slight smile on his face.  We were certain that we had built a strong bond between us, with some degree of trust.

I reached 3 conclusions at this meeting. Wei is an intellectual type person.  He pursues the democratic ideal that every human longs for. For that he suffered inordinate punishment and sacrifices.  He accepted his fate with equanimity, without caring of himself. This naturally gave me a good impression of him.

Leaving the prison we went to the courthouse. For "security" cases like this one, we had to rent a room to read the files. There was only about half a year between Wei's release and re-arrest.  What we did not expect was that there were 12 files and 1900 plus pages - some in tiny characters.

We had only about 24 hours to read them.  We also had another appointment to meet the officials in the Justice Department tomorrow (the 12th) before dinner. Even speed-reading could not do.  We could only selectively read the major points.  In the cold, heatless room, we just had to do the best we could.

At 5 pm the next day we asked to copy some of the important material.  It was approved with quite high cost.  However, we neglected to check the copies.  Later we found that the important pages were not copied.

Some of the less important pages were copies several times to make up the thickness volume.  It was already very late at night. We've learned another trick.

At 6 pm on the 12th we conferred with officials of the Justice Department on the next day's court procedure, not having completed the review of all the files.  I was asked to present a summary of strategy. I replied that before complete review of the files, I couldn't make such a presentation.

The conversation focused on one point. The official insisted that there was no doubt about the charges.  Why then do we need a defense? We asked if Wei's thoughts under detention could be considered Counter-Revolutionary? No response.
The president of the Bar Association opined: it is not permissible to use lawyers as the "second prosecutor"; and that "we must be responsible to history".  I whole-heartedly agree.  During dinner, I publicly declared: In court first thing I must constantly remember I am a lawyer.

Our problem focused on the instruction we received from the court: "do not plea innocent".

We had been running without pause for several days.  Finally my partner and I had a few hours before we had to go to court.

First we discussed the discovery process.  Then we reviewed the evidence sections.  Then we formulated the defense strategy.  Regrettably, the omissions on the copy made it difficult to review the whole picture.

That we could only remedy on appeal.  At dawn we reported to the Justice Department and the court on our reparation and our difficulties. They also were under orders and pressure from their superiors. Hopefully there would be improvement in the future.

On the morning of December 13 it was snowing.  As we approached the court, we saw a heavy presence of police. We must present our credentials before being let through. I'll never understand so much security just for one Wei Jingsheng.

There were about 24 seats for an audience in a small courtroom. About 20 people were present.  Besides Wei's brother and sister, there were representatives from "related departments" who had double duty to "pay attention" and "monitor".

There was closed circuit TV where the important officials were watching from outside.

The trial started at 9am; there were very strict rules for the attendees: no talking and watching here and there.  I did not know how this affected Wei who still had a relaxed smile.  He appeared to be clam and truthful, even under sharp questioning.  What surprised me was that he fully understood that the application of Article 103 was to sentence him to the death penalty.  At one point he asked the prosecutor: just because of these things, are you planning to sentence me to death?  There was no response.  The smile remained on his face.  The conviction was deemed "sufficient evidence, correct application of facts and correct application of law (charges)". That Wei's action stimulated sufficient seditious actions to overthrow the government".

Wei's defense arguments were eloquent and to the point. The request for defendant's witness was denied. The "clear and serious" 4 points were:
1. Since the sentence of 1979, Wei has not repented, insisting on his counter-revolutionary ideas.
2. Using "struggle for human rights" as an excuse to further a hidden agenda.
3. Published articles overseas, deliberately defamed the government, creating bad image for China.
4. Wei repeatedly committed the same crimes.

Not only did these points lack common sense, they lacked legality.  Wei testified to his mental state during the parole period.  He also testified to his promotion of democratic ideals, his hope of raising the cultural and social understanding.  He thought that the error of the prosecution is to misinterpret the evidence and his actions.

His 10 points of defense:
1. There was no "action plan".  Prosecution misinterprets the evidence.
2. Prosecution interpreted economic, social, and non-political activities as plans to overthrow the government.
3. To call labor organizing as plans to "overthrow the government" is laughable.
4. Compiling the victim list as a humanitarian act. It has nothing to with "overthrowing the government".
5. The bank account was to deposit funds for the benefit of the victims - no political motive.
6. Must accurately understand my motive. I have no illegal motive to overthrow the government.
7. Accusing Wang Dan and I of secretly "appealing to the US government to apply pressure" is not correct.  To appeal for the withdrawal of the "Most Favored Nation" status was not my idea.  That can be verified.
8. "Promoted Tibet as 'a sovereign nation' thus splitting the motherland" is not true. The purpose of my writing to Deng Xiaoping in 1992 on Tibet was to avoid the separation, exactly opposite to the charge.
9.  Publishing articles overseas was officially approved. It was emphasized that there would be no interference. How can that be a "crime"?
10. The main point is that the prosecutor confused "democracy" and "overthrow of the government". The two terms were interchanged. 

I am for democracy.

I presented the summation. Under this condition, the lawyer could not say what needed to be said.  The only points we can argue were the facts, and that some of Wei's writings were quoted out of context to convict him.

Let's quote the judgment:
China's "culture (educated) class" numbers several millions. Adding to it their supporters would reach 100 millions. The defendant's writings manifest a tendency to erode faith in government rule". I just could not believe Wei's writings were childish ideas that can erode the rule of government.  By then I realized that all the allegation could not stand for truth.

The court was interrupted for 40 some minutes because Wei got ill.  Wei was convicted at 1:45pm that afternoon.  There was no doubt that Wei was found guilty before the beginning of the trial.  The verdict was set beforehand.   Such a rush proved my suspicions that there was a direct order from the superior that it will be conducted and finished really quick, including any upcoming appeal.

Wei did not show any emotion on learning of the verdict.  His brother and sister were more emotional.  When he past his siblings, he nodded his head slightly.  His sister was in tears. 

To avoid the media and the suspicion of leaking "state secrets" we hid in a nameless hotel and continued to work for 50 some hours. This case was a world renown one.  We were not able to make any difference. The Wei siblings thanked us and asked us to consider an appeal.  We felt helpless and the futility of appeal.  How could we solve the dilemma? 

To such a case, I can not say (what in this one thousand year old ancient Chinese poem):  "No! No! No!".  Then, I would not worry to say "difficult! Difficult! Difficult!"

We knew that the overseas media clamored to interview us, the lawyers.  We ignored requests for interviews.  We did not do that to avoid "leaking State Secrets".  Three days later the prosecution called a press conference for the overseas media.  So there was no "secret" to leak.

What I worried was the media bias due to their own concept, ignorant of our culture and social conditions.

I was in the capital of the Southern province that first started the reform.  I read the headline of December 16 "Dai Kung Bao".  The title: "The Legal Basis of Wei Jingsheng's Conviction" - in big, red characters. It was a Q and A report of the prosecutor and the judge.  I seldom read this paper, so I don't know their fairness in reporting.  It was reported that the lawyers waited until the 10th to read files and meet Wei.  The excuse was the Wei family changed lawyers and the family had unexplained reasons for the delay that resulted in insufficient time for preparing a defense.

There was an overseas reporter asking if there was sufficient time for defense preparation.  I would like to respond: what do you think? But I did not have the luxury of facing the reporter. 

At the meantime, there have been many concerns and support from friends, near and far, filled with sincerity and deep feeling. Besides from friends in San Jose and Taiwan, a 92-year old, a teacher and the mother of a close friend, called saying "people will remember your work".  I cried.  Another respectable law expert also at his 90's, held my hands and told me that I need to learn to protect myself.  To receive such valuable trust and encouragement after 50 hours of hard work was so comforting.

It gave to my life a new excitement, reinforcing my professional integrity.  The day after the first trial, the already typed court verdict was sent to Wei's hands.  While he expressed his willingness to "appeal", he also demanded to meet with his attorney.  On the next day, the clerk of the collegiate bench transmitted his request.

During our second meeting, he started to smokee from the beginning until we said good bye.

During our conversation, according to the standard procedure, I asked him about his opinion on the attorney's work.  However, he didn't want to touch this subject but said: "this is expected, if it did not happen in this way, how it could end?  However," Then he changed the topic. "According to my observation, when I was speaking, the public prosecutor was shocked.

He used what I wrote for attorney Q to deal with me, but he did not expect that I had made lots of changes." He slyly winked his eyes and said "so he missed his target."

He was a bit complacent, explaining that he does not care how the final verdict is going to be.

About appealing, we reached some common understandings at first: even if it is just a standard procedure, we have to be serious, conscientiously exercising every right that the law entrusts.  Put out the evidence; make the truth clear. I have proposed two suggestions for him.

One was to insist to call the witnesses to the court, especially those who had a direct importance with details of the case.  Another one is, though the second trial will not take place, it can't erase the defendant's essential right to give a statement. In addition, before exercising this right, it is important to listen and understand prosecutor's accusation. 

According to the material that was seen later, he adopted these suggestions.  Before we separated, I explained to him that in order to avoid the media, I will be leaving Beijing for a while, but will be back for the second trial.

I got back to Beijing at dusk on December 23rd, ahead of time according to legal appeal time limits.  Soon, two judges for the second trail came and asked me earnestly and repeatedly to see the court presiding judge as soon as possible.  So I asked whether he would open the court for the trial.  He answered that "I can not speak about it, it seems that it may not be fixed yet."  Now I understood it was just a show, the lawyer must be kept away from the decision.  It was very clear in fact, that there will be no second trial at all. Who will agree to give again one more chance for Wei to express his opinion?

Late at night, I met with all participants of the second trial.  The presiding judge went straight forward; she said the timing is too tight, and hoped to receive my cooperation. She frankly delivered the bottom line; there will be no court session for the second trial.  Therefore hoped to receive the lawyer's written defense text on the 27th.  She used a very serious tongue to tell me that she would consider earnestly a lawyer's opinion.  I agreed to give to her a draft by the 27th, and the formal text right after.

I met with Wei on the afternoon of the 25th for the third time and explained to him what he should expect.  I finished the defending text over night on the 26th according to the request, and delivered it on the 27th. 

As I delivered the final text, I received at the same time the notice of verdict for the next day at 9 am.  "This is the real plan".  I should expect that.  However, I understood that as I pictured, the trial will conclude before the end of the year.  The case is under the second instance, all the texts are at the court, but the judgment will not be made by the second instance.  Having no approval from the authority at the highest level, who can make the Wei case? Who dares to make the Wei case?

Afterward, I learned that Wei's final statement was delivered to the court on the 27th too, and can only be there waiting quietly for history to inspect.  A person who is taking the safeguarding of human rights as his own duty, could not even protect his own legal rights. Is it an irony or tragedy? 

The statement made during the second instance had only taken about ten minutes.  The judge read out the already drawn up verdict.  The judgment remains.  Wei is still that calm.  The only difference with the previous hearing is: he seemed eagerly to see his family members this time!

After the final verdict, at the office of attorney Li, I discussed with Wei's brother and sister about the issue of "appeal".  We concluded that it is the right thing to do.  As far as how to do it, Wei's opinion shall be listened to.
January 3rd, 1996, we met for the fourth time with Wei Jingsheng.  Regarding the appeal, it appeared that he had planed it, he asked us to take full charge of it.
During the conversation, I also discussed with him about the future 14 prison years.  I don't doubt any more that this case contains densely political factors.  He might be a kind of political bargaining chip.

Because of this fact, I have asked him if it is possible one day he will be forced to leave the country as Wang Juntao was?  He did not answer the question directly, but rather told a story.  "After June 4, 1989, the government expressly abdicated a way to let a professor find shelter in the American embassy, and then settled the condition and let him leave to the US.  I do not praise the attitude and method that he took.  The worst that can happen is to lose one's head; someone who organizes pro-democratic movements needn't afraid of it.  We lost a flagship due to this exit."

I appreciate the point of his story.  I asked him further, "if your health condition worsens, and a possibility for out side treatment exists, would you consider it"?  Wei answered, "This kind of situation is a little complicated; I can only act according to circumstances.  I know once I leave, it would be difficult to come back"!

At that time, we could not know that at the supreme level of the leadership, someone had said "some think Wei's level is high and wants him to go out, but we just don't"!

July 11th, 1996, the appeal from Wei's brother and sister was rejected by the Beijing High Court.  The fate of Wei's ownn appeal could be expected to be parallel.

This spring, Wei's family members sent me an article, with a very striking topic: it is "I, Wei Jingsheng, an exhibition of China, Japan and S. Korea fine arts". It was authored by Huang Yue, and published in Hong Kong's "1990's" in February 1996.  This exhibition is one of Wei's crimes, though it is totally irrelevant, and such a conviction would be the first in the history.

In Huang's article, several sentences show the truth.  "At the end of 1993, a Tokyo based gallery organized the "Star 15 Years" exhibition.  The organizer was a friend to me and other Chinese artists.  At the end of 94, I went back to Beijing with the original plan.  I contacted Wei because I know he wants to do something in the Art world. And, I want him to be involved in the Arts in order to escape from political risks.  He liked it, and told me do not use his name until the opening of the exhibition.  Wei drafted the Chinese version for the purpose of the exhibition and did not get involved since.

In March, I had lost contact with him; one day however, he called me from a hotel to tell me to continue with the exhibition, although there were police around him".

This is the story about the exhibition, the alleged crime.  After having read Huang's article, everything is lucid.  Where is the crime?

Due to our inability to investigate, we failed to bring the full and accurate materials in court, thus were unable to make the case against the persecutor's false accusation. This is unpardonable. To summarizing the lesson, during a trial, it is essential to give the defendant's attorney abundant time.  Now that Wei's trial is over, my job as the attorney ends too, and he is at a labor camp in the city that suffered the huge earthquake 20 years ago, where the quiet patch of life appears different than his personal character.

I am not a scholar, I am not a historian, I just want to be a qualified lawyer.  I must practice according to the noble quotation by Hu ShiZhi: "To keep the right, to correct the wrong.  To defend the wrongfully accused. To expose the faked and untruthful."  Although the affair has ended, yet more time to discuss it will come, so this is only the first part.

Zhang, SiZhi
August 1, 1996

 

 

标题:在中共的法庭上有一群替民运人士辩护的正义律师(张思之:《魏京生案辩护纪实断篇》)

Original Language Version: Chinese
(English at beginning, Chinese version at the end)
Please visit our website if you have problem to read Chinese in this issue
此号以中文为准(英文在前,中文在后)

The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China.  We appreciate your assistance and help in any means.

We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic
governance on this planet. 

You are welcome to use or distribute this release.  However, please credit with
this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org)

魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。

我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址:
www.weijingsheng.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

编者按:

一九九八年我被国安部扣押。此间的一切是任何人都不会希望发生在自己的头上的。当我的姐姐了解到这一情况后,她找到了一位合肥很有名气的律师。她并不清楚有关案情,只知与学自联给八九年的六四受害者及家属的人道捐助有关。那位律师很同情我及八九民运,但他拒绝了。他告诉我姐姐:反正是打不赢的,还会给他自己找来麻烦。

审讯我的人说他们可以以"危害国家安全罪"起诉我,这可以判三年以至于无期徒刑,甚至是死刑。我不想死,可也不肯写"保证书"。虽说总算出来了,但因此吃苦头至今。这一道关口实在是难,我知道很多人写过"保证书",可我不会责怪他们,是残无人道的中共太卑鄙。我也知道大多数律师不会也不敢接这种案子,我也不责怪他们,因为中共的国家机器是凌驾于法制之上的。

我自身的经历使得我对张思之为魏京生辩护敬佩有加。但毕竟在一个自由社会生活久了,我会注意到他的那些答案很明显的"谜语"。 比如说:"(距张写笔记的一九九六年是)二十年前发生了大地震的城市"。 那当是唐山莫属了。而我记得陆游一千年前写的那美丽而哀婉的钗头凤里另一段词是以"错!错!错!"来对应那"莫!莫!莫!"的。张先生则用了"难!难!难!"

一九九八年的折磨使我对那些面对死亡却坦然处置的英雄肃然起敬。而读完张思之先生的笔记,我看到,他在这场必输的官司里打的是一场胜仗。他为强势之下的人权捍卫者争得一份权利。他代表着在中国的那些正义的律师的良心。在中国走向民主的过程中,我们缺不了他们。

-- 黄慈萍


以下为编者向您们推荐的文章。文中作者的观点并不代表本基金会或魏京生先生本人的观点与立场。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

在中共的法庭上有一群替民运人士辩护的正义律师
《魏京生案辩护纪实断篇》张思之 一九九六年八月一日


注:在中国为异议分子辩护,不仅需要智慧,更需要的是勇气,一位曾经为异议分子当过辩护律师的人私下表示,他们所面对的不是来自黑社会的报复,而是要面对像米兰.昆德拉笔下的那种极端藐视法律的国家机器。

一位曾为六.四异议分子当过辩护的律师对记者表示,上年纪的律师经过的政治风波无数,对人生的领悟和年轻律师不同,简单的说,老律师比年轻律师更在乎法律与人性尊严的对等。
  
张思之在中国法学界享有教父般的地位。他曾为恶贯满盈的四人帮和著名异议分子魏京生、鲍彤等人辩护过,这位不惧权势的律师在为鲍彤辩护完毕後,司法部拒绝让他注册其赖以为生的律师证。後来的发展很富戏
剧性,一个中国的司法代表团要访问美国,有人知道美国方面一定会问张思之的律师资格问题,就去问张思之,说如果美国人问起你,我们就说你的律师资格没被取消如何?张思之则坚决不答应,说如果代表团发表上述谈话,他一定会提出反驳。结果,司法部不得不恢复张思之的律师资格。
  
说来讽刺,即使打压张思之,但中共司法部竟然在张思之替魏京生打完那场必败的官司之後,颁了一个诸如配合政府之类的政府奖给张思之,张思之断然拒绝接受。
  
他,就是北京市法律顾问处主任、律师协会副会长兼秘书长、中国政法大学兼职教授、中央广播大学法律专业主讲教师、《中国律师》杂志主编、台湾法律研究所兼职研究员、中国律师界的头号人物张思之先生。

----------------------------------------

张思之:《魏京生案辩护纪实断篇》

  道路传闻,魏京生又将因案交付审判。未得确息,无法判断其中是否
杂有政治?

  忆他被假释出狱不久,老友法学所的s兄来电,说魏以其案冤想委托我代理申诉。我回答说:请转告魏,他还在「假释」期间,得明白并不是「真」释。假释的基本条件是有悔改表现,申诉喊冤证明没有认罪,也谈不上悔改,这样,弄不好就会来个「二进宫」。申诉是一种权利,刑满之後再来行使不迟。

  对魏,我不认识。除一九七九年西单民主墙那段事迹外,对他的情况知之甚少。但不知何故总预感到他听不进那番劝告。

  然而看来事有不幸,被我料中了;尽管那由头绝非为了「申诉」。

  外电频传,以法国前司法部长为马首的一些境外法界人士,近日不断声明:将远渡重洋,来华为魏案辩护,并有组织「律师团」之议。

  人们没有理由也不应该去审查这位部长的动机。但在我看来,他们实在没有必要如此虚张声势;因为他不会不明白,当今之世,哪些问题,确无国界,哪些事务,国界既清晰又严格。他虽曾充任法国部长但根本没有
资格故不能出席中国法庭为被告人辩护,难道还用细说麽?这是他们的事,可不去议论;但心头又不免隐隐觉得:他们的「虚张」却实实在在地损伤了我们的职业自尊:您将中国八万律师置於何地?

P教授来电,魏的亲属托他找我「出山」作辩护律师。语气恳切诚挚,至盼不会推辞。几乎是同时,他介绍魏的家人另偕一位女友来舍面谈辩护诸事。情势逼人,似已无商量与讨论的馀地。此事始料不及,毫无思想准备。我在接受时附加了两点说明:
第一, 要尽快弄清案子是否已经正式起诉,如未起诉,按规定律师还不能介入;
第二,依据规定和工作需要,推荐一位年轻朋友棗李会更律师同我合作,应请尽早徵得他的同意。

  委托人於次日从法院获悉确已起诉,他们马不停蹄立即去律师事务所办妥正式委托手续。时为十二月七日。

  我因事早已排定於七日夜飞赴东北,会更恰好有案同行。委托人耽心误事,表示出疑虑,想劝我不走,又难以启齿。我冷静地向他们分析了情况:法官会在收到律师事务所函告正式受托的公文後,通知我们阅卷和会
见被告的具体日期,通常还应留出律师进行调查的时间,尔後才会开庭审理,按常规八天之内不会有什麽「动静」。我作了「不会误事」的许诺。再也没料到,我在这里竟然又冒了一通傻气!

  天不难测,讼事难测。这是无情的现实。

  十二月九日下午在大连得到北京信息,说魏案将於三天之内开庭,法院急著找律师进行工作。疑信参半,为稳妥计,也只好宁可信其为有了。

  我与会更通话後,连夜从大连沿高速路直奔沈阳机场。万一机票售缺,沿铁路南下也能保证於十日驰返。上苍不负人的苦心,在机场购得头等舱票。一路盘算著这椿到现在还「一无所知」的案子,茫无头绪。

  下机即与事务所联系;得到的信息竟是:法院已通知十三日上午开庭,司法局指示,在与他们见面之前,不要去法院阅卷,也不要见被告。急急赶回,却只能听由官员安排,忍让如此宝贵的时光水逝。咦!

  次日上午九时,在司法局聆听了办理魏案的原则性要求,概括起来无非是「不作无罪辩」;「对外不泄密」。一位局首长还著重就「时间」问题作了解释性的说明:「十三日上午开庭,这个时间已不能改。时间紧,是家属突然要求换律师闹的。一开始,他们已经请了Q律师,卷都看了,也见了魏。现在一定要换律师,对你们二位来说是有点措手不及,但法院没有责任,人家是按规矩办的,我们也没有理由请求延期审理。」

  我明知一切安排都是定局,但还是表明了态度:「既然如此,律师实在难以履行职务,我可以去说服家属,一是请Q律师继续办,如不行,乾脆不要律师也无不可。」

  「现在到这份上了,你们不出场,退了,怕不合适,家属肯定也不干。这个大局得顾。」最後他带有安慰意味地讲了个情况:「同魏谈情况,估计要不了多少时间。Q律师告诉我们,起诉书上说的,他都认了;看来『事实』上不会有什麽出入。」

  对案中事实,我从不听人一说就下断语。此时我想的是:所谓「大局」,何所指?按我的粗略猜测,可能是指如无律师登场会影响人们对中国法制的看法吧!其实这有什麽关系。我是独立的主权国家,我想怎麽干,
属内政,你管得著麽?

  我心里同样清楚的是:地方的官员们也是在奉命办事,他们没有主动权,恐怕发言权都不多,既如此,争有何用?驳有何益?要紧的是争取时间,尽力而为了。於是与会更一同急奔位于西郊的中级法院,约见法官签
收了魏案。此刻已是十二月十一日上午十一时四十五分。

  午餐後未及休息,就由司法局指派的一位女士以「书记员」的身分陪同,兵发监所会见魏京生。我急切地想了解他对于「指控」的那些说法的评价。十四时二十分,魏被看守带进一间封闭严密的小接见室。坐定之後
,他显得十分轻松地微笑著,说:「这两天一直在等著你们来。」我与会更请他分别在「委托书」上签了字,即转入正题。他按照我们的提示,开门见山地沿著〈起诉书〉的顺序对指控作了全面的、彻底的否定。他始终
心情平静,思路敏捷,能抓住问题的实质与要点。全部叙述给人以无可置疑的印象:起诉书中的指控全然不是事实。所谓「全认了」的说法不知源於何处!

  没有看卷,无从交流,止於「听」了。不过从他引述的材料特别是一些致领导人的书信中,觉得必须提醒他:庭上发言,遣词造句务必十分准确极其严密,不可有一丝失误或疏忽,意在告诫他「莫授人以柄」。以其
聪慧,应能理解。其间也曾几次冒出一个念头:〈起诉书〉援引《刑法》第一○三条,无疑是要求对他判处极刑,他也许还不了解这个条文的内容,是不是应该告诉他呢?但我终未说出。我担心给他造成压力,影响他在
法庭上的自我辩护活动。

  不出四十个小时,我就明白了:那点担心实在多馀,我对我的当事人还缺乏了解!

  交谈不足两小时。我们都没有一句多馀的话。待把情况大体说完,他告诉我们:曾写有一份辩护提纲,交给Q律师了,是请他提意见的。希望能要回来,一供你们参考,二来还想作点修改。我们请陪来的女士以司法局的名义追回退魏。她挺认真,马上就用会更的手机转达给局领导了。

  我们都心知时间极为珍贵,初次会见於十六时十五分就匆匆结束了。临别,他依然带著微笑紧紧地握著我的手,说:「早听这里的一位老管教说了,认识你。厖」他的微笑给我平添了几分酸楚,一时无言以对。待
管教人员前来押解他回牢时,他对我们说:「我爱抽烟,下次来,请带两包。」我从话音与语气中听得出,我们之间,被告与辩护律师之间,已经取得了某种信任,没有一丝隔膜。

  短促的初见,却给了我三点不会抹去的感受:魏是个「智慧型」的被告人;他所追求的,仅止於人民大众应当享有的民主权利;为此而承受的个人荣辱已置诸度外,并不在意;这自然给了我一个颇好的印象。

  离开监狱,我与会更乘著夜色驰赴中级法院,决意连夜阅卷。魏案合义庭为了保密,沿袭过去办理这类政治案件的老办法,在「招待所」租房办公。我们在招待所的一个专用房间里会见了合议庭成员。他们自然乐意
我们连夜看卷。然而始料不及的是:魏自假释到再度关押,在外不过半年,全卷竟有十二宗共一九○○馀页,许多材料还是密密麻麻的蝇头小字!而我们却仅有不到二十四小时的看卷时间!明(十二)日晚饭前还得再同
司法局的官员见面,商讨「辩护方略」。即使「一目十行」、「过目不忘」的奇才,怕也难能完成如此艰难的看卷任务。只能跳跃式地审阅主要问题方面的重要证据了,舍此实无高招!

  室内虽有暖气,无奈窗隙太大,北风钻入,不胜其寒。我和衣斜倚床上,拥被翻卷。检视那千页卷宗,思考著虽有指控却分明不能成立的罪名,心潮起伏。作为律师,我不能不去考虑;怎样才能担当起本案中的辩护
角色,怎样去维护被告人的理应竭力维护的权利!

  次(十二)日阅卷至十七时。限於时间,已没有可能摘抄那些至关重要的材料,於是请求复印,终以支付高价获准。交件时,会更建议核对一下,避免失误。我一心只想著时光的宝贵,未虑及其他,加之过于相信法
院同志亲自复印,不会有错,未予核对。当夜阅读时发现,我们真正需要研究的那些颇为重要的书证,竟然都漏未复印。至於总的复印页数相符,是用重复复印其他材料的办法补足的缘故。时已深夜,无从弥补:在律师
生涯中又长了一智。

  不能看完全卷就要出庭为被告人辩护,姑且不论「风险」,试问:你称职吗?

  十二日十八时,我们搁下远未翻完的案卷,按照约定赶到会更的律师所,与几位官员讨论次日的法庭活动。人们首先要我提出方案或者拿出意见。我以「卷没看完,形不成完整的概念,甚至来不及思考」的实情为对,表示既无方案也拿不出具体意见。於是变成了漫谈。

  司法局的首长以指控者的口吻说了一些含有指示性的意见,集中到一点,是:起诉书无可怀疑,尤其是它的核心部分,即第二项事实中涉及的「项目简介」,排除不了,不好动。我边听边想,如果一定照这些意见行
事,律师又将怎样履行辩护职责?

  李会更律师以提出问题的方式与人们探讨著、周旋著,其中有一问事关重要:魏的那些在特定条件下(指被监管)的个人的想法,能不能构成反革命的目的?不料未得回答。

  我下了决心不发一言,始终没再吭声。

  律师协会的会长在这关键性的时候讲了一条十分中肯、颇为重要的意见:「不能把律师变为第二公诉人!」我尤其赞同他表述的一个重要思想:「要对历史负责」。这些,平素也许无足轻重,但此时,我感到了它的分量,这是对律师工作的支持,使人从中感到了莫大的欣慰。为了表示对於这种支持的感激,我在夜餐席上面对所有的参与者,反覆地讲了这样一句话:「在法庭上,我将首先记住我是律师!」

  讨论的特点是没有中心,各讲各的,因而最终也没理出条理。

  夜深人散。我与会更依然肩负重担在夜路上奔驰,同时思考著九个小时後就要开幕的魏案的审判活动,问题的焦点此刻已经凝聚,该怎样对待与处置那「不作无罪辩护」的「紧箍咒」?

  终於遇上了此前未曾经历过的困难。这将是一次难求的磨练!

  当夜零时左右,十三号即将开始之时,我与会更在一间事先托友预订的客房里才得到了商讨魏案的机会。我们从十一号上午九时在司法局碰面到此刻,算来三十七个小时,先後穿梭於司法局棗法院棗监狱三点之
间,有重点地草草翻检了那十二册卷宗,听取了官员的指示,参与了一场没有结论的讨论,我与他之间没有时间进行交流,那怕是几分钟!现在,还剩有几个小时,属於律师用作研究案件了。

  首先商定了法庭「调查阶段」行使各项权利的细节,尔後重点研究了案中证据,确定了辩护纲要。最後拟定了辩护词并且逐段地进行了讨论。遗憾的是,由于魏的那篇未获复印而未能核实,故在辩词中未作重点提出。这不能不说是我的一个重大失误,只是在上诉审阶段才得到补救。

  在东方欲晓之时,做完了极其粗糙的「准备」工作,我睡了。会更按约定的方式与司法局的一位处长通报了「准备工作」概况,重点说明了我们将如何参与审理活动。案结不久获悉,律师的以上三十几个小时的全部
活动,有关官员及时地、详尽地向检方和法官作了通报,从而把我们放到了在诉讼中相当不利的地方。官员们的做法源於上命,显出苦心,挺有特色。然而作为律师,我还是殷切地期望著有朝一日能从根本上改它一改。

  我只愿能够做到「各行其事;各负其责」,别无它求。

  十二月十三日早七时,接到友人电话,除提醒要准时到庭外,特意告知:下雪了,当心路滑。

  这雪来得好怪!雪花不大不小,不缓不急,纷纷扬扬,漫天拂地;这是京城今冬唯一的一场雪,然而却没有透出祥瑞之气。

  去法庭路上,於沉默中不禁想起了诗人艾青的名篇棗。惜无诗才,不然面对此景此情,应有感人诗作。

  车近法院,有军警盘查。示之以「出庭通知」,便立即放行。马路两侧,见军警林立,颇有如临大敌的气势。进入法院、又接受了严格的审查,问清身分方得进入「法庭区」。一个魏京生,牵动著这麽多「警力」,
这是我无论如何也想不明白的。

  审判庭不大,二十四个旁听席位;除去法警和工作人员,「旁听者」不过二十人,包括魏的弟弟和妹妹。有关部门派有专人,他们於关注之外负有「监督」重任是不言而喻的。重要的官员们则通过闭路电视观察审判
活动,他们没有亲临法庭。

  九点开庭。合议庭成员给人以干练、严肃的印象。法庭秩序用「井然」已不能传神,人们能凭自己的「灵感」去体察旁听者中偶尔传出的浮动与众人的不同心态。事後知道,宣布的旁听纪律实在是惊人的严格,不仅
不得与人交谈,甚至不要左顾右盼。我无能察知魏京生此时的情绪是否受到了法庭庄严、肃穆气氛的感染。

  他依然常露笑意,於答问和叙事中时有表示真情的词汇,并不过激,即使是回答一些极其敏感的讯问,用语也并不尖刻。我对这一层十分满意
,证明著他听信了我们的劝导。唯一使我吃惊的是:他完全了解起诉书援
引《刑法》第一○三条意在请求对他判处死刑。他捏著起诉书直面公诉人,问道:「就凭这些,竟然要判我死刑厖?」自然得不到回答。他又面露微笑,还是那样地若无其事。

  法庭调查中检方与法官对他提出的问题有的是相当尖锐的。举如,法官问道:「你说的『结社』与组织党派是一个涵义吗?」又如「你在中说,『可以形成一股非政府的文化激流』,这里的『非政府的』是
什麽意思?」再如,法官问他:「你说『工人和农民的抵抗活动频繁,需要民运方面去参与、领导和帮助』这里的『参与、领导和帮助』你都打算怎麽弄?能不能具体地讲讲?」紧跟著,公诉人又补了一「问」:「你讲
的『抵抗活动』是指什麽?」这些问话,目的明确;魏的回答,既不违真实又透出机敏。请看他对公诉人的问题作出的回答:「工农的反抗活动,指的是对侵害工农权益的贪官污吏、不法官员的反抗,民运介入,可以免
得他们走极端。」如此合情合理地解说,一下子把那样尖锐的问题化为烟云,消散了。这里应当著重提出的是,他适时地运用著法律与法庭赋予的诉讼权利,藉著回答控方的提问,用简练的语言陈述了他的「民运观」。他说:我讲的「民运」,就是指民主运动;而民主运动是「人民自己的运动」。他郑重申明:「我所作的一切都是搞民主运动」。为了支持立论的正确,他还沿著历史的轨迹阐述了「民运」的概念,公开承认中国共产党是搞「民运」的鼻祖。他很善於从历史的角度去说明现实生活中的重大问题,这在「西藏问题」上尤为突出。

  法庭调查不无遗憾,被告人申请传唤证人的正当请求没有被采纳,就中包括美国助理国务卿沙特克。但不知基於哪种考虑,他没有坚持。

  辩论中,公诉人提出的基本论点是:起诉书对被告人的指控「事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律准确」。其主要论据则是:魏「制定了,目的在於『掀起足以动摇现政权的风波』」。为了加强指控的说服力,还从以下四个方面论述了「情节的严重」。这四个方面是:
(一)一九七九年判刑後,一贯坚持反动立场,主观恶性很深;
(二)打著「争取人权的旗号」,手段隐藏,欺骗性强;
(三)在境外发表反动文章,影响坏,是有计划的活动;
(四)属於累犯。暂且不对控方的论点、论据作出评价,上述四点不仅逻辑性差,
而且在法律上也站不住,明眼人一望可知,它哪里有说服力呢?

  魏京生在自我辩护中细致地陈述了他在假释期间的心态及其对于政治现实的种种思考,具体地申述了想着竭力促进民主运动,推动社会发展,提高民众的物质、文化生活的愿望。他认为控方的基本错误在於对一系列
的事实、事件作了歪曲性的解释,对此,他分为十点作了辩驳,如下:
  (一)根本不是什么「行动计划」,控方作了曲解,混淆了不同的概念。
  (二)将经济活动、文艺活动指控为颠覆政府,对不带任何政治色彩的画展这项纯艺术性的活动,无限上纲,指控为「颠覆政府」,是对事实
的歪曲,是极左流毒的反映。 
  (三)把组织、帮助工人的活动说成「阴谋颠覆」,实在是莫大的讽刺。
  (四)搜集「受难者」的名单,没有政治标准,是从人道主义出发的一种慈善活动,谈不上「颠覆政府」。
  (五)筹办银行,为的是把为「受难者」募来的资金纳入「会计制度」,纳入银行管理,与政治无关。
  (六)应当准确地把握我对民主运动的理解,我没有采用非法程序颠覆政府的动机。应著重指出:思想不能成为「指控」的对象。 
  (七)说我与王丹等人「秘密串联」,「共同呼吁美国应继续向中国施加压力」,不合乎事实。希望美国取消中国的最惠国待遇,绝不是我的观点,这一点,我要求向沙特克取证。
  (八)指控我鼓吹西藏是个「拥有主权的国家」,「妄图分裂祖国」,纯属断章取义。一九九二年写信给邓小平同志探讨西藏问题,目的恰恰是在於避免分裂。
  (九)在境外发表文章,一再得到官员的准许,官方对我曾有明确保证:不加干预。因而没有理由指控为「犯罪」。
  (十)归纳起来,公诉人的主要错误在於把「民主」与「颠覆」互相混淆,我致力於民主运动,这绝不是颠覆政府。

  这篇辩词流露著仓促的痕迹,但从整体上研究它的内容,毕竟达到了辩护的目标,反映出事物和事务的本来面目。

  我代表会更作联合发言。那篇辩词实在没有值得称道的地方。客观情
势不允许律师畅所欲言。唯一能够引人注意的,仅在於举证据用事实揭示了在关键问题上采取断章取义的手法加人以罪,特别是那句「掀起足以动摇现政权的风波」,是这种手法的突出例证,且起著定罪的关键性作用。我们引出全文原句,一切就都清楚了。

  那原文是:「中国的文艺界是一个有几百万人口的大的阶层;加上它的崇拜者和业馀参与者,就是上亿人的群体,即使它是一支单独的力量,也可以掀起足以动摇现政权的风波,绝不应忽视它。」读了这些文字,谁
能说被告人有企图「掀起风波」以遂其「动摇现政权」即「颠覆政府」的目的?不过我们当庭所能做到的,也止此而已。我为此而感到的愧疚终难隐去,因为那时我已确信:中的指控,统统不能成立。

  辩论因魏的犯病而中断了四十多分钟,法庭审理延续到下午,紧跟著於十三时四十五分完成「宣判」。如此这般地「赶任务」,证实了我的预测:上有明示,魏案必须在年底以前结束,连同二审程序。

  判词当然是事先拟好了的。听完,魏的神情没起任何变化,倒是他的胞弟胞妹显出了激动。魏被押出法庭经过她俩身旁时,从背影看出他微微点头,才让人感受到那无法言传的骨肉情意厖。魏的妹妹落泪了,他本
人依然没有。

  退庭出来,为了避开记者的视线,不蒙那「泄密」之嫌,我与会更重又躲进了远在石景山区的那家没有名气的宾馆小屋。连续工作了将近五十个小时,晨起至此整整七个小时还未进饮食,在法庭上做得到精神抖擞、
全神贯注,但毕竟垂垂老矣,此际觉出了浑身酸疼。然而并无困意。面对著这样一个清清楚楚、明明白白、举世瞩目的要案,我做的一切竟是这样的苍白,怎麽可能做到「坦然」成眠?尽管方才与魏氏兄妹分手时他们一
再表示「我们全家感谢你们!上诉,还请你们辩护。」我却不能不掂量:上诉审决然不会开庭,我将怎样来弥补一审中的缺憾与不足!我该用什麽方法来解析这又一道难题?厖可是,棗作为律师,既然说不出「莫!
莫!莫!」似也不必多虑那「难!难!难!」

  我想得不对麽?

  从不同的渠道传来同一信息:境外记者急於采访魏案律师。这是意料中事,我按「既定方针」办:一个不见;远走高飞。

  躲,并不都是为了涉「密」。一件公开审判的刑事案子,与「密」绝缘、无「密」可泄应无疑义。审判长、公诉人於三日之後公开接待境外记者并联席发表了,便是明证。我的考虑另有一层:记者往往是根据自身的需要发表消息和其他文字,他们有的人弄不清我国的国情,有时不免「帮倒忙」。而在我,作为律师,则只能考虑诉讼的需要,或者说,对讼案的处置是否有益;其他的,只可道一声「对不起」,无法旁顾了。

  上面提到的那篇,因其涉及记者,内容又波及律师,实应留下一笔。

  我在南方那座最早开放的省城,在报摊上偶然发现尚未卖完的十二月十六日《大公报》头版头条的「特稿」,套印著红色标题,语句欠顺,倒也醒目,是:「魏京生判刑法律依据」。内容是记者采访魏案审判长公诉人的「答问录」。我对于该报的是否「大公」,因平日无缘阅读,实在没有印象。对于这篇「答问录」,日後或许另有机会作出评价。这里要记的一笔是「答」者将律师「直到十日才赴法院阅卷宗并与魏见面」的责任
推给「更换律师」和「魏的家人不知何故」,措词含混,记「时」有误,令人茫然不知其何所云。是否「更换」律师,我与李律师原先并不知情。委托人自始否认「更换」之说。我们的事务所与委托人分别於七日、八日才办了正式「聘请律师」手续,函达法院。我九日在大连得到法院急於开庭的信息,虽未见正式通知,也还是放下其他事务,夜奔沈阳十日飞京,按司法局指示於十一日到法院阅卷,具体情况前已叙述。这样,退一步说,即使被告人的家属办事失误,对于如此重大而且卷宗多达一九OO馀页的要案,又为什麽不可以留出足够时间容律师把卷看完?难道尊敬的法官看卷只花了二十几个小时,而且是「连夜」?!据知境外有几位记者发问:「律师的准备时间是不是足够?」如果当面交谈,自信一定会反问一句:「您说呢?」可惜我无缘面见记者,也从来无此奢望。

  然而另有信息不时传来,其中无不饱含赤诚真挚的深情!一群年轻挚友的朗朗笑语让我铭刻心头;远在圣荷塞(SANJOSE)、高雄各地的故人关注也不说了。一位童年好友的妈妈,在教师岗位上奋斗了终生,年高九十二岁,我们习惯地尊呼为「娘娘」的老人,案结之後亲来电话,一句「人们将记住你的工作,会感谢你的。」引我泪如泉涌。一位年近九旬、受人爱戴尊敬的老法学家,拉著我的手低声说道:「要善於自我保护。」爱护深情宛如大海,激起我心潮澎湃。得到这样宝贵的信任与勉励,不仅已将五十小时的心力交瘁化为烟尘,而且激发了极大的生命冲动,指引我时时、事事都该保守著神圣的职业良心,一以贯之!愿我在「求真」的大路上,在前辈的呵护下,态度坚定,步伐坚实。

  「高山流水」,隐约可闻;请听我吟唱「大江东去,厖」。

  一审判决公开宣告的次日,打印好的判决书就送到了魏京生的手上。他表示「上诉」的同时,要求会见律师。隔日,合议庭的书记员传达了他的要求。

  这第二次的会见,他一开始就急切地点燃了香烟,尔後一支支地接了下去,直到互道「再见」。

  谈话从一审的情况开始。我们按职业习惯和工作需要,想听听他对律师工作的意见。他却不涉及这个题目,笑著说:「全在意料之中,不这麽判怎麽收场呢?不过棗」他换了一个题目,讲的是:

  「据我观察,我发言时检察官愣了。他拿著Q律师给他们的那份我写的东西来对付我,他可没料到我作了那麽多的改动。」他狡黠地眨著眼,轻轻地吐了三个字:「扑空了」。

  他有点得意,说明他对如何判处全然不放在心上。

  关于上诉,我们首先达成一点共识:即令是「走过场」,也要严肃对待,认真地行使法律赋予的每一项权利。为了弥补一点律师在本案中已无法调查取证的缺陷,我和会更建议由他本人撰写,针对判决书,举出证据,把事实真相讲清楚。尔後又从程序上给他提了两条建议。一个是坚持申请传唤证人,特别是那些与案情有直接关连的非常重要的人证,应请求与之质证;另一个是,尽管二审不再开庭,也不能抹掉「最後陈述
」这项对被告人至关重要的诉讼权利,而在行使这项权利之前,还必须了解、听取公诉方在二审程序中的控诉意见。据後来看到的材料,这些意见,他都采纳了。

  分手前,我告诉他:为避记者,近期不在北京,但绝不误上诉事宜。意在请他安心等待进入二审程序。

  我依据法定的上诉期限,提前於十二月二十三日傍晚回到北京。真个是下车伊始,进家门未及更衣,二审法官居然找来,再三再四恳切要求:「今晚无论如何与我们庭长见见,时间太紧。」我问他是否开庭,却道:
「我说不好,看样子可能还没定。」我一下子全明白了:那一时的「恳切」仅仅是言词上的,实际上正端著法官架子,对你律师得搞点「保密」,实行内外有别!其实谁不清楚,二审根本不会开庭,谁肯再给魏一次发表
意见的机会?

  深夜,还是在那个「招待所」,会见了二审合议庭的全体成员。寒喧之後,审判长说:案子的时限太紧,希望能配合!她坦率地交了底,说不再开庭。因此希望二十七日交出律师的书面辩护词。她用著十分郑重的口
吻说,「我办案子,对律师的意见是要认真考虑的。」她可能耽心我没有听懂,还特意加上一句:「不论什麽案子都一样!」我对这表态并不认真。在几经讨论之後,我因为还必须进行一系列的工作才能产生「辩词」,
答允她於二十七日先交出一份草稿,二十七日以後再作修改後交去正式文本,就此达成一致的意见。

  我於二十四日会同李会更律师一起阅卷,二十五日下午第三次会见魏京生,向他具体、细致地解释了二审程序和他应当注意的事项。二十六日上午继续阅卷,重点查阅了被一审定为犯罪的几篇文章,稍稍补救了在一
审中的缺欠。下午躲进一家大厦的客房商定二审书面辩护的基本思路,再次在夜灯下写成了辩词初稿,并按要求於二十七日上午奔赴司法局「讨论」。

  律师处处长细心地审核了全文,说声:「我改改」,提笔便删。我怕那板斧过锋而且路数不对,当即提了个原则性的要求,我们坚持在一审发表的意见是正确的,文中的这个意思得保留;辩词中所引的证据,特别是
魏文的原句与一些证言,涉及事实,请莫删改。这就保留了辩词中的核心内容:依据事实证明著指控的不能成立。还有一点局外人难能察知的,留下的这核心部分与一审的辩词恰好互相补充,并构成了一个比较完整的意
见:律师的辩词合理有据,立论无懈可击。

  改定已是下午,二审台议庭催送的电话频频传来。会更持辩词驱车亲交,当即得到次日上午九时宣判的通知。「原来如此!」听到这本应在预料之中的决定,我居然受到了瞬间的震惊。审判长的那句所谓「对律师的
意见要认真考虑」的许诺,宛如游离於大气中的皂泡,五光十色,晃动两下也就随风飘去,消失了。倒是我那将於年前结案的料想,又不幸猜中。我很明白:案在二审,卷留庭上,但判决主文却是二审法院所不能决定的
。没有高层权威人士点头,谁能定魏案?谁敢定魏案?

  事後得知,魏的「最後陈述」也恰於二十七日送交法庭;它也只能静静地呆在卷宗之中,等待著历史的检验了。一个以维护「人权」为己任的人,连自己的法定权利都不能维护,不知这是讽刺还是悲剧,我有点茫然
厖。

  二审的宣判只用了大约十分钟。审判员郑重其事地宣读了已经拟好的判词全文。维持原判,是意料中的「既定方针」。魏依然是那样坦然,那麽轻松。与上次听判时不同的是:这回他似乎急切地想马上寻觅到家人,希望多看一眼那万分亲切的面孔!

  我在听判决时情难自禁地在思考一个法律问题:判词回避了检察机关断言魏是「累犯」的指控,也不提按照刑法的规定应如何处置前罪没有执行完结的刑罚的问题,这是为什麽?公诉人「且系反革命累犯」,的指控
尽管援引了《刑法》作为依据,也不再吭声。至于「前罪 没有执行的刑罚」也许是所剩无几日从宽不计了,我说不清。但执法中回避法律问题,终不是好办法。法官们也许有难言之隐。撇开案件的结论,我对一审审判长的审案水平、审案作风都留有深刻的印象,怎麽可能出现如此重大的疏漏呢?检察机关又为什麽不依法「抗诉」呢?

  百思不解,「挂起来罢!」归根到底这不是辩护律师应当深究的问题,不去刨根了。

  听完审判退出法庭,顶著凛冽寒风回到李律师办公室,同魏的弟弟妹妹讨论了「申诉」问题。鉴于这是当事者当一项不容剥夺的诉讼权利,我们对此都持积极态度。至于如何运作,商定先听听魏本人的意见再说。

  一九九六年一月三日,我们第四次会见魏京生。对於申诉,他似已成竹在胸,立即作了「全权委托」,要求我们统筹安排。回来之後经过讨论,考虑到此後不易与魏见面,决定由律师代他的家人以亲属身分提出申诉
,并草拟了相应的文书;至于魏本人,则请家人在接见时转告他,去独立地行使他的诉讼权利罢。关于这一层,我们三方都知道,一纸「申诉状」不会产生什麽效果,具体做法并不重要。

  这次见魏,除讨论「申诉」之外,还对将来的长达十四年的狱中生涯作了探讨。我自接案後已不怀疑,魏案中含有浓重的「政治因素」,他未必不是某种政治交易的筹码。基於这一点,我曾问他:如果有朝一日让你
走「王军涛道路」强行送出国外怎麽办?他不正面回答,先讲了一个故事。他说:「六四之後,明明是政府当局让出了一条路让那位教授(他直呼其名,於此故隐)躲入美国大使馆,而後谈妥条件让他出走美国。我不赞
成他采取的态度和办法。大不了丢掉脑袋,既搞民运就不用怕!这麽一走,他这面旗也就倒了。这不是个人的问题。」我欣赏他的故事中包含的观点,但还是禁不住进一步地问他:「如果你的病情恶化,而又有可能到外
面治疗,是否考虑?」他答覆我说:「这种情况有点复杂,只有见机行事了。不过有一点可以肯定,绝不轻易出国。我清楚,一出去,再回来可就难了!」那时我们不可能知道最高领导层有人发话:有人认为魏的水平高
,想让魏出去,我们偏偏不放!我不敢预卜以後是否会发生变化,但看来短期之内他只有以囚徒之身来锤炼自己的信念了。

  一九九六年七月十一日,魏的弟弟、妹妹的「申诉」被北京市高级人民法院驳回。他本人的申诉前景如何,也就不言而喻了。

  多少事,历史自有评说!

  案结之後,不意又泛微波。

  今春,魏的家属送来一篇文章,题目非常醒目,是:《我与魏京生及中日韩美术展》署名黄锐,刊於香港「九十年代」一九九六年二月号。

  「在北京筹办中国日本韩国现代美术展」,是魏的罪状之一。因展画而获罪,似乎开创了司法史上的先例。在我看来,除非画展内容有违公共道德,危害社会利益,无论如何构不成犯罪。可是,公诉人断言画展的目的在於「形成同情并与民运相协调的文化界力量和组织」,由是与「颠覆政府」挂上了钩。这种论断显然贫乏无力。由於那时我们不了解筹办画展的渊源与背景,因而在辩词中只是一笔带过而未及细论。

  黄文提供了详实的材料,摘引几段便可知事实真相。他写道棗「九三年底,银座的东京画廊开办了「星星十五年」的展览。负责人田 先生和我,与许多中国艺术家是朋友,我们在一起谈亚洲的艺术与艺
术家,设想亚洲的现代艺术怎样摆脱欧美,变成主流的艺术。其中实际可行的最佳方案,就是办个中国、日本、韩国的现代艺术展。厖设想与计划是我和田 先生定的,在东京画廊的会客室完成。

  九四年底,我带著原始方案跑到北京,跟魏京生说了,他欣然接收了。我选择魏京生,是因为他有志要做一点文化艺术的事业。我希望他投入,以逃避一些政治风险。

  我觉得魏京生愿意办此事业,相当程度是由於与我的接触,受我的想法的刺激,更主要的是他的性格,他对艺术的崇拜。

他说,直到展览开幕,都不要用他(魏)的名字。

  事实上,魏京生在修改展览宗旨的中文稿以後,再未参与任何展览会的活动。

  三月里的变化很快,厖後来他失去了音讯(或说失去了自由)。某一天,突然接到他的电话,说是从外边的一旅馆里打来的,委托我尽力办好展览会厖(据称打电话时有公安监场,能否给予作证?)

  我没有做新的尝试,因为我知道,一个比美术展更现实、更紧迫和强劲的政治漩涡已经逼近了。厖」

  文中还论述了魏京生自幼学画,「文革」中止的经历,以及他的艺术观点和异乎寻常的见解。说明他参与筹办画展并非偶然,也绝没有艺术以外的目的性。

  作为罪状的「画展」,它的来龙去脉以及筹划者的动机目的,经黄文揭示,已是明白、清晰、确实、可信了。如此这般,何罪之有!

  面对著这样客观、真实的证据,自责之情油然而生。由於我们没有机会进行调查,所以未能当庭引用详实的材料,与控方不实的指控进行针锋相对的辩驳,去维护被告人的合法的权益。工作中的这个缺陷因其无法弥
补而无法原谅!

  总结教训,值得一说的是:在刑事诉讼中,给律师以充分的时间和条件,使之对案情作必不可少的调查研究并形成法定的制度,实在太重要了。我寄希望於来日。

  泛起的微波冲不动、变不了判词设定的现实:魏案,已经结束了;虽然被告人的申诉此时尚无明文驳回,律师的辩护工作毕竟也告一段落了。而他本人,则正在二十年前的地震中心城市的一个劳改农场里服刑,踱入
了同他的性格似乎大有差别的「也无风雨也无晴」的另一天地。这些,都不会随人的意志而转移。不过,我不能不想到,律师的职业活动,职业行为,难道也能不见他的个人意志?果如此,要律师何用呢?

  记起了国学大师胡适之先生对於治史方法的独到见解:「是者是之,非者非之,冤枉者为之辩诬,作伪者为之揭露。」这,不是也正可用之於律师工作麽?我不是学者,更不是史家,但要想做一个合格的中国律师,
无疑也应当努力达到这个境界。因此,我想,对于已经结束的事情,有些终将有再说它们的时候:是为「断篇」。

一九九六年八月一日

 

 

/ Chinese News / DOC / Home / Labor / Law / OCDC / Wei Jingsheng  / WJSF /


This site is produced and maintained by the Wei Jingsheng Foundation Internet  Program. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. 本网站由Wei Jingsheng Foundation Internet  Program 制作和管理。与其它网站的链接不应被视为对其内容的认可。
 

This site is maintained and updated by WJSF   

Copyright 2002 Wei Jingsheng Foundation