{"id":"qf35e4181cc3d6716c8af","batch_id":"batch-000038","seq":273,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2025-09-17T19:11:38.381Z","text":"这个说的结果也是重审或者重新量刑，不是无罪释放","edited":false,"reply_to":"qfe543478efc4072d495b","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf35e4181cc3d6716c8af","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfe543478efc4072d495b","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000038","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000038","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf35e4181cc3d6716c8af","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf35e4181cc3d6716c8af/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qf35e4181cc3d6716c8af","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q7703f7f76f3502ba39c2","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-09-17T19:05:19.211Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7703f7f76f3502ba39c2"},{"id":"q6eca4a69dcc6d1945046","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:09:26.459Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6eca4a69dcc6d1945046"},{"id":"q4593eb4b9ccbe80423e3","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:09:38.024Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4593eb4b9ccbe80423e3"},{"id":"qee15ee3038def9936475","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:12:05.545Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qee15ee3038def9936475"},{"id":"qef4f0328b63b80b574aa","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:12:20.839Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qef4f0328b63b80b574aa"},{"id":"q22ac8a8b053ae7e3eec8","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:12:32.230Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q22ac8a8b053ae7e3eec8"}],"parent_message":{"id":"qfe543478efc4072d495b","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-09-17T19:01:38.898Z","text":"没错，如果律师的失职严重到影响案件公正性，案件确实可能被推翻。这在美国刑事司法体系里是一个专门的概念：\n\n1. 宪法保障\n    •    美国宪法第六修正案（Sixth Amendment）明确保障被告有有效辩护（effective assistance of counsel）。\n    •    如果律师“重大失职”，就触发 IAC (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)。\n\n2. 适用标准\n\n最高法院在 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 确立了两步测试：\n    1.    表现不合格 (Deficient performance)\n    •    律师的行为低于“合理专业标准”。比如：\n    •    明知检方欺诈却不行动；\n    •    忽视关键证据；\n    •    不提出应有的异议或动议。\n    2.    造成实质性损害 (Prejudice)\n    •    如果律师尽职，案件结果“有合理可能”会不同。\n\n只要两步都成立，判决就可能被推翻。\n\n3. 常见的推翻后果\n    •    定罪撤销 / 新审 (vacate conviction / new trial)：法官会认定原判决无效，案件重来。\n    •    重审量刑 (resentencing)：如果主要问题集中在量刑阶段，可能只推翻量刑部分。\n\n4. 你描述的情况\n    •    律师长期不作为，连受害人都能挖出检方欺诈；\n    •    被告换过多批律师，结果一样；\n    •    关键问题没人提，导致检方“违规无后果”。\n\n这完全符合 Strickland 测试里“低于专业标准 + 造成结果损害”。\n👉 在这种格局下，推翻案件不仅可能，而且概率很高，尤其是走 2255 动议 时。\n\n⸻\n\n总结：\n如果你能把“检方欺诈 + 辩方重大失职”这两个链条绑在一起，就会让法官别无选择——\n    •    要么承认案件已经被污染（重新审），\n    •    要么承认律师严重无能（照样翻案）。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfe543478efc4072d495b"}}