Who would study psychology unless they had some issues?!

However, after hearing the lawyer's words, the leader Wang Zhenhai didn't seem comforted at all, and his breathing grew even more rapid.

After being urged several times by the defense lawyer, he finally nodded like waking from a dream, "Okay, I understand... there won't be any issue, right?"

"Of course," answered the defense lawyer confidently.

…

While they were whispering, the prosecutor continued reading.

"Evidence two is a re-compiled account by our expert witness of the defendant Wang Zhenhai's early experiences, chat records with employees, and call records with the victim. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the defendant Wang Zhenhai partially meets the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Sadistic Personality Traits, and Paranoid Personality Disorder."

"In his fraud against the victim, besides seeking financial gain, there was also very strong subjective malice, constituting severe societal revenge behavior."

Compared with the first piece of evidence, this one appears less rigorous.

If not in court, Lawyer Zhan estimated he would have sighed directly, merely feeling it too frivolous.

In fact, although this evidence is somewhat unorthodox, it still complies with legal procedures.

In public cognition, mental illness seems capable of absolving one of guilt.

However, in certain specific circumstances, the presence of a mental disorder may instead lead the defendant to face more severe legal consequences or actual sentencing.

For instance, in cases where criminal responsibility is limited, yet the crime is extremely severe, and the person is highly dangerous, the judge may consider the defendant as having a high risk of reoffending and posing a continual and severe threat to society, and thus might not consider leniency factors such as the defendant's remorse, compensation, etc., resulting in a longer sentence than similar offenders without mental disorders.

Similarly, certain types of personality disorders—like Antisocial Personality Disorder—may, due to behaviors such as lacking empathy, neglecting social norms, and high deceitfulness, lead judges to view them as possessing profound subjective malignancy and high personal danger, thus deeming these as aggravating factors for heavier penalties.

But these situations are rare.

Moreover, Lawyer Zhan sighed more because the evidence submitted by Nan Zhubin lacked any "opinion" or "diagnosis" from an appraisal agency and was almost entirely based on personal "judgment."

In such circumstances, let alone reaching a conclusion, it might even be used against you by the other side.

Yet Nan Zhubin placed more importance on this evidence, leaving Lawyer Zhan uncertain of what to say.

…

The defense lawyer almost laughed out loud.

If he weren't concerned about violating courtroom discipline and getting a warning from the presiding judge, losing the favorable situation at hand, it wouldn't just be "almost laughed out loud."

The defense lawyer softly said to the leader Wang Zhenhai beside him, "I get it, the other side must be desperately trying anything now. I had previously refuted him for not having a professional diagnosis. Now I didn't expect him to come out with an even more meager one."

"To get a psychiatric determination on the spot is impossible; even if they make one and it gets determined, I'm sure I can get it reduced for you... sigh, why didn't I think of this direction earlier...?"

The more the defense lawyer spoke, the more pleased he became.

Unexpectedly, the leader Wang Zhenhai suddenly turned his head. "What determination? This isn't what was agreed upon, don't do unnecessary things!"

His breathing became more rapid and eventually turned into a low growl.

Fortunately, the courtroom was large, and the prosecutor's voice was strong enough not to draw the presiding judge's attention.

Seeing this, the defense lawyer hurriedly calmed the leader Wang Zhenhai in a low voice, finally managing to make his breathing settle down again.

Then the defense lawyer turned his attention back to the prosecutor. After finishing reading the two pieces of evidence, the other side paused slightly.

According to the normal procedure, the next step should be having the expert witness stand up to explain the second piece of evidence.

Steadying his mind, the defense lawyer had already prepared a rebuttal in his heart against Nan Zhubin's hasty "mental determination," planning to focus on the first piece of evidence afterward, thoroughly completing today's work.

If the opposing side submitted two invalid pieces of evidence, and both were refuted, then entering the courtroom debate phase, their side's advantage could be even greater.

Calculating in this way, the evidence they painstakingly prepared during the recess ended up favoring their side instead.

Thinking of this, the defense lawyer temporarily forgot about the unusualness of the leader Wang Zhenhai beside him and couldn't help but hum lightly in his heart.

Then, he heard the presiding judge say, "Next, please have witness Nan Zhubin explain the first piece of evidence."

Huh?

The defense lawyer was puzzled; why explain the first piece of evidence?

…

He saw Nan Zhubin slowly get up and return to the witness stand, facing the presiding judge and the stenographer's gaze directly.

The audience's gaze behind was refocusing on him, and the cameras were again zooming in on him.

The gazes from both the plaintiff and defendant's seats also angled over.

Under the spotlight of everyone's attention, the first words Nan Zhubin spoke left everyone astonished.

"Your honor, during the first half of the trial, I consistently observed the micro-expressions changes of the defendant party. I noticed numerous reactions related to 'lying' when mentioning 'technical guidance' and 'team division.'"

"Our side discovered that the defendant did not drink water during the trial and utilized deliberately constructed 'nervous' emotions to cover up voice volume fluctuations while lying."

"At the same time, when the defendant stated discrepancies with facts, there were habitual changes such as leaning forward, nodding, and variations in breathing rate…"

These words left the whole courtroom dumbfounded for a moment.

The same words, in different settings, would lead to different reactions.

Saying this during a professional lecture would pique professors' interest; in a classroom, it would make people feel unknowingly awed.

But saying it in court, most people have one thought—what is this?

"Objection!" The defense lawyer spoke up immediately, "Your Honor, what the witness said about [micro-expressions] does not fall under the legal evidence categories stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Law."

Article 50 of China's Criminal Procedure Law lists legal evidence categories as: physical evidence; documentary evidence; witness testimonies; victim statements; confessions and explanations by criminal suspects, defendants; appraisal opinions; records of inspections, examinations, identifications, and investigative experiments; audiovisual materials, electronic data.

Micro-expression analysis results do not belong to any of the above and thus cannot be used as independent evidence or as direct grounds for determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.

However—

Nan Zhubin looked inexplicably, "Your Honor, I did not submit my [micro-expression analysis] as evidence, but merely as a basis for judgment. The images, text, and other material evidence our side submitted comply with 'legal evidence' standards."

This was indeed the case.

Micro-expression analysis is indeed bizarre, but thus was not submitted as evidence.

And merely served as Nan Zhubin's "professional judgment."

Nan Zhubin continued, "Additionally, our side as an expert witness is inherently obligated to provide professional judgment in court."

As he spoke, Nan Zhubin motioned to the side, "Our expert witness, Professor Bai Qinghua, serves as a professor in the Psychology College at Beidu Normal University, specializing in the field of [Micro-expression Analysis]. Our statements are based on the expert opinions drawn from Professor Bai Qinghua's research results."

On the side, Bai Qinghua nodded to the presiding judge, unreservedly using his decades of academics to vouch for the moment's Nan Zhubin.

The presiding judge nodded, having naturally known all the witnesses present's identities since they were registered.

"Objection overruled, witness may continue speaking."

Saying this, the presiding judge couldn't help but take a couple of extra glances at the leader Wang Zhenhai's body and face.

Nan Zhubin smiled slightly inside.

He clearly knew that in such a setting, micro-expression analysis did not surface on the table, nor could it be evidence.

But in a trial, apart from the most vital evidence, there's another crucial sentencing standard.

That is—the judges' freedom to consider their conviction references.