林森浩故意杀人一案自曝光以来,在社会中便引起了广泛的讨论。这一方面是由于该案在公开之后就被媒体贴上了“复旦投毒案”的标签,当事人的高学历背景无疑引人注目;另一方面也由于该案涉及的法律问题众多,控辩双方交锋异常激烈,其间还经历了撤换辩护律师等一系列疑云与风波,尤其是在二审阶段,其中一名辩护律师提出的“反转质疑”颇具戏剧性,大有将公诉机关的指控及一审判决釜底抽薪之意味,这不免让人联想到该辩护律师此前所成功辩护的“念斌案”。有人甚至将林森浩案比作中国的辛普森案,认为该案可能成为我国司法公正的标杆~(〔1〕),同时,对我国限制乃至在事 Lin Sen-ho intentional homicide since the case has been exposed in the community has aroused widespread discussion. This is partly due to the fact that the case was labeled “Fudan Poisoning Case” by the media after the publicity of the case. The highly educated background of the parties undoubtedly attracted people’s attention. On the other hand, due to the large number of legal issues involved in the case, During the second trial stage, one of the defense lawyers proposed “reversing the questioning” rather dramatic, which greatly threatened the public prosecutor’s allegations. And the judgment of the first instance on the basis of a drastic determination, this can not help but remind us of the “Nianbin case” in which the defense lawyer previously defended the case. Some even compare Lin Senhao case to Simpson case of China and think this case may become the benchmark of our country’s judicial fairness. [1] At the same time, the restriction on our country and even the matter