Chapter 149 - 99: Adjudication Committee, Bankrupt Credibility, The Hearing Begins

Xu De was filled with regret.

He knew Prosecutor Huang’s trust in him was completely broken and had expected the other man to be angry, furious even.

But he never expected the man to actually have a soft spot and assume he was out of evidence.

’How did I manage to trick it out of myself...’

’Dammit, I acted like such a bastard... and he still went soft on me. He’s way too good-natured!’

’Next time, I’ll definitely factor that variable into my calculations!!!’

「Inside Houde Law Firm.」

"Stop searching... Prosecutor Huang... No, really, I don’t have anything else on me..."

"I’m serious. I’m not lying this time. I really have nothing left. I’m only human, I can’t just lie all the time..."

"Easy... This is my only decent suit. Stop searching, or you’ll rip my pocket..."

"..."

Inside the law firm, Huang Shi lit a cigarette.

He smoked, watching Xu De get searched by several people in turn.

With his arms spread wide, Xu De watched Wang Mang and Zhang Qing pat him down, a look of helplessness on his face.

’How could I have possibly overlooked the ’soft spot’ factor in people!?’

"Move. I’ll do it."

With the cigarette dangling from his lips, Huang Shi suddenly walked over to Xu De himself and started checking all the possible hiding spots.

Xu De, trying to salvage what was left of his image, couldn’t help but say:

"There’s really nothing left. This time for real. I’m not lying."

"The only thing I held back was that one minor piece of evidence. It’s something that wouldn’t affect the course of the trial. I was just keeping it, just in case..."

After searching for a long time, Huang Shi finally determined that the man really had nothing left... probably.

He stood up suspiciously, looking down at the evidence he had just confiscated.

"So, what is this thing?" Huang Shi asked.

"It’s just a minor piece of evidence, something to influence the judge’s sentencing."

Xu De quickly explained, trying to do some damage control for his reputation.

"Twelve years ago, the reason Liu Jingqi left Lianshan County was because, out of jealousy, she took her step-brother..."

"...a three-year-old boy, and lured him deep into the mountains."

"Then she ran off, and the boy has been missing ever since."

"After her actions were discovered, Liu Jingqi, in order to escape, sought out a human trafficker... This trafficker had connections to her biological father, which is how she was able to find him."

"And eventually, she ended up in Lusen City."

So what use was this evidence?

It could determine the sentence!

First, let’s consider this: under sentencing laws, a single crime could lead to a sentence of ten years, or it could lead to twenty.

What does a judge rely on to determine sentencing? To decide whether you get ten years or twenty?

Most people would probably think of the consequences.

That is, the consequences resulting from the defendant’s crime.

Severe consequences mean a longer sentence; lesser consequences mean a shorter one.

But in reality, the sentence isn’t just based on the case itself. In fact, sometimes the reasoning behind a sentence can seem utterly absurd!

For example, let’s take a situation that many people are concerned with and for which there are many cases: the division of assets in a divorce.

In some divorce cases, the fault lies entirely with either the husband or the wife. Theoretically, when the judge delivers the verdict, shouldn’t the assets be divided based on who was at fault?

For instance, the at-fault party gets less, and the innocent party gets more?

However, a vast number of cases show that...

...the at-fault party doesn’t necessarily get less. Sometimes, they even get a lot!

Why?

It’s because the judge’s perspective isn’t limited to just ’fault’ and ’fairness,’ but also includes ’livelihood security’!

For instance, in many cases, if a woman receives a smaller share of the assets after a divorce, her standard of living would drop, she’d have no financial security, and she could fall into ’poverty’.

Furthermore, if her personal earning capacity is low, she wouldn’t be able to maintain her previous standard of living on her own.

In that situation, the judge will take this into account to prevent the at-fault party from being left without financial security.

Therefore, even if the wife was at fault, the division of assets may still favor her.

To summarize:

In legal judgments, ’economic vulnerability’ is a key factor, often taking precedence over fault.

An occasional affair doesn’t affect the division of assets.

Only in cases of domestic violence or long-term cohabitation with another partner would their share be reduced, by about 10% to 20%.

If the other party is wealthy, owns property, and has a high income, losing some money won’t impact them much. In that case, the at-fault party could still receive 40% or more of the assets, plus the house.

It seems contradictory, even unbelievable, but this is a foundational principle necessary for modern social governance, rooted in sociology!

The same logic applies to criminal cases.

A judge’s sentencing isn’t based solely on the defendant’s wrongdoing.

"A person’s character is very important."

"If someone has a good disposition, shows genuine remorse, and is unlikely to re-offend after release, they’ll receive a lighter sentence."

"Conversely."

"If they are deemed a great danger to society and are highly likely to re-offend, the judge will hand down a severe sentence, even if the consequences of their crime weren’t major."

Xu De looked at Huang Shi, still trying to redeem himself a little.

"This evidence details an extremely vicious criminal act Liu Jingqi committed when she was six years old."

"This pattern of viciousness in childhood carrying over into adulthood—something that’s practically part of her ’fundamental nature’—carries immense weight in a judge’s personal conviction."

"Plus..."

"This evidence is legally admissible!"

As he spoke, he leaned closer to Huang Shi, pointing to the part of the document that indicated where the evidence was collected.

"Before I left Lianshan County, I had Sun Miaohua pull this from the local police department’s records."

"The case was already solved—it was Liu Jingqi who did it. The only thing is that the boy was never found. Even if I submit this suddenly, it won’t disrupt the trial proceedings. At most, it would just cause a ten-minute delay to confirm things with the Lianshan County police."

Xu De didn’t want a third recess.

So naturally, he wouldn’t hold back a piece of evidence that would cause one.

And while this evidence isn’t primary evidence for the No. 18 Middle School case, it could play a crucial role in shaping the judge’s personal conviction.