NEW Wu Chunhong Murder Case (吴春红故意杀人案)

The Defendant/Exoneree 

Wu Chunhong (吴春红) was born on April 8, 1970. He was thirty-four years old when incarcerated and fifty years old when he was acquitted.

Facts

On November 14, 2004, Wang Zhansheng (王战胜, Wang), a villager in Zhougang Village of Minquan County, Henan Province, used flour in a scoop on the kitchen counter to make breakfast for his two children, who were three and five years old. Both children became ill after breakfast and were sent to hospital. The older child survived while the younger one died. A forensic test found that tetremethylene disulfotetramine (TETS), a commonly used rat poison, was found in the victim’s stomach. The same substance was found in the flour in Wang’s kitchen.  

The police launched a sweeping investigation of the victim’s family and nearby villagers. When asked who had conflicts with the Wang family, Wang’s wife listed six or seven people. Wu Chunhong (WCH) was not among them.

Three days later, a villager named Wang Erxuan (WEX) told police that the day before the incident, WCH went with him to Wang Zhansheng’s house to pay their respective electricity bills. According to WEX, after the two men left the house but while they were still in the yard, WCH briefly disappeared from view and then reappeared about a minute later. However, when police asked him about it, WCH denied that he had been absent momentarily at Wang’s house. Police regarded WCH’s denial as suspicious.

Procedural History 

• On November 19, 2004, police took WCH to the police station for interrogation.

• On November 20, 2004, police criminally detained WCH on suspicion of intentional homicide.

• On December 02, 2004, the procuratorate formally arrested WCH.

• On June 23, 2005, the Shangqiu Intermediate People's Court (“Intermediate Court”) convicted WCH of intentional homicide and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon WCH’s appeal, in December 2005, the Henan High People's Court (“High Court”) revoked the conviction and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

• On June 22, 2006, the Intermediate Court again convicted WCH of intentional homicide and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon WCH's second appeal, in December 2006, the High Court again revoked the conviction and remanded the case for retrial.

• On July 13, 2007, the Intermediate Court convicted WCH a third time of intentional homicide and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon WCH's third appeal, the High Court revoked the conviction and remanded the case for retrial.

• On October 15, 2008, the Intermediate Court convicted WCH a fourth time of intentional homicide and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

• Upon WCH’s fourth appeal, on July 06, 2009, the High Court sustained the conviction and sentence.

• In August 2009, WCH was sent to prison.

Date of the Conviction

June 23, 2005

Date the Wrongful Conviction Was Vacated/Reversed

April 01, 2020

Days incarcerated

5,612 days

Why Was the Case Reopened 

• WCH and his family kept petitioning about his innocence over the years. They mailed more than 600 petition letters to various authorities asking for help to reopen the case. While in prison, WCH consistently refused to admit the crime or show any remorse, a precondition for receiving a commuted sentence.  

• WCH and his family received help from volunteer lawyers Li Changqing and Jin Hongwei, who reviewed the case file and committed themselves to rectify injustice in the case.

• After the High Court rejected his petition for another retrial in December 2012, WCH petitioned to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC).

• On September 29, 2018, the SPC decided to reopen the case and ordered the High Court to conduct a retrial.

Factors Contributing to the Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

• WCH did not confess until  he was severely tortured. Police beat and kicked him and threatened to detain his wife if he did not confess. He was interrogated and tortured outside of the detention center, where he should have been interrogated. When he was returned to the detention center, authorities there did not fill out a physical examination form to reflect WCH’s physical condition. As a result of torture, WCH provided false confessions and information that did not match many details found at the crime scene. He recanted his false confessions as soon as the first trial started.

Problematic Forensic Evidence

• The police conducted a polygraph test on WCH after the case was sent back for retrial for the third time, but they failed to follow proper procedures and did not ask WCH any control questions. (In addition, scientists have shown that polygraph tests are not scientifically valid or reliable.) 

• The autopsy report did not say anything about flour dough mixed with TETS being found in the victim’s stomach. However, the forensic report said that a sample of the victim’s stomach contents was found to contain TETS. The police had no record showing the chain of custody of the sample of stomach contents.

Investigator’s Errors

• Wang’s wife told the police several names of persons whom she believed to have conflicts with her family. She did not mention WCH. Investigators did not look at persons who were on her list. Instead, the police pressed Wang to think of conflicts with WCH.

• WCH told the police that he saw another person coming out of Wang’s house around the same time he was there. Police did not pursue this lead.

• During the early investigation, multiple witnesses testified that Wang had once accused his wife of placing their own rat poison next to the flour in the kitchen. The investigators stopped looking into this after WCH confessed.

Other Developments

• In 2004, the Ministry of Public Security launched a nation-wide three-year campaign to clear up pending homicide cases. The number of cleared homicide cases rose from 2,176 in 2003 to 5,910 in 2004. In this case, local police declared that the case was cleared one week after the crime occurred.   

• After his acquittal, on June 2, 2020, WCH filed a claim with the High Court for state compensation of RMB18.72 million. He eventually was awarded RMB2.62 million. WCH appealed to the SPC for review of the compensation in August 2020. On April 23, 2021, the SPC revised the High Court’s state compensation decision and awarded WCH RMB 3.14 million.

NEW Zhang Yuhuan Murder Case (张玉环故意杀人案)

The Defendant/Exoneree 

Zhang Yuhuan (张玉环) was born on September 18, 1967; he was 26 years old when incarcerated and 53 years old when he was acquitted.

Facts

On October 24, 1993, Zhang Zhenrong (Rong, six years old) and Zhang Zhenwei (Wei, four years old) were found drowned in a reservoir in Zhangjia Village in Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province. The police's autopsy report showed that they had been dumped into the reservoir after death. Rong was strangled by a noose and died of asphyxiation due to chin compression in the front of the neck, and Wei died of asphyxiation due to strangulation. The police found a sack in the reservoir and determined that it was a homicide committed by an acquaintance of the victims. The police locked down the entire village to take depositions from everyone.

According to some fellow villagers, Zhang Yuhuan (ZYH) had a few dried bloody scratches on his back and his left hand; and he behaved abnormally the night before the victims’ bodies were found — that is, he went alone to a sunning ground to dry his grain while it was raining. ZYH said that he had planned to leave the village to work in another city the next day and wanted to dry the grain before his departure. So, he covered the grain with a layer of plastic sheet and stayed there to keep thieves away. Some villagers also reported that the victims once had poured salt and soy sauce into ZYH’s drinking water tank. After conducting a house-to-house check of all 61 households in the village, the police identified ZYH as a suspect. According to the police report, when questioned by the police, ZYH looked nervous and kept rubbing his hands, and was unable to explain the scratches on his hand.

On October 27, 1993, the police took ZYH to their station for interrogation on suspicion of killing the children in revenge for their prank. During the interrogation, ZYH made two different confessions. According to one of the false confessions, the police extracted jute fibers from the sack that were found to be the same type of fiber as ZYH’s working clothes. But the police didn’t conduct forensic examinations of the sack or ZYH’s working clothes.

Procedural History 

• On October 27, 1993, ZYH was placed under sheltering for investigation, a form of detention. 

• On December 29, 1993, ZYH was formally arrested.

• On January 5, 1994, ZYH was indicted for intentional murder.

• On January 26, 1995, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court (Intermediate Court) convicted ZYH of intentional murder and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon ZYH’s appeal, on March 30, 1995, the Jiangxi High People's Court (High Court) revoked the conviction and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

• On November 7, 2001, the Intermediate Court again convicted ZYH of intentional murder and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon ZYH’s second appeal, on November 28, 2001, the High Court sustained the Intermediate Court’s conviction. ZYH was sent to prison.

Date of the Conviction

January 26, 1995

Date the Wrongful Conviction Was Vacated/Reversed

August 4, 2020

Days incarcerated

9,778 days

Why Was the Case Reopened 

• ZYH and his family kept petitioning for his innocence through the years. They submitted hundreds of petition letters to various authorities.

• Zhang Youlin (“ZYL”), a local doctor, helped to connect ZYH and his family with media reporters, who later introduced them to volunteer lawyers. Through a group of reporters, ZYL promoted ZHY’s innocence and attracted the public’s attention. 

• Volunteer lawyers Wang Fei (Wang) and Shang Manqing represented ZYH. In addition, ZYH’s family members also retained six lawyers.  Wang went to the crime scene and ZYH’s village for a thorough investigation and found illegality in the original police investigation. In May 2018, Wang submitted his findings and opinions to the High Court.

• The High Court decided to accept the case for review in June 2018.  In March 2019, it decided to ordered a retrial.

Factors Contributing to the Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

• ZYH confessed only after being severely tortured for six days and nights during police interrogation. According to ZYH, police beat, kicked, and electric-shocked him and threatened him that if he did not confess, his wife also would be detained. The police also released a police dog to bite ZYH, including his genitals. ZYH was forced to confess, resulting in two different statements that contradicted each other with respect to the crime scene location, circumstances, tools, places where the bodies were hidden, how the bodies were dumped, and tools used to hide the bodies.

Problematic Forensic Evidence

• The police found a sack from the reservoir and extracted jute fibers, which were found to be the same type of fiber as ZYH’s working clothes. Following ZYH’s confessions, the police found a hemp rope in his house. Without any forensic evidence, the police concluded that ZYH used the rope to strangle one of the victims and used the sack to transfer the victims’ bodies. The police also concluded that the scars on ZYH’s hand were caused by the victims scratching him. The police did not conduct any tests on the sack, the rope, or the victims’ nails.

Investigators’ Errors

• The head of the village had informed the police that a stranger was seen wandering in the village the day the victims disappeared. He also reported three other potential suspects. But the police did not pursue these leads. Instead, they focused on ZYH despite indications during their first interaction with him that he was likely not the suspect.

Defense Lawyer's Errors / Absence

• From ZYH’s first trial in 1995 to his final conviction in 2001, he was not represented by a lawyer. The Criminal Procedure Law at the time required that defendants who may be subject to the death penalty and who have not retained lawyers shall have lawyers appointed by the court.

Court's Errors

• The judgment stated that the crime was committed around 11 a.m. But a witness’ statement indicated that she saw the victims walking toward the reservoir that afternoon. The contradiction in the evidence was completely ignored.

Other Developments

• The Ministry of Public Security launched Strike Hard Campaigns in 1983 and 1996. While the case was pending, the rule of conviction was “the two basics,” meaning that a defendant can be convicted as long as the basic facts are clear and the basic evidence is verified. In practice, this amounted to lowering the standard of proof.

• On September 2, 2020, ZYH filed a claim with the High Court for state compensation of RMB 22.34 million. This case was settled for RMB 4.96 million.

• On March 17, 1996, sheltering for investigation, an administrative compulsory measure that was equivalent to criminal detention, was abolished.

Tan Xiuyi Rape and Murder Case 谭修义强奸、故意杀人案

The defendant/exoneree 

• Tan Xiuyi (谭修义). He was born in 1954, and was thirty-nine years old when detained and sixty years old when exonerated.

Facts

• On July 16, 1993, Tan Xiuyi (“Tan”) went to a fellow villager’s home to chat after supper. About 8 p.m. that night, victim Tan B, who was hanging out with Tan’s two daughters, stayed with them at Tan’s house. Tan went home about 10 pm. The next morning, Tan woke his younger daughter for school. After the daughter left, Tan B got up, told Tan’s mother that she had to go home to fix a meal, and left.

• After Tan B left Tan’s house on July 17, 1993, Tan went out with his wife to do farm work and came back home around 5 p.m.

• Around 3 p.m. on July 17, 1993, a fellow villager surnamed Liu and his wife went to Tan B’s house and saw her body hanging from the ceiling beam. Liu immediately smashed the lock on the door with a shovel. Liu’s wife went to get help from other villagers. They went inside to take down Tan B’s body, and found Tan B’s parents had been murdered. Tan B’s mother was found with a half a broken sickle stuck in her throat.

• Forensic reports concluded that Tan B had been strangled to death, and Tan B’s parents had been killed by a sharp instrument and a blunt instrument, respectively.    

Procedural history 

• On July 21, 1993, Tan was detained on suspicion of murder.

• On December 14, 1999, Tan was convicted of murder and sentenced to death with two-year reprieve by the Zhoukou Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”) in Henan Province.

• Tan appealed his conviction. On May 18, 2000, the Henan Provincial High People’s Court (“High Court”) remanded the case to the Intermediate Court on the grounds that the facts of the case were unclear.

• On January 1, 2002, the Intermediate Court retried the case, convicted Tan of rape and murder, and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.

• Upon Tan’s second appeal, on July 31, 2003, the High Court affirmed the Intermediate Court’s decision and approved Tan’s sentence. Tan was sent to prison.    

Date of the conviction

December 14, 1999

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 16, 2022

Days incarcerated

10,744

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Tan petitioned many times while serving his time in prison.

• His family petitioned to the High Court in December 2016. One year later, the High Court dismissed Tan’s petition for retrial on the grounds that the conviction and sentencing were appropriate and were supported by clear facts and reliable and sufficient evidence.

• Tan’s family petitioned to the Henan Provincial People’s Procuratorate (“Provincial Procuratorate”) in May 2017. The Provincial Procuratorate determined that the conviction was erroneous and was based on unclear facts and unreliable and insufficient evidence. Therefore, it filed a request to appeal with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (“SPP”) on June 18, 2020.

• The SPP appealed to the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) for retrial on March 16, 2022.

• The SPC decided to reopen the case on July 18, 2022 and remanded it to the High Court for retrial.

• On October 20, 2022, Tan was released from the prison after serving his time.

• On December 16, 2022, the High Court acquitted Tan.  

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False confession

  • Tan was tortured by the police to confess. Except for Tan’s five inculpatory statements to the police, there was no direct evidence to prove that Tan committed rape and murder, or connect Tan with the crimes.

  • Tan made multiple exculpatory statements of his innocence for the first three days of his detention. But none of these were recorded by the police.

  • Tan’s signatures in his inculpatory statements were fabricated.

  • The details of Tan’s inculpatory statements contradicted each other and the forensic evidence. For example, for the rape charge, Tan said that Tan B was wearing pants, but the forensic reports and witness statements indicated that she was wearing a skirt.

• Investigator’s tunnel vision

  • Forensic testing of the red stains at the crime scene indicated that elements of blood were found, but they were not conclusive and did not connect the stains with Tan.

  • Witness statements proved Tan’s activities before and after the crime, but didn’t prove Tan committed the crime.    

Other Developments 

In September 19, 2023, Tan received RMB 7.87 million (US$1.08 million) as state compensation.

Information sources

• 最高法指令再审一杀人强奸案：男子已服刑29年，今年10月刑满

• 被控杀害一家三口判死缓 “河南谭修义案”有了新进展

• “河南谭修义案”再审改判无罪 当事人成国内被羁押时间最长蒙冤者

Zhang Guangxiang Robbery Case (张光祥抢劫案)

The defendant/exoneree

• Zhang Guangxiang (张光祥) was born on April 25, 1966. He was thirty-seven years old when incarcerated and forty-seven years old when he was finally acquitted.

Facts 

• On December 9, 1999, the victim Xu Jin (“Xu”) was murdered inside his private clinic in Babujie Town, Zhijin County of Guizhou Provine. The case had been cold for almost four years. 

• In November 2003, the Zhijin County police apprehended Zhang Guangxiang (“Zhang”), one of Xu’s acquaintances, as a suspect because he, without a good reason, did not attend Xu’s funeral. 

• In custody, Zhang confessed to murdering Xu and robbing him of 1,140 Yuan in cash.

Procedural History  

• On November 3, 2003, the police detained Zhang.

• On November 24, 2003, the police officially arrested Zhang.

• In March 2004, the Bijie City People’s Procuratorate of Guizhou Province (“City Procuratorate”) indicted Zhang in the Bijie City Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”).  

• The City Procuratorate withdrew the case and returned it to the police for supplementary investigation because of Zhang’s recantation and alibi evidence provided during the first hearing.

• On August 12, 2004, Zhang was released on bail pending further investigation.

• In October 2006, the City Procuratorate revoked the bail and arrested Zhang for the second indictment.

• On June 7, 2007, the Intermediate Court convicted Zhang of robbery and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve. Zhang appealed. 

• On August 9, 2007, the Guizhou Provincial High People’s Court (“High Court”) remanded the case back to the Intermediate Court for retrial under the grounds of unclear facts. Meanwhile, the High Court raised seventeen questions to the Intermediate Court for further investigation.  

• In September 2008, the Intermediate Court again convicted Zhang of robbery and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve. However, the second conviction failed to respond substantially to the seventeen questions the Higher Court raised. Zhang appealed again.  

• In April 2009, the High Court remanded the case back to the Intermediate Court for retrial. This time, the High Court raised another twelve questions and demanded more evidence.

• In December 2012, the Intermediate Court convicted Zhang of robbery for the third time and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. Zhang filed a third appeal.

• After a public hearing on April 29, 2014, the High Court acquitted Zhang because of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

Date of the wrongful conviction

• June 7, 2007

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed 

April 29, 2014

Days incarcerated

3,049 days

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• The defendant and his lawyer maintained his innocence throughout the trials.

• In March 2012, the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law restricted the remand conditions for retrial in appellate cases. Under the revisions, when an appeal is filed from a remanded case where the original decision is based on insufficient evidence or unclear facts, the appellate court shall issue a final decision without remanding the case for a second retrial (Article 225). In the case of Zhang, the High Court had to decide whether Zhang was guilty when he appealed in December 2012. 

• On August 11, 2013, the Central Political and Legal Committee issued the first set of guidelines on preventing and redressing wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. The campaign commenced efforts to review backlogged cases where the defendants had been detained for over three years.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False Confession

  • Zhang was suspended from an iron rod for four days without sleep or food. After four days of severe torture, Zhang confessed “in order to survive.” He was forced to place his fingerprints on a written confession premade by the police. Zhang recanted his confession in court during the first hearing. 

  • After Zhang was released on bail for the first time, he went to a photo shop to take pictures of the scars on his waist. His wife stated that when he came home, his hands shook too much to hold chopsticks.

• Investigator’s Tunnel Vision

  • Zhang had an alibi: he watched a movie with someone when the crime occurred. But, the police did not pursue the lead to verify his alibi. 

  • Zhang’s fingerprints weren't at the crime scene. 

  • Despite the recanted confession and lack of evidence from the crime scene, the police failed to investigate other leads.

• Unreliable forensic evidence 

  • The police put Zhang through a polygraph test and identified him as the suspect. Although the result from the polygraph test was not used as evidence, the unvalidated testing method could bias investigators. 

Other Development

• In 2015, the High Court awarded Zhang 701,900 RMB in state compensation: 611,900 RMB for deprivation of personal liberty and 90,000 RMB as consolation for mental anguish.

Liao Haijun Murder Case (廖海军故意杀人案); Liao You and Huang Yuxiu Harboring a Criminal Case (廖友、黄玉秀包庇案)

The defendant/exoneree

• Liao Haijun (廖海军) was born on April 1, 1981; he was sixteen years old when incarcerated and 37 years old when he was acquitted.

• Liao You (廖友), Liao Haijun's stepfather, was incarcerated for five years.

• Huang Yuxiu (黄玉秀), Liao Haijun's mother, was incarcerated for five years.

Facts 

• In Xinji Village of Tangshan City, Hebei Province, at noon on January 17, 1999, Lu Hong (陆红), a nine-year-old girl, went to find her cousin Lu Nan (陆楠), also nine, to return to school together after lunch. The two girls mysteriously went missing. Two days later, a bag containing the girls' bodies was discovered in a dry well near the village, along with a blood-stained rope tying the bodies. The autopsy revealed that the Lu girls were not sexually assaulted but received fatal injuries to their heads and necks caused by a knife. 

• The police investigated repeatedly throughout the entire village with the assistance of police dogs without finding any evidence. When the police revisited the Liao family, Huang Yuxiu ("Huang"), who had a bad temper, confronted the police and struck a police officer with a ladle. The police immediately took her to the local police station for questioning. Her son and her husband were also subsequently taken there for questioning.

• Liao Haijun ("LHJ") had dropped out of middle school and couldn't explain where he was when the crime occurred. The police thus believed LHJ was the murder suspect.

• LHJ was then sixteen and thinly built. When the victims' families expressed doubt that LHJ could have killed two nine-year-old girls alone, the police suspected that his parents must be his accomplices. The police alleged that LHJ enticed the victims to his home and killed them with a knife. Huang and Liao You ("LY") allegedly aided LHJ by dumping the two bodies into the dry well.

Procedural History  

• On January 26, 1999, the police detained LHJ. They officially arrested him on March 8, 1999. 

• On January 25, 1999, the police placed LY and Huang under residential surveillance. On January 27, 1999, the police detained Huang. On March 6, 1999, the police officially arrested LY and Huang.  

• On December 8, 2000, after the first hearing, the Tangshan Intermediate People's Court ( the Intermediate Court) asked the Tangshan City Procuratorate (the City Procuratorate) to identify further the bloodstains collected from LHJ's house, citing unclear facts and insufficient evidence. On the same day, the City Procuratorate withdrew the case. 

• On March 15, 2001, the City Procuratorate indicted the three defendants again. However, on April 18, 2001, they withdrew the indictment because of insufficient evidence.

• On October 25, 2001, the Intermediate Court sent a letter to the City Procuratorate, citing unclear facts and insufficient evidence, and asked the prosecutors to handle the case according to the law. 

• On June 20, 2003, the City Procuratorate, without substantial changes in facts and evidence, indicted LHJ for murder and his parents for harboring a criminal. 

• On July 9, 2003, the Intermediate Court convicted LHJ of intentional murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment; it convicted LY and Huang of harboring a criminal and sentenced them each to five years in prison. No one appealed. 

Date of the wrongful conviction

• July 9, 2003

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed    

August 9, 2018

Days incarcerated

4,105 days for LHJ (on April 24, 2010, he was released on bail pending retrial), 1,803 days for Huang, and 1,833 days for LY.

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• After serving her time, Huang petitioned the courts to reopen the case for retrial. She raised concerns about evidence contamination because of the prolonged time it took to examine physical evidence. 

• LHJ petitioned for his innocence while serving his time in prison. 

• The Intermediate Court dismissed the Liao family's petitions in July 2004, and the Hebei Provincial High People's Court ("High Court") dismissed them in September 2006. 

• On August 13, 2009, the Supreme People's Court accepted the Liao family’s petition and ordered the High Court to retry this case. 

• On November 25, 2009, the High Court returned the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

• Two years after the retrial hearings, the Intermediate Court declared the three defendants not guilty in August 2018. 

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False Confession

  • The police severely tortured all three defendants during interrogation. LHJ and Huang claimed that they were slapped, kicked, struck with an electric baton, and had their hands tied before being thrown into the trunk of a car. Medical records show that LY was taken to a local hospital for emergency treatment the day after the first police interrogation and was diagnosed with "traumatic toxic shock, extensive soft tissue damage, metabolic acidosis, and acute renal failure." He was hospitalized for 40 days. 

• Investigator's Tunnel Vision

  • The forensic examination reports from the Ministry of Public Security repeatedly indicated that blood stains collected from LHJ's house did not match the victims but matched Huang and LY. Despite this, the police did not stop sending the samples for further testing until the Shanghai local police could not exclude the blood stain from being mixed with the victims' blood. 

  • When the victim's family doubted LHJ alone could be the perpetrator, instead of looking for other possible suspects, the police concluded that LY and Huang must have been LHJ’s accomplices.

  • When the police did not find a motivation for LHJ, LY, and Huang to commit the crime, they coerced the victims' families to state that the Liao family had arguments and conflicts with them. The victim's families complained to different authorities about this coercion for years.    

• Insufficient Evidence

  • The alleged crime tools, the knife and rope, were not discovered in LHJ's house.

• Problem in the Chain of Custody

  • On June 1, 2003, before the initial conviction, all the physical evidence, including the rope and the bag, went missing while they were under prosecutorial preservation, citing water damage and the janitor's fault. 

  • In 2003, the victim's family was told that the bodies of the two victims had decomposed due to morgue freezer failure. 

  • One year after the crime, the police sent two strands of hair allegedly discovered on the rope used to tie the corpses to a forensic lab in a different province. According to DNA analysis, these hairs belonged to LY. However, no documentation confirmed the hair strands were collected at the crime scene. 

• Prosecutorial misconduct

  • The prosecution did not send the exculpatory evidence of the two forensic reports from the Ministry of Public Security to the trial court. 

Other Development

• LY and Huang passed away before the not guilty decision was made, on December 2, 2010, and July 16, 2018, respectively. 

• LHJ filed a state compensation claim on August 9, 2018, and received an award of RMB 3.4 million on April 22, 2019. 

• Zhang Baoxiang, a former police officer, was investigated for torturing the defendants in this case. On August 26, 2019, his case was sent to prosecutorial review for indictment.

Chen Man Murder Case 陈满故意杀人案

The defendant/exoneree  

• Chen Man (陈满) was born on February 18, 1963; he was twenty-nine years old when he was incarcerated and was fifty-three years old when he was finally acquitted.

Facts 

• On December 25, 1992, Firefighters discovered the body of Zhong Zuokuan (钟作宽) on fire at his residence. Zhong Zuokuan was Chen Mans’ former landlord. On December 28, 1992, the police apprehended Chen Man on suspicion of killing Zhong and setting the crime scene on fire to cover up. 

• Chen had moved out of Zhong’s rental room before the crime occurred. 

• The police found Chen’s work permit card in Zhong’s pocket. 

Procedural History  

• On December 28, 1992, Chen was held in a form of custody called “sheltering for investigation” (SFI, 收容审查).

• On September 25, 1993, the police officially arrested Chen.

• On November 29, 1993, Chen was indicted on the charge of murder by the Haikou People’s Procuratorate of Hainan Province.  

• On November 9, 1994, Chen was convicted of the charges of murder and arson and sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve by the Haikou Intermediate People’s Court of Hainan Province. The prosecution appealed to the Hainan Provincial High People’s Court (Hainan High Court) on the ground that the sentence was too lenient. 

• On April 15, 1999, the appeal was denied, and the original judgment was sustained. Chen was sent to prison to serve his time.

• On February 10, 2015, upon Chen’s petition, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) filed an appeal to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) to reopen this case. 

• On April 24, 2015, the SPC decided to reopen the case and ordered the Zhejiang Provincial High People’s Court (Zhejiang High Court) to retry it. 

• On January 25, 2016, the Zhejiang High Court acquitted Chen on the ground of insufficient evidence. 

Date of the wrongful conviction  

November 9, 1994

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed  

January 25, 2016

Days incarcerated

8,428

Why was the case reopened/reversed  

• Chen and his family continued to appeal the conviction. 

• Their efforts caught the attention of some prominent defense lawyers, who recently launched an innocent movement organization and decided to take Chen’s case as their inaugural wrongful conviction case.

• Chen’s lawyers sent numerous petitions to the SPP and the SPC, which resulted in much media attention.

• Finally, the SPP decided to review the case.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• Forced confession

  • At first, Chen didn’t confess to the crime. He claimed the police had whipped, beaten, and scalded him to force his confession. Chen’s confession was inconsistent, and his statements on the timing, methods, and weapon used did not match the crime scene investigation, the forensic report, or the testimony of witnesses. Among his 13 statements, he recanted his confession multiple times. 

• Tunnel vision

  • Several witnesses testified that Chen had an alibi when Zhong was murdered. Some said they saw Chen at the construction site. Others claimed they watched television and played mahjong with Chen. But the investigators and the judges at the first trial dismissed Chen’s alibis without investigating them.  

  • The police found a pair of glasses at the crime scene. Neither Zhong nor Chen wore glasses. The police did not follow this lead when looking for suspects.

  • The autopsy report concluded that Zhong was stabbed to death by a sharp instrument. Chen’s lawyers claimed that the kitchen cleaver the police found at the crime scene could not make the type of wounds sustained by the victim.  

• Lack of scientific evidence

  • The alleged murder weapon - the kitchen cleaver – was not tested for DNA or fingerprints. 

  • A bloody shirt, which the police claimed to have found at the crime scene, was never presented as evidence to the court. No DNA test was performed to identify whose blood was on the shirt. 

• Failure to preserve and present evidence

  • The prosecution never presented the kitchen cleaver, the shirt with blood stains, Chen’s work permit, and other crucial physical evidence in court.

  • During the retrial, the police claimed that they had lost these key physical evidence during a national sanitary campaign.

Other developments

• SFI was officially abolished in 1996 when China amended its Criminal Procedure Law.

• On March 14, 2016, Chen filed a lawsuit with the Hainan High Court for state compensation of 9.66 million RMB. On May 13, 2016, the state compensation case was settled for 2.75 million RMB. 

Chen Xiaying & Others Kidnapping Case 陈夏影等人绑架案

The defendant/exoneree

• Chen Xiaying (陈夏影) was born on October 18, 1979; he was seventeen years old when he was incarcerated and thirty-six years old when he was finally acquitted.

• Huang Xing (黄兴) was born on December 29, 1975; he was twenty-one years old when he was incarcerated and forty years old when he was finally acquitted.

• Lin Lifeng (林立峰) was born on July 4, 1977; he was nineteen years old when he was incarcerated and thirty-one years when he died in prison.

Facts 

• On the evening of April 26, 1996, Tang Ming (唐明), an eleven-year-old boy, was home alone. The next morning, his father came home from work and found the boy had gone missing. Tang’s father found a ransom note on the table in their house, demanding the family deliver 70,000 RMB at a bridge in exchange for the boy’s safe return. That night, Tang’s mother and his uncle, accompanied by the local police, went to the designated bridge to deliver the ransom, but no one showed up. On April 28, another note appeared outside their window that instructed them to meet and deliver the money to a local water supply plant. The note said: “If you are followed by someone again, we will not take the money, and your son will die.” Tang’s family went to the second designated place but didn’t see anyone pick up the ransom. There were no more messages from the kidnapper after this. 

• On May 20, 1996, human remains were found near a local elementary school. Forensic testing on the skull verified that the deceased was Tang Ming. 

• Chen, Huang, and Lin were routine visitors to the grocery store owned by Tang’s parents. They were drug addicts and often short of money. Lin told his aunt he saw Tang being strangled to death.

• Lin’s aunt reported his comments to the police. The police took Lin into custody to investigate him. During interrogation, Lin gave up the names of his two friends - Huang Xing and Chen Xiaying.   

Procedural History  

• On June 3, 1996, the police placed Chen, Huang, and Lin under residential surveillance.

• On June 6, June 7, and July 12, 1996, the police placed Lin, Chen, and Huang under sheltering for investigation (SFI, 收容审查), an administrative compulsory measure enforced by the police.  

• On August 5, 1996, the police formally arrested the three. 

• On March 2, 1998, the Fuzhou City People’s Procuratorate indicted the three defendants on kidnapping charges. 

• On November 6, 1998, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (the Intermediate Court) convicted the three defendants of kidnapping. As a minor, Chen was sentenced to life imprisonment; Lin and Huang were sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve. 

• Upon the three defendants’ appeal, on September 2, 1999, the Fujian Provincial High People’s Court (the High Court) remanded the case to the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court for retrial because of the unclear facts and insufficient evidence. 

• On April 11, 2000, the Intermediate Court again convicted the three defendants of kidnapping and sentenced Huang and Lin to death and Chen to life imprisonment.

• On July 9, 2001, upon the three defendants’ appeal, the High Court remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for a second retrial on the basis of unclear facts. 

• On August 22, 2002, the Intermediate Court again convicted the defendants of kidnapping. They sentenced Lin and Huang to death with a two-year reprieve and Chen to life imprisonment. 

• Upon the defendants’ appeal on November 25, 2006, the High Court upheld the Intermediate Court’s ruling and sent the defendants to prison.   

Date of the wrongful conviction

• November 6, 1998

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

• May 29, 2015

Days incarcerated

6,930 days for Chen, 6,895 days for Huang, and 4,249 days for Lin before he died of cancer in prison

Why was the case reopened/reversed   

• The defendants, their families, and lawyers maintained their innocence throughout the trials. They repeatedly petitioned the central and local governments, legislators, and courts before and after the conviction. 

• Chen’s lawyer connected with several lawyers across China to form a strong defense team. They successfully garnered publicity for the case online and through the media to attract the public’s attention. 

• Around the same time this case was reopened, the High Court had another high-profile exoneration of a wrongful conviction, the Wu Changlong case. The Chinese Communist Party criticized Fujian Province and Henan Province for having the most wrongful convictions.   

• In November 2014, Chen’s lawyers found a witness who could prove that Chen was in a different city when the crime occurred. They submitted this witness’ written statement to the High Court and asked to reopen the case. 

• On May 29, 2015, the High Court reopened the case. After a hearing, they acquitted the defendants of kidnapping because of insufficient evidence and unclear facts. 

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False confession

  • The three defendants were severely tortured and coerced to confess. They were beaten with metal pipes, hanged by their arms, deprived of food and sleep, and threatened with a loaded gun. The police beat Huang so severely that he suffered several incidents of incontinence.   

• Unreliable witness statements

  • Several witnesses who initially provided alibis for the defendants were incarcerated, sleep deprived, and beaten until they testified against the defendants. The police sent them to a legal study class (法制学习班). They were confined there for around one to two months. 

  • Lin’s girlfriend and his cousin initially testified that Lin was watching movies with them throughout the night the crime happened. Chen’s mother was beaten and incarcerated for 75 days by the police because she originally stated that Chen was in Shenzhen, 496 miles from Fuqing, where the crime occurred. Several other witnesses, including Chen and Huang’s landlord in Shenzhen, were forced to change their statement from seeing Chen and Huang in Shenzhen to saying that Chen and Huang left Shenzhen and returned to Fuqing. 

  • The court relied on statements from three jail snitches to prove Lin kidnapped and killed the victim. 

• Lack of forensic evidence

  • The police claimed that the defendants used a truck, a red nylon rope, a blanket, tape, and a woven bag to abduct the victim. But the prosecution did not present these alleged pieces of evidence to the court or test them for DNA. 

• Investigators’ tunnel vision

  • The police received an anonymous phone call on May 16, 1996, in which the caller said in Mandarin (rather than the dialect spoken in Fujian Province) that he overheard his neighbor upstairs talking about a kidnapped child and the body being dropped in the grass near a power substation (where the elementary school was). The police did not pursue this lead. Instead, they forced the defendants to admit that they made the anonymous phone call to distract the police investigation.

  • Forensic testing of the handwriting on the ransom notes concluded that the same person wrote them but not the defendants. The police did not pursue this lead but forced the defendants to admit they had someone else write the two notes for them. This other person was never identified.   

Other developments

• Unrelated to the kidnapping case, Huang and Lin were convicted of the crime of false imprisonment and were sentenced to three years in prison. This conviction was not contested. 

• When this case began, China was in its second “strike hard campaign” against crime (严打). During the campaign, many criminal cases were handled with lax procedural protections and standards of proof. 

• Lin died of rectal cancer in prison in 2008.

• In September 2015, Huang, Chen, and Lin’s parents received state compensation of 5.37 million RMB.  

Bai Chunrong Theft Case (白春荣盗窃案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Bai Chunrong (白春荣), born on December 17, 1955.

Facts

• On October 27, 1988, Bai Chunrong bought some fabric at a cloth market in Nanhai County, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, and stored her goods at Store No.1. The next day, Bai went back to the same market where she met a person from her hometown village offering to sell her some extra fabric at a good bargaining price. Bai bought the fabric and stored it at Store No. 1. When Bai went to buy more fabric, she heard shouting and saw lots of people enter Store No.1 to see what was going on. She followed the crowd into the store and was detained by the security guards.  The store owners reported that some of their fabric was stolen and Bai was arrested, tried and convicted of theft.

• The store owners did not report the stolen fabric until they were notified by the police that some of their fabric was found in Store No.1.

• Bai did not confess.

Procedural history 

• Bai was detained by the police on October 28, 1988, under the rubric of “sheltering for investigation.” On May 4, 1989, she was formally arrested.

• On July 28, 1989, Bai was convicted of theft for stealing fabric and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment by the Nanhai County District Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province. On March 28, 1990, the Foshan Intermediate Court affirmed the judgment upon Bai’s appeal.

• On February 8, 1996, Bai was released after serving her full term in prison.

• On March 20, 2014, Bai was exonerated by the Foshan Intermediate Court on the ground of insufficient evidence.    

Date of the conviction

July 28, 1989

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

March 20, 2014

Days incarcerated

2,659

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Bai had insisted on her innocence since the first day of her detention. She kept petitioning to re-open her case even after she finished her jail time.

• In 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee issued a guidance addressing wrongful conviction, which resulted in a nation-wide campaign to correct wrongful convictions.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

Flawed police investigation

• The police required Bai to provide receipts for all the fabric she stored at the Store No.1 to prove her innocence. But Bai could only provide one receipt for one bag of fabric. Bai informed them of her sources for the bags of fabric, but the police failed to verify them.

Dubious witness identification/statements

• There was no witness description of the lost fabric before the witnesses were shown the found fabric. Even when one of the witnesses was in the Store No.1 helping Bai organize the fabric, he did not notice or recognize that his lost fabric was actually right in front of him until the security guard informed him later.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Bai was represented by counsel who defended her innocence.

Court's errors

• Failed to insist the principle that when there is a doubt about a fact, the presumption should benefit the defendant.

Other developments

• On September 4, 2014, Bai received RMB 650,000 of State compensation.

Information sources

• 老太25年前被认定偷4千元布匹判8年 改判获无罪

• 白春荣领65万国家赔偿 曾以“盗窃罪”入狱8年

• 女子入狱8年 刑满释放18年后改判无罪获赔65万

• “钟亦案”的灰与黑”

• 有限政府才能促信访归位：女子蒙冤25年 越狱上访终无罪获赔65万

Ding Guoqin Murder Case（丁国勤故意杀人案）

The defendant/exoneree 

• Din Guoqin (丁国勤), born on March 16, 1978. He was twenty-two years old when he was first detained and thirty-nine years old when exonerated.

Facts

• Ding Guoqing (“Ding”) and the victim surnamed Shao were in a romantic relationship and had been living together since 1999. In the evening of October 3, 2000, Shao had an argument with Ding and did not want to go back to their residence with Ding. The next morning, Shao was found dead in the community garden of a residential compound, with her purse and belongings scattered around. She appeared to die from suffocation. Ding became the prime suspect and was detained on October 4, 2000.

• The victim’s wallet was missing and not located in this case.

• The garden where the victim’s body was found had many zephyr lily flowers in blossom at the time. The police tested Ding’s clothing and shoes for that flower pollen but did not find any.

• Ding called Shao’s beeper at 12:11 a.m. on October 4, 2000.   

Procedural history 

• On October 4, 2000, Ding was detained and questioned by the police.

• On November 10, 2000, Ding was officially arrested.

• Huzhou Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”) convicted Ding of intentional murder and sentenced him to the death penalty on March 27, 2001.

• Upon Ding’s appeal, on May 10, 2001, Zhejiang High People’s Court (“High Court”) sustained the conviction but commuted the sentence to the death penalty with two-year reprieve.

• Ding kept petitioning for his innocence while serving his time in prison. On July 20, 2015, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Procuratorate (“Provincial Procuratorate”) issued a prosecutorial recommendation to the Hight Court for retrial.

• On October 9, 2016, Ding was released from prison after serving his time with commuted sentence.

• The High Court decided to reopen the case in May, 2017 and retried the case on July 13, 2017.

• On July 17, 2017, the High Court acquitted Ding on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

Date of the conviction

March 27, 2001

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 17, 2017

Days incarcerated

5,849

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Ding appealed several times during his imprisonment.

• The Provincial Procuratorate officially recommended the High Court to retry the case.

• The High Court decided to reopen the case two years after the prosecutorial recommendation.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False confession

  • Ding did not confess to the crime until the 68th day of his detention. He was interrogated by the police fifty-three times, but only thirty-eight statements were recorded. Ding defended his innocence in thirty-three of these statements, and confessed only in the last five. Furthermore, the five confessions contradicted each other and other evidence in the case. Additionally, none of the confessions matched the complete process of the crime. Ding recanted his confessions many times.

• Police’s misconduct

  • The police did not turn in two pieces of exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor: one is the forensic testing proving that no pollen of zephyr lily was found on Ding’s shoes or pants; the other is Ding’s phone call record indicating that Ding called the victim’s beeper in the time frame when the offense was committed.    

• Investigators’ tunnel vision

  • Eyewitnesses’ statements indicated that Ding had been to the residential compound the night of the crime, but did not prove Ding had entered the community garden and committed the crime.

  • Forensic testing found the victim’s DNA in a DNA sample collected from Ding’s pants that he had been wearing on the night of the crime. Thus, the police used the DNA match as a key evidence to indict Ding as the assailant.

• Dubious forensic evidence

  • The police used a sniffer dog to prove Ding was connected to the crime.

• Court’s failure

  • Both the trial court and the appellate court failed to recognize the contradictions between Ding’s recanted confessions, forensic evidence and the prosecutor’s account. For example, Ding once confessed that he had choked the victim to death with his hands, but the evidence showed that the assailant used the victim’s purse straps to suffocate her. Another example is that the evidence indicated that the murderer muffled the victim’s mouth, clutched her neck, and tied her throat with the bag strap, and that the victim’s wallet was gone. These contradicted the characteristics of crime of passion, as argued by prosecutors during the trial court.

• Other developments

  • In May, 2018, the High Court decided to pay RMB2.74 million to Ding as state compensation.

Information sources

• 丁国勤案：又是警犬惹的祸？

• 浙江男子卷入同居女友命案被判死缓，服刑16年再审获无罪

• 洗冤丨浙江一死刑犯服刑16年后改判无罪！冤案当年是如何炼成的？

• 写入浙江高院工作报告的案件一起来“盘”！

Du Peiwu Murder Case (杜培武故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Du Peiwu (杜培武), born in 1967; he was a police officer at the Kunming Public Security Bureau at the time of the incident.

Facts

• On April 20, 1998, Du Peiwu’s wife and another police officer, Wang, were found shot dead in Wang’s vehicle. The investigating police suspected that Du’s wife and Wang were having an affair and that Du killed them for revenge.

• On April 22, 1998, Du was detained and interrogated. He confessed after 70 days of interrogation.

• In June 2000, after Du’s conviction, a group of gang members were arrested for a series of robberies. One of the gang members, Yang Tianyong (a police officer), confessed that he committed the crime in Du’s case. Following Yang’s instruction, the police found the handgun in the drawer of Yang’s apartment, which was linked to the shots that killed the two victims in Du’s case.

• Both Du and Yang were police officers before they were convicted.

• The handgun used to shoot the two victims was not found during Du’s investigation.

Procedural history 

• Du Peiwu was charged with intentional murder of his wife and another police officer.

• On February 5, 1999, Du was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Kunming Intermediate Court in Yunnan Province.

• On October 20, 1999, the Yunnan Provincial High Court confirmed the conviction but changed the sentence to death with two years suspension.

• On July 6, 2000, Du was exonerated by the Yunnan Provincial High Court because the real perpetrator Yang Tianyong came forward and was convicted.    

Date of the conviction

February 5, 1999

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 6, 2000

Days incarcerated

814

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

On June 17, 2000, the police arrested a group of gang members who had committed serial armed robberies in Kunming City. Yang Tianyong, one of the gang members, confessed that this group also committed the crime in Du’s case and laughed at the police’s incompetence in Du’s case. Later, the police discovered the handgun which was used to shoot the two victims and a mini-recorder belonging to one of the victims was found in a drawer in Yang’s home.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• The police interrogated Du Peiwu for 70 days, including periods of 10 days consecutively and 20 days consecutively. Consistent with Chinese law, lawyers were not allowed to be present during the police interrogation.

• Du was severely physically and mentally tortured by the police. Du was deprived of sleep, beaten by the police using their fists and electric rods. The police officers tied Du’s hands and hung Du against a door in the air. Du claims that he confessed to stop the torture.

Problematic forensic evidence

• The mud found on Du’s shoes and pants did not match the mud on the brake plate and gas plate on the vehicle.

• There were two contradicting reports based on a dog sniffing test concerning whether Du had been in the vehicle where the victims were found.

• Du also underwent two polygraph tests. The results did not positively show that Du was lying on major issues, but it also did not show that Du was not lying at all. The polygraph expert failed to explain the possible error and inaccuracy in the polygraph tests.

Prosecutorial errors

• The procuratorate suppressed evidence that proved Du was tortured.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Du was represented by counsel and claimed his innocence.

Court's errors

• Failed to credit the physical evidence (Du’s shirt which was torn during torture) Du presented at court, as well as Du’s in-court statement, that he was tortured. Refused to credit Du’s in-court exculpatory statements.

• Failed to consider exculpatory witness identifications and testimonies: No eye witness identified Du as the perpetrator.

Other developments

• Two police officers in Du’s case were convicted of extorting confession through torture after Du’s acquittal.

• In October 2001, Du was rewarded RMB 91,141 State compensation by the Yunnan Provincial High Court.

Information sources

• 昆明杨天勇案7主犯伏法 民警杜培武冤案昭雪

• 杜培武——一名被冤枉的警察

• 杜培武：我是反侦查经验丰富的警察，但是到最后，我还是招供了

• 云南民警杜培武案再审无罪释放

• 真凶归案洗清冤屈 “死囚”获国家赔偿9万元 被错误羁押800多天未得精神赔偿引起争议

Fang Junjin Illegal Intrusion Case (方俊金非法侵入住宅案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Fang Junjin (方俊金), born in 1973.

Facts

• On February 12, 2009, a burglary was reported in Tubu Town, Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province. The victim reported that three computer monitors were missing. The police collected a fingerprint on the package of a box of cigarettes found at the crime scene. Four years later, the police found that Fang Junjin’s fingerprint in the police fingerprint database matched the fingerprint from the crime scene. On April 11, 2013, Fang, who was in Pumei Town, Yunxiao County of Fujian Province, was detained by the Jiangxi police and taken back to Yongxiu County (these two counties are in two different provinces which are more than 700 kilometers away from one another).

• The victim of the burglary was a criminal judge at the Yongxiu District Court. This is the criminal court where Fang was originally convicted.

• After the fingerprint was collected, the police gave the cigarette box back to the victim and the victim discarded it. The police did not preserve the evidence.

• The police did not find any other fingerprints of Fang at the crime scene.

• Fang said that he was not tortured during police interrogation.

Procedural history 

• On April 24, 2013, Fang was formally arrested by the Yongxiu police.  

• On September 3, 2013, Fang was accused of burglary by the Yongxiu District Procuratorate of Jiangxi Province.

• On November 7, 2013, Fang was convicted of the crime of illegal intrusion in the residence of another, and sentenced to 13-month imprisonment by the Yongxiu District Court.

• On December 9, 2013, Fang’s case was remanded for retrial by the Jiujiang City Intermediate Court upon Fang’s appeal. 

• During the retrial, on March 11, 2014, the Yongxiu District Procuratorate withdrew the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence and decided to drop the charge.

• On March 17, 2014, Fang was released from the Yongxiu County Detention Station.     

Date of the conviction

November 7, 2013

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

March 17, 2014

Days incarcerated

339

Why was the case reopened/reversed  

• Fang never confessed. Fang’s lawyer claimed his client was innocent throughout the case.

• The case had been highly publicized, which pressed the court to review it.

• The Yongxiu District Procuratorate and the Yongxiu District Court realized the flaws during retrial.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• None. Fang never confessed.

Flawed police investigation

• Fang, his family, neighbors and friends all testified that at the time of the crime, Fang was in Pumei Town of Fujian Province taking care of Fang’s mother, who had just had surgery. Pumei Town is 793 kilometers away from Tubu Town of Jiangxi Province where the crime was committed. But the police required Fang to provide videotapes for that period of time to prove his alibi.

Problematic forensic evidence

• The fingerprint that matched Fang’s was found on the inside of the cigarette package box. But Fang had worked in a tobacco factory packing cigarettes in Yunxiao County of Fujian Province where this kind of cigarette is manufactured.

Prosecutorial errors

• The procuratorate realized that the case was very weak when they granted the police application for approval of arrest, and changed the crime of burglary to the lesser crime of illegal intrusion of the residence of another. But the procuratorate changed the charge back to burglary again during indictment.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Fang was represented by a lawyer who presented a defense of innocence.

Court's errors

• The victim is one of the judges at the Yongxiu District Court and shared the same office with the presiding judge in Fang’s case. The presiding judge should have been recused.

• The original judgment did not address how Fang had access to the residence, how he transferred three computer monitors out of the residence or the whereabouts of the monitors.

Other developments

• In June 2014, Yongxiu Court officially offered an apology to Fang. Yongxiu local government reached an agreement with Fang on 236,000 RMB of State compensation.

Information sources

• 央视《东方时空》报道方俊金案 质疑该案证据不足

• 窃案失主 是永修县法院审判员

• 漳州农民因指纹出现在失窃案现场 被异地关押11月

• 云霄村民方俊金被错抓错判 获国家赔偿23.6万元

• 福建男子被跨省错拘错捕错判 339天后无罪释放

Huge Jiletu Rape and Murder Case (呼格吉勒图强奸、故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Huge Jiletu (呼格吉勒图), born in 1978; he was 18 when he was executed.

Facts

• On the night of April 9, 1996, Huge heard a scream from a women’s restroom near where he worked. Huge and his friend Yan Feng went together to check out what happened. They discovered a female body, naked below the waist, on her back on top of a low wall in the women’s restroom. They reported the crime to the local police. On April 11, 1996, the police suspected that Huge was the perpetrator and detained him for interrogation. Huge was tortured by the police and finally confessed that he raped and killed the victim. Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder, and sentenced to death on May 23, 1996.

• Nine years after Huge’s execution, Zhao Zhihong who was arrested for a series of rape and murder charges confessed that he was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.

• Other special facts about this case:

  • Huge’s case was highly publicized in 1996 as a triumph of cracking down on crimes. Some police officers, prosecutors and judges were promoted due to their work on Huge’s case.

  • In 1996, China was in its second “strike hard” campaign against violent crimes. The campaign required that certain types of crimes, usually violent crimes, should be punished strictly, severely and quickly. At that time, the authority to review death penalty cases was delegated to provincial high courts by the Supreme People’s Court. In Huge’s case, it was the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court that reviewed his appeal and affirmed his death penalty.

Procedural history 

• On May 23, 1996, Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder of a woman in a public restroom and sentenced to death by the Hohhot City Intermediate Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.

• On June 5, 1996, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court affirmed the judgment and Huge’s death penalty upon his appeal.

• On June 10, 1996, 62 days after the crime was discovered, Huge was executed.

• On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong, a serial rapist and killer was arrested. Among over 20 other cases of rape and murder from 1996 to 2005, Zhao voluntarily confessed that he also committed the crime in Huge’s case.

• In March 2006, the Political-Legal Committee of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region started reviewing Huge’s case and concluded in August 2006 that Huge was wrongfully convicted.

• On November 28, 2006, the Hohhot City Intermediate Court heard the Zhao Zhihong case.

• On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court re-opened the Huge case.

• On December 15, 2014, after having reviewed all case documents, and retried the case, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court announced that Huge was not guilty.   

Date of the conviction

May 23, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 15, 2014

Days incarcerated

Executed.

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong was arrested and confessed his crime in Huge’s case. Zhao’s confessions was voluntary and consistent. Since then, Huge’s family petitioned to re-open Huge case. Meanwhile, both cases were highly publicized by China’s news media and raised a lot of public attention. In March 2006, the Inner Mongolia Political-Legal Committee formed a review group on Huge case and preliminarily concluded that Huge was wrongfully convicted. Some news media in China kept reporting these two cases. Public opinion had a great impact on the re-opening of Huge case. On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia High Court decided to re-open the case.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• The police deceived Huge by telling him that the victim did not die, and that he could go home as soon as he confessed.

• Huge was physically and mentally tortured during police interrogation. They did not allow Huge to use the restroom unless he confessed first. Huge was told that he had to confess in accordance with what the police had told him. His testimonies during the first police interrogation and during the prosecutors’ interrogation contested that he did not commit the crime. But the procuratorate failed to pay attention to Huge’s contesting testimony.

Flawed police investigation

• In order to explain Huge’s motive of the crime, the police tried to make eyewitness Yan Feng testify that Huge watched pornography. But Yan Feng contested. Under the pressure from the police, Yan Feng had to fabricate that Huge had made dirty jokes.

Problematic forensic evidence

• The police collected the sperm sample from inside of the victim’s body. But no forensic test was done.

• The police in Zhao Zhihong’s case also collected Zhao’s sperm sample, but did not conduct any forensic test to identify whether the sample from the victim matched the sample from Zhao.

• In Huge’s case, the alleged most powerful incriminating evidence was the forensic evidence showing that the type of blood found in Huge’s nail matches that from the victim’s cut on her neck. But the first response police officer who investigated the crime scene informed a reporter at the Xinhua Net in 2014, that the victim did not have any cut. Unfortunately, this police officer did not handle this case after he handed the first report to the police station, and did not testify for the case.

Prosecutorial errors

• The procuratorate did not check the work of the police before indicting Huge.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• Huge was represented by two lawyers, but the lawyers did not claim Huge was innocent. Instead, their defense hinged on attempting to obtain a lesser punishment and only argued that Huge was a first-time offender and a national minority.

Court's errors

• Failed to exclude the illegally gathered evidence (i.e. confession extorted from torture, fabricated blood test from the victim’s neck).

• Failed to admit Huge’s exculpatory testimony. Did not carefully analyze the conflicting evidence.

Other developments

• It took nine years for the court to re-open the Huge case after Zhao Zhihong admitted that he was the real perpetrator in the Huge case.  By that time, many of the people involved in the handling of Huge’s case had been promoted to high and important positions. A retired prosecutor who has supported the re-opening of Huge case was threatened and severely injured by anonymous people. 

• In December 2014, a Deputy Chief Judge of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court offered an apology to Huge’s parents.

• On February 3, 2015, the parents of Huge received about RMB 2.05 million of State compensation.

• The president of the Supreme People’s Court Zhou Qiang mentioned this case in his 2014 annual report to the National People’s Congress, stressing “we are the one that should be deeply blamed for those wrongfully convicted, such as Huge.”

• Zhao Zhihong was convicted of four counts of crime: murder, rape, robbery and theft, and was sentenced to death in 2015. He was executed on July 30, 2019. However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zhao was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.

• In January 2016, 11 police officers, 7 prosecutors and 8 judges were held accountable for Huge’s wrongful conviction and were punished by the Chinese Communist Party’s internal disciplines from severe disciplinary admonition to major demerit recording.

Information sources

• 呼格案疑似真凶赵志红案庭审结束 将择期宣判

• 聚焦呼格吉勒图案（新闻报道集）

• 呼格吉勒图案始末：被枪毙9年后另一男子供述杀人经过

• 中国最高法院：证据不足 不予确定赵志红是“呼格案”真凶

• 回访赵志红系列强奸杀人案：证据是决定真凶与否标准

• 呼格吉勒图冤案：内蒙古处分27人　父母失望

• 赵志红――杀害6人，强奸12人的“呼格案”真凶

• 杀害6人赵志红被执行死刑，最高法未认定其为呼格案真凶

Lu Rongxin Rape and Murder Case 卢荣新强奸杀人案

The defendant/exoneree 

• Lu Rongxin (卢荣新), born on August 25, 1972.

Facts

• On September 10, 2012, the victim surnamed Deng went to work in her own farm field but did not return after 7 p.m. Her family went out to look for her and found her dead in the farm field with her body buried underground in the kneeing position and her head above the ground face up.

• Forensic testing showed that Deng was raped and strangled to death.

• Lu Rongxin (“Lu”) became the suspect because the police saw him behave abnormally among the crowd that gathered around the crime scene, and he had twenty-eight scratches and bruises on his body he could not explain.

• Lu was an alcoholic and was drinking alcohol with about a dozen villagers on the day the crime occurred.

Procedural history 

• o    Lu was detained on September 20, 2012 and arrested on September 30, 2012.

• o    On April 26, 2013, Lu was indicted on the charges of rape and murder.

• o    On June 9, 2014, Lu was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to death with two-year reprieve by the Xishuangbanna Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”).

• o    In appeal, the Yunan High People’s Court (“High Court”) remanded on April 2, 2015 the case back to the Intermediate Court for retrial due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• o    On December 20, 2015, the Intermediate Court retried the case with another collegial panel and convicted Lu of the two charges and sentenced him to death with two-year reprieve.

• o    On January 6, 2017, upon Lu’s second appeal, the High Court reheard the case and acquitted Lu.  

Date of the conviction

June 9, 2014

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

January 6, 2017

Days incarcerated

1,570

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Upon Lu’s second appeal, the High Court careful reviewed the case and found that the evidence was not sufficient to convict Lu. It excluded the illegally gathered evidence such as Lu’s confession and the DNA sample allegedly collected from the crime scene, and accepted newly discovered DNA evidence of another person.

• None of Lu’s DNA was found on the victim’s body.

• The real perpetrator, Hong Shuhua (“Hong”), whose DNA matched the newly discovered DNA evidence found on the victim’s underpants, was apprehended by the police on August, 2016. Hong confessed to the crime and provided details of his crime only known by him. For example, the collegial panel in the second appeal had been puzzled by the victim’s odd body position buried (knees down and face up) and thought it was out of some special religious ritual. Hong confessed that he had buried the entire body underground but forgotten to take off his pants straps from the victim’s neck. So he went back to retrieve the strap and pulled the victim’s head out of the mud.   

• Hong also apologized to Lu.  

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• False confession

  • Lu was interrogated by the police for three consecutive days. He was tortured and deprived of water and sleep before confession. During his eight interrogations by the police, he only confessed in the seventh interrogation, 50 hours after his detention, and recanted this confession afterwards.  

  • Details of Lu’s confessions did not match the crime scene. For example, Lu stated that the victim was wearing a flowery shirt, but the victim was actually in a blue shirt; Lu stated that he killed the victim with a hoe but the victim was strangled to death.

• Faulty DNA evidence

  • The police claimed Lu’s DNA was found on the handle of a hoe lying at the crime scene. But the hoe had been almost entirely immersed in water for over 10 hours after heavy rain. It was unlikely that any DNA evidence, being water soluble, could be found.

  • The police failed to provide the chain of custody to prove the legality of their DNA evidence collection.

  • None of Lu’s DNA was found on the victim’s body. This was inconsistent with a normal rape case.

• Flawed police investigation

  • The police interrogation was not properly recorded as required by the criminal procedural law. In the recording where Lu allegedly confessed, Lu was video recorded from the back without any audio track. 

  • When Lu was brought back to the crime scene to identify the place, he was vacantly following the police instructions and hardly able to describe how the crime committed. 

• Other developments

  • Hong was under the age of 18 when the crime committed. He was convicted of rape and murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment on January 21, 2017. Hong did not appeal.

  • On September 13, 2017, Lu was awarded RMB 609,685.95 as state compensation and RMB 80,000 as judicial aid.

Information sources

• 2012年，男子看热闹被当做杀人犯，四年后案件反转获赔60万

• 一根毛发引来案件逆转——卢荣新奸杀错案洗冤录

• “两判死缓”案被云南省高院直接改判无罪始末

• 熬不住就承认！奸杀案“嫌疑人”2次被判死缓终获国家赔偿

• https://perma.cc/U6KF-B8EM

Qian Renfeng Poison Case 钱仁风投毒案

The defendant/exoneree 

• Qian Renfeng (钱仁风) was born on October 23, 1984; she was seventeen years old when she was arrested and thirty-one years old when she was acquitted.

Facts

• On February 22, 2002, three children at Xingrui Kindergarten started vomiting after lunch and were sent to a local hospital. Two children eventually recovered; the third, a 2-year-old, died from poison. Forensic exams found tetramine in the three children’s stomachs and in the food in the kindergarten’s kitchen. Qian Renfeng (Qian) was working as a nanny and was in charge of serving food to the children at the kindergarten. She served the children lunch on the day of the incident. The father of the kindergarten owner, Zhu Mei (Zhu), reported the incident to the local police.

• When asked who might hold a grudge against the kindergarten, Zhu told the police that two young men surnamed Luo and Xie, respectively, had pursued Zhu, but both had been turned down. They then burgled Zhu’s residence three times, and both subsequently were convicted but received probation. Zhu told the police that both men hated her very much.  

• Luo and Xie were released on January 14, 2002. Between then and February 22, 2002, Zhu’s residence was set on fire three times. Luo’s father had been the head of the Qiaojia Police Bureau.    

Procedural history

• On February 25, 2002, Qian was placed in residential surveillance, a criminal compulsory measure.

• On March 11, 2002, Qian was placed in criminal detention.

• On March 25, 2002, Qian was formally arrested.

• On July 22, 2002, Qian was indicted on the charge of disseminating hazardous substances by the Zhaotong City People’s Procuratorate (City Procuratorate).

• On September 3, 2002, the Zhaotong Intermediate People’s Court (Intermediate Court) convicted and sentenced Qian to life imprisonment.

• On December 5, 2002, the Yunnan Provincial High People’s Court (High Court) sustained the lower court’s ruling upon Qian’s appeal. Qian was sent to prison to serve her time.

• On December 16, 2011, the High Court declined to reopen the case upon Qian’s petition.

• On July 29, 2013, the Yunnan Provincial People’s Procuratorate (Provincial Procuratorate) launched a post-conviction review of this case.

• On May 12, 2014, the Provincial Procuratorate issued a prosecutorial recommendation to the High Court for a new trial on the basis of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• On May 4, 2015, the High Court decided to reopen the case for retrial.

• On September 29, 2015, the High Court conducted a public trial.

• On December 15, 2015, the High Court acquitted Qian.

• On December 21, 2015, Qian was released from prison.

Date of the wrongful conviction

• September 3, 2002

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

• December 15, 2015

Days incarcerated

• 5,050

Why was the case reopened/reversed

• Qian kept petitioning for her innocence while serving her time. After eight years in prison, Qian still insisted that she had not committed the crime. When legal aid lawyers went to Qian’s prison to provide free legal education to prisoners, Qian cried hysterically. Her unusual behavior caught legal aid lawyer Yang Zhu’s attention. Yang started to represent Qian in the process of petitioning for retrial.   

• Yang Zhu helped her file criminal complaints to courts, prosecutors’ offices, and other government agencies at the central and local levels.

• After many failed attempts to secure a retrial of the case, Qian’s defense lawyer publicized the case on several popular Chinese online forums. The case caught the attention of a staff member at the Provincial Procuratorate New Media Office, who reported the case to leadership. The Provincial Procuratorate stepped in.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

• Forced confession

  • Qian did not confess until she was interrogated by the police for 12 consecutive hours. She said the police forced her to kneel for seven to eight hours and beat her face with a leather shoe. She recanted her confessions in trials.

• Problematic police investigation

  • The police did not question the two men whom Zhu thought had a motive to damage her business.

  • Instead, the police investigation went after Qian, with whom Zhu said she had good relations. Zhu said she had just raised Qian’s salary by fifteen percent to recognize her hard work. The police forced Qian to say that she committed the crime because she was angry with Zhu, who had yelled at her the day of the incident.

  • The police forged Qian’s signatures on three inculpatory statements and two written records where Qian identified the tools she used in the kitchen.

  • The tetramine the police found in a plastic bottle was allegedly purchased from Qian Renzhong. However, Qian Renzhong said that he had sold tetramine only in glass bottles.

  • The police could not show the chain of custody when the alleged tetramine was collected. In addition, they did not record anyone as a witness to the evidence-gathering process.

  • The police did not find Qian’s fingerprints on physical evidence.

Other Developments

• Qian received state compensation of RMB 1.72million.

• The deputy president of the High Court bowed to Qian to apologize on behalf of the High Court on June 8, 2016.   

Information Sources

• 钱仁凤案将再审:被控向幼儿投毒 自称遭刑讯逼供

• 真凶仍未查明 律师：局长儿子等两名嫌疑人未被调查

• 最高检谈钱仁风案平反：网帖喊冤，云南省检副检察长直接阅卷

• 钱仁风案件复查再审推动者

• 钱仁凤投毒案

• 钱仁风获国家赔偿172万余元：先把伸冤借的钱还了

• 律师讲述代理钱仁风案6年始末：还差真凶伏法

Li Huailiang Murder Case (李怀亮故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Li Huailiang,(李怀亮), born in 1967.

Facts

• On August 2, 2001, a 13-year-old girl, Guo Xiaohong, left her home in Wanli Village, Yexian in Pingdingshan City, Henan Province. On August 4, 2001, Yexian Police found her dead in a river, naked below the waist. The police believed the girl was murdered, then raped and thrown into a river. On August 7, 2001, police detained Li Huailiang (“Li”) who had allegedly visited the crime scene (he was spotted in the area collecting bugs) and lived in the same village as the victim. Li confessed during the police interrogation. But it is not clear whether his confession was coerced. Based heavily on Li’s alleged admission, and coupled with a witness’s testimony that Li was seen at the crime scene and two cell-mates’ testimony that Li stated to them that he killed the victim, the Yexian District Court found Li guilty of intentional murder.

• Li was then married and has two young daughters.

Procedural history 

• Li was detained on August 7, 2001, and formally arrested on September 13, 2001.

• Li Huailiang was charged and originally convicted of the crime of intentional murder, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by the Yexian District Court in September 2003.

• On December 2, 2003, upon Li’s appeal, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• On February 13, 2004, the Yexian District Court retried this case. Before a decision was made by the Yexian District Court, the case was moved to Pingdingshan Intermediate Court for retrial. 

• On August 3, 2004, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court exercised its jurisdiction and sentenced Li to death.

• On January 22, 2005, upon Li’s appeal, the Henan Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• On April 11, 2006, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court retried the case, convicted and sentenced Li to death with two-year suspension.

• On September 27, 2006, upon Li’s appeal, the Henan Provincial High Court again vacated the decision of Pingdingshan Court and remanded for retrial.

• On April 25, 2013, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court retried the case and announced that Li Huailiang is not guilty. Li was released from the police detention center.

Date of the conviction

September 19, 2003

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

April 25, 2013

Days incarcerated

4,279

Why was the case reopened/reversed  

• According to the revised Chinese criminal procedure law, which took effect on January 1, 2013, Li Huailiang’s lawyers requested the judiciary and local government to release Li Huailiang in accordance with Article 96 and Article 97 of the law, which require a defendant to be released or subject to other non-custodial compulsory measures if the case cannot be resolved within the time limit.

• In May 2004, the media published a memo hand-written by the victim’s parents on a paper with the letter head of the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court. It caused a heated nation-wide discussion on this case. The memo states that if the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court would sentence Li to life imprisonment, preferably death penalty, the victim’s parents would accept the decision and stop petitioning and attempting to commit suicide.

• The Pingdinshan Intermediate Court had realized the flaws in the case on the first appeal and remanded for retrial. But it had been under too much pressure from the procuratorate, the police and the victim’s family, to acquit Li.

• Public opinion pushed the case to be retried after the alleged “Death Penalty Guarantee” agreement between the court and the victim’s parents was disclosed.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Li Huailiang in his first trial at the Yexian District Court claimed that his interrogators were violent, and that he was beaten with chains until he confessed. The six police officers involved in the interrogation testified in person in-front of the court and denied any coercion. They stated that Li admitted to the crime because he was touched by the police’s kind and educational talk.

Problematic forensic evidence

• Major forensic evidence errors centered around the blood found at the scene.  The blood found was type O, while the victim had type A blood and Li Huailiang had type AB.  Additionally, during the investigation, the police never sought to examine or verify the blood left at the scene. 

• Other forensic evidence includes a footprint left at the scene used as evidence showing Li’s presence.  However, the size of the print was a 38, while Li wears a size 44. 

• The semen found at the scene was tampered and the results of the semen sample analysis were changed several times. 

Errors from extrajudicial concerns

• The Henan Provincial Political-Legal Committee had discussed the case with the police, the procuratorate and the court in 2007, and had come to an internal conclusion that this case did not have sufficient evidence to clearly prove facts, and that the defendant should have been released. The case could have been withdrawn by the police, or dismissed by the procuratorate, or acquitted by the court. But under the pressure of maintaining local stability and out of the fear of accountability, neither the court, the procuratorate or the police had been willing to release Li.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Li was represented by two lawyers who claimed that Li was innocent.

Other developments

• On January 26, 2014 Li received 980,000 RMB as State compensation.

Information sources

• Innocent man freed after 12 years in prison

• Court Promises Death to Quell Petitions

• 河南死刑保证书案嫌犯曾翻供称遭警方殴打

• “死刑保证书案”李怀亮不满精神赔偿 决定复议

• 想起了李怀亮，那个重获自由的人

• 李怀亮奸杀少女案无罪判决书

• 十起冤案追责盘点：李怀亮案 赵艳锦案

• 河南“死刑保证书”案当事人李怀亮获98万元国家赔偿

Nian Bin Poisoning Case (念斌投放危险物质案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Nian Bin (念斌), born in 1976

Facts

• Nian and the Ding family were neighbors, both running their own small grocery stores independently. They had similar inventories. In the evening of July 26, 2006, a customer bought cigarettes from the Ding family. On the evening of July 27, 2006, the Ding family (1 adult and three children) and the Chen family (2 adults), were poisoned while eating dinner. Nian helped to call the ambulance and to close the Ding family’s grocery store. The Ding’s two children died after they were sent to the hospital. Nian was detained on August 9, 2006, because he “looked suspicious.” The police later reasoned that Nian was a business competitor with the Ding family, and that Nian was motivated to take revenge on the Ding Family because the day before the crime, Ding sold a pack of cigarettes to a customer who originally came to Nian’s store for business. 

• The police originally investigated a man who was living upstairs from the Dings right after the case was reported. The police found rat poison in four packs and a bottle in this man’s room. This man did not get along with the Ding family and had time to commit the crime. During the interrogation, the man was so nervous that he fainted.

• The police disclosed that the rat poison found from the man upstairs contains tetramine.

Procedural history 

• Nian Bin was charged with the crime of poisoning hazardous substance. On February 1, 2008, he was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Fuzhou Intermediate Court of Fujian Province.

• On December 31, 2008, the Fujian Provincial High Court remanded this case for retrial upon Nian’s appeal, citing insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

• On June 8, 2009, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court retried this case and sentenced Nian to death again.

• In April 2010, the Fujian Provincial High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, and submitted the case to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) for death penalty review.

• In April 2011, the SPC remanded the case back to the Fujian Provincial High Court for retrial on the grounds of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

• On May 5, 2011, the Fujian Provincial High Court remanded this case to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court for retrial again on the grounds of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

• On November 24, 2011, Nian, again, was convicted and sentenced to death by the Fuzhou Intermediate Court. Nian appealed again to the Fujian Provincial High Court.

• On August 22, 2014, after nine hearings, the Fujian Provincial High Court exonerated Nian.    

Date of the conviction

February 1, 2008

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 22, 2014

Days incarcerated

2,935

Why was the case reopened/reversed  

• During the eight years of litigation, Nian, his family and his lawyers insisted that Nian was innocent. Nian’s lawyers kept providing evidence to disclose the questionable investigation process by the police, including evidence of police torturing Nian. They also found third-party toxicologists to overturn the police’s forensic lab conclusion, and discovered flaws and contradictions in the facts and evidence in various police reports.

• Nian’s case has been highly publicized and Nian’s innocence has been believed and supported by lots of people. This put pressure on the authorities.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Nian was severely tortured by the police. He was also threatened that if he did not confess, his wife would be arrested. Unable to bear the torture any longer, Nian had tried to commit suicide by biting off his tongue.

Flawed police investigation

• One police officer appeared at quite a few interrogating sites at different locations questioning different persons at the same time.

• The police altered witnesses’ written testimony in respect to the source of water the Ding’s family used to cook their supper at the night of the poisoning.

• The police edited the video record of Nian’s confession during interrogation.

• When the police first arrived at the crime scene, they concluded that the time of the crime was between 1:40 pm to 6 pm on July 27, 2006.  During this time, Nian had an alibi. The police later changed the time of the crime to the midnight of July 26, 2006.

Problematic forensic evidence

• The police did not disclose the result of the forensic tests on the food the victims ate and the substance in the victims’ stomach. The police forensic lab reports only show that there was no fluoroacetate in the victims’ stomach and liver, but that it was in their blood and urine.

• The police’s forensic evidence shows that fluoroacetate was found in the vomit in the trash bin, in the water pot and the cook pan, and one of the dozen door handles at the crime scene.

• Toxicologists from the defendant’s side reviewed all the police documentation and concluded that the evidence used by the police cannot prove that fluoroacetate had ever been used.  

• The police did not find fluoroacetate at Nian’s place.

• Nian did not pass the police polygraph test.

Prosecutorial errors

• Failed to supervise the illegal and unethical conduct of the police.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Nian was represented by a lawyer who defended his innocence.

Court's errors

• The court refused to accredit Nian’s in-court statement, which was exculpatory. It did not exclude illegally gathered evidence. It refused to admit any new evidence and kept imposing the same conviction and sentence to Nian at retrials

Other developments

• After Nian’s acquittal, the same police bureau launched another investigation of him for the same crime. Presently, the police refuse to issue Nian a passport on the ground that Nian is still a suspect for this crime.

• On February 15, 2015, Nian won his State compensation case for over 1.13 million RMB.

• Nian’s case was addressed in the 2014 annual report of the Supreme People’s Court.

Information sources

• 福建“念斌投毒案”终审宣判 上诉人念斌无罪(图)

• 念斌再成犯罪嫌疑人 当年办案者未参与重新立案

• 念斌案讨论为何久久余波未平

• 福建高院:念斌案因事实不清证据不足被宣告无罪

• 念斌：因为扛不住刑讯逼供，我咬舌自尽

• 念斌投放危险物质案二审刑事附带民事判决书　（2012）闽刑终字第10号

• 分析：念斌冤案获平反“非常难得”

Nie Shubin Rape and Murder Case (聂树斌故意杀人、强奸案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Nie Shubin (聂树斌), born on November 6, 1974; he was 21 when he was convicted and executed for rape and intentional murder.

Facts

• On August 5, 1994, a decomposed female body was found in a corn field nearby an industrial compound. Nie, who was working at one of the factories in the compound, was found to be suspicious for “often riding a mountain bike following women,” as some unnamed witnesses stated. Nie was detained and questioned on October 1, 1994. While in custody, he did not confess until the sixth day. On October 9, 1994, Nie was formally arrested.

Procedural history 

• On March 15, 1995, the Shijiazhuang Intermediate Court convicted Nie of intentional murder and rape and imposed the death sentence on him.

• On April 25, 1995, the Hebei Province High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

• On April 27, 1995, Nie was executed.

Date of the conviction

March 15, 1995

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 2, 2016

Days incarcerated

Executed

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Nie Shubin’s mother kept petitioning ever since he was detained.

• The victim’s family had doubted Nie’s capacity to commit the crime since day one. They claimed the victim was a 36-year-old married woman with some martial arts training and Nie was a 21-year-old lightly built man. 

• In January 2005, Wang Shujin, who was then a suspect of several other rapes and murders, was detained by the police in Henan Province.  He voluntarily confessed many times that he had raped and murdered a woman in a corn field of the west of Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province. After his case transferred to the Hebei police, Wang first learned that the Shijiazhuang case had been cleared and “the perpetrator” had been executed. Nevertheless, Wang had still insisted that he was the real perpetrator in Nie’s case.

• A local new paper profiled this unusual case with the title - “one murder two real perpetrators.“

• After Wang Shujin’s confession, Nie’s case attracted a lot of public attention, which pushed for clarification of the Nie case and delayed Wang’s execution.

• On March 16, 2005, the Hebei Provincial Political-Legal Committee promised to investigate the Nie case and release a conclusion in one month. But a conclusion had not been released before Nie was exonerated by the SPC.

• In December 2014, the SPC appointed the Shandong Provincial High Court to exercise jurisdiction over Nie’s case review. After review, the Shandong Provincial High Court concluded that the original conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the possibility that Nie was not the real perpetrator cannot be excluded. It further suggested the SPC to re-open this case.

• In March 2015, Nie’s lawyers were allowed the first time to review the entire case files.

• In June 2016, the SPC decided to re-open this case.

• On December 2, 2016, the SPC publicly announced that Nie was not guilty.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Nie was tortured by the police and forced to confess. According to Nie’s lawyer, and a police officer Zheng who worked at the same police station where Nie’s case was handled, Nie confessed because he was beaten by the police. According to police officer Zheng, it was very common in the 1990s, especially during the “strike hard” campaign, that suspects were beaten and forced to confess.

Dubious witness identification/statements

• No eye witnesses at the crime scene.

• Some witness statements indicated that a young man that likes to ride a mountain bike was following women and looking at them with “evil eyes.”

Problematic forensic evidence

• No sperm collected. No DNA test done.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• Nie’s lawyer Zhang Jinghe was appointed by the court for free. He did not claim Nie was innocent, but raised that Nie was a first-time offender and had shown repentance after the crime, with hope that Nie could receive a lenient sentence.

Court's errors

• Failed to exclude the forensic report and the crime scene investigation report even though those two documentations were not signed by two witnesses as required by the law.

• Failed to exclude the illegally extracted confession.

Other developments

• In March 2007, Wang was convicted of a series of murders and rapes and was sentenced to death, but was acquitted of the murder and rape in Nie’s case.

• During Wang’s trial, Wang and his lawyer tried to prove Wang committed the crime in Nie’s case, while the prosecutor contested that Wang did not commit that offense.

• In April 2007, Wang appealed his conviction on the ground that his offense in Shijiazhuang was not prosecuted.  

• In September 2013, Wang’s appeal was overturned and the conviction was affirmed on the ground that Wang’s confession on that crime does not match some physical evidence. For example, Wang confessed that he stepped on the chest of the body after the crime, but the forensic evidence does not show there is any chest fracture on the body; Wang confessed that the victim was wearing a shirt with a pattern of small flowers, but the physical evidence shows that the pattern is different. However, the victim’s father claimed that the police came to their home and took more than one of the victim’s shirts. The victim’s father also claimed that the shirt the police presented at Nie’s trial is different from the one they presented at Wang’s trial.

• During the death penalty review process, in November 2020, the SPC remanded Wang’s case to the trial court for a new trial, citing discovery of new evidence.

• The trial court again convicted Wang of murder and rape, and sentenced him to death. Wang appealed.

• Wang’s conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate court in December 2020.

• Wang was executed on February 2, 2021 after the SPC reviewed and affirmed Wang’s death penalty sentence.

• There is speculation that Wang was seeking credit by confessing to the offense in Nie’s case because it could lead to a lenient sentence if he confessed to a crime committed by him but not known by the investigator before his confession.

• In March 2017, Nie’s parents received 2.68 million RMB of State compensation.

Information sources

• 聂树斌案疑似真凶受审（聂树斌案新闻报道集）

• 法院:王书金供述与聂树斌案关键情节存重大差异

• 聂树斌案，拖痛两个不幸家庭（2012年2月9日

• 最高人民法院审监庭负责人就最高人民法院指令山东省高级人民法院复查聂树斌故意杀人、强奸妇女一案答记者问

• 中国最高法院决定重审聂树斌奸杀案

• 关注聂树斌案（新闻报道集)

• 程序创新＋理念更新=正义“加速度”

• 王书金进入死刑复核6年 律师：刀下留人并非对被害人不公

• 聂树斌案“真凶”王书金：那个人就是我杀的

• 聂树斌家人获268万赔偿 130万精神赔偿创纪录

• 王书金被执行死刑，“一案两凶”争议15年真凶仍无法确定

• 王书金案二审18日开庭，此前自称是聂树斌案真凶提出上诉

• 王书金被执行死刑 受害者家属：等了27年杀妻之仇终于报了

• 王书金案重审二审 维持死刑原判

She Xianglin Murder Case (佘祥林故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• She Xianglin (佘祥林), born on March 7, 1966; he was twenty-eight when he became suspected in the case and was thirty-nine when he was finally acquitted.

Facts

• In the beginning of 1994, She Xianglin’s wife Zhang Zaiyu disappeared. A few months later, a badly decomposed female body was found at a nearby reservoir. Zhang’s family identified the corpse as Zhang Zaiyu and suspected She killed Zhang because Zhang had a mental disorder. It was rumored that She was having an improper relationship with a young woman. About eleven years after She had been convicted of intentional murder of Zhang Zaiyu, Zhang reappeared alive in She’s village.

• Other special facts about this case:

  • After She’s conviction, Zhang Zaiyu sent letters to her brother. But her brother did not disclose this until Zhang Zaiyu came back to the village in person.

  • When the female body was found, another family came to the police claiming that the victim was their family member.

Procedural history 

• On April 12, 1994, She was put on residential surveillance. On April 22, 1994, She was criminally detained and six days later he was arrested.

• She Xianglin was charged with intentional murder of his wife.  On Oct 13, 1994, She was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Jingzhou Intermediate Court of Hubei Province.

• On January 6, 1995, She’s appeal was heard and the Hubei High Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

• During the first retrial, this case was twice returned to the local county procuratorate for supplementary investigation.

• On November 23, 1997, when the local county procuratorate referred this case the third time to the city procuratorate and requested the latter to prosecute She at the intermediate court, the city procuratorate rejected the case on the ground that the alleged offense was not serious enough to be prosecuted in an intermediate court and referred the case back to the local county procuratorate to prosecute at a local district court.

• On June 15, 1998, She was convicted by the Jingshan District Court for intentional murder and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

• On September 22, 1998, She’s appeal was denied by the Jingmen Intermediate Court and his conviction was affirmed.

• On March 28, 2005, Zhang Zaiyu reappeared in She’s village.

• On April 1, 2005, She was released from the prison by obtaining a guarantor.

• On April 13, 2005, She was exonerated.

Date of the conviction

June 15, 1998

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

April 13, 2005

Days incarcerated

3,995

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

She’s mother and brother petitioned for She since She was detained. Eleven years after She’s detention and conviction, the alleged victim reappeared in person.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• She was physically and verbally abused by the police and gave four different confessions. He was interrogated for ten consecutive days, was beaten and lost part of a finger.

Flawed police investigation

• Witnesses who testified that there was a stranger in their village who might be Zhang Zaiyu were detained for months for alleged perjury. Some defense witnesses were tortured and detained until they changed their testimony.

• When the police learned of exculpatory evidence, they tried to suppress the evidence.

• Police ignored the other family who claimed that the victim was actually their family member.

Dubious witness identification/statements

• Zhang’s family did not see the victim’s body. Their identification was based on the police’s description about the height and the build of the victim. Zhang’s family identified the body despite the fact that the body did not have a scar on the stomach, which was one of the Zhang’s identifying features.

• Witnesses changed their testimony after being detained and threatened by the police.

Problematic forensic evidence

• No DNA evidence collected to identify the body.

• No tools for the alleged crime were found.

Prosecutorial errors

• Prosecutors acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s decision, knowing it was not supported by evidence.

• Prosecutors did not explain the conflicting evidence during the prosecution.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. She was represented by a lawyer who maintained She’s innocence.

Court's errors

• Acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s not-evidence-based decision.

• Ignored the unexplainable doubts in this case. For example, the missing stones, bags, and ropes allegedly used by She during the act; whether She was capable of taking the alleged route of killing the victim at one place and hauling the body to dump it, by himself, at another place; and why She’s confessions yielded four different versions of the story.

Other developments

• During She’s appeal, Zhang’s family organized 220 villagers to petition the appellate court (Hubei Provincial High Court) to pressure the court to reject She’s appeal.

• One of the police officers in She’s case was charged with torturing She and committed suicide.

• In September 2005, She received about RMB700,000 from the state in compensation.

Information sources

• 湖北杀妻冤案（新闻报道集)

• 杀妻冤案当事人佘祥林无罪释放后的三大焦点

• 湖北杀妻冤案当年庭审回放：四种口供自相矛盾

• 湖北杀妻冤案当事人获释 两大悬疑待解(组图)

• 11年冤狱两判死刑，佘祥林将要求国家赔偿（佘祥林案新闻报道集）

• 佘祥林国家赔偿案——对健全法治和保障人权起到巨大的推动作用（2005）
  
  

Shen Liujin Murder Case 沈六斤”故意杀人案

The defendant/exoneree 

• Shen Liujin (沈六斤) (Fang Weishe 方未社). DOB unknown.

Facts

• Shen Liujin (Shen) and Fu Ruiwa, both from the Fugou Village of Mayuan Township in Longnan City of Gansu Province, were in a relationship. However, Fu’s parents would not allow their daughter to marry Shen. On February 12, 1992, Shen, in a fight with Fu’s parents, killed Fu’s mother with a knife and injured her father with an axe. The crime happened in Gansu Province. Shen then escaped.

• More than twenty years later, the police of the Public Securities Bureau of Manas County of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region apprehended a man they believed to be Shen during a regular check of persons without official IDs on January 28, 2013. the man admitted to the crime.

Procedural history 

• On December 18, 2013, the man identified as Shen was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to the death penalty with two years’ reprieve by Longnan Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province. He did not appeal.

• Upon the victim’s family’s appeal, Gansu Provincial High People’s Court sustained the conviction on May 20, 2014. Shen was sent to prison on September 15, 2014.  

Date of the conviction

January 28, 2013

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 15, 2016

Days incarcerated

1,265

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• While in prison in 2015, Shen had a cerebral ischemic stroke. Since his life was in danger, the prison administration needed to notify his family. He then claimed that his real name was Fang Weishe (方未社) from Fangji Village, Xigaoshan Township of Longnan City at Gansu Province.

• The prison took of photo of Fang and sent it back to Fangji Village for verification. At the same time, the prison reported this new discovery to the prosecutor’s office. After examining the preliminary investigation results, the Gansu Provincial People’s Procuratorate formed a special work group to investigate the case and reported to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on February 17, 2016.

• After reviewing the case file and interviewing the incarcerated man, the special work group decided to conduct DNA testing. Several forms of evidence including DNA profiling confirmed that the man in prison was not Shen Liujin, but was in fact Fang Weishe.

• On March 2, 2016, the Gansu Provincial People’s Procuratorate appealed to the Gansu Provincial High People’s Court to retry the case.

• On July 15, 2016, the high court acquitted Fang of the murder charge on the ground of mis-identification.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Fang voluntarily made a false confession. He stated that the police did not torture or force him to confess, and that his admission was truthful. During the hearing, he also did not want to go to court to play the recording of the police interrogation.

• In Fang’s confession, he addressed Fu Ruiwa (Shen’s girlfriend) as Fu Yan’er. But Fu’s own testimony claimed that her boyfriend Shen addressed her as Ruiwa not Fu Yan’er.

Flawed police investigation

• The police relied on Fang’s admission and witness identification to identify him and did not attempt to verify his identity in any other way.

Dubious witness identification/statements

• Two relatives of the victim on separate occasions identified Fang as Shen from among eight photographs. In later interviews with the special work group, they admitted that their identification of Fang was not accurate.

Information sources

• 办案检察官讲述检察机关监督纠正"沈六斤"案背后故事

• 甘肃男子被错判死缓调查：自认杀人原因成谜，当地已启动追责

• 办案检察官讲述检察机关监督纠正"沈六斤"案背后故事

• 最高检披露“真假沈六斤”案之谜 无罪之人洗清冤屈

Sun Wangang Murder Case (孙万刚故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Sun Wangang (孙万刚), born on November 4, 1975; he was twenty-one and a college student when the case began and was twenty-nine when he was finally acquitted.

Facts

• On January 3, 1996, a student called the police to report finding a female body near a factory. The police on the crime scene said the victim was Chen Xinghui and parts of her body were cut off and missing.  Sun was suspected because he went out with Chen the night before and went back to the place of another classmate alone after the time the crime was committed. Sun was placed under sheltering for investigation, a police compulsory measure, on January 3, 1996.

• Other special facts about this case:

  • Sun claimed that he and the victim had been to the crime scene before he was knocked out by something. When he woke up, he found that Chen was talking with a man in black. The man threatened Sun with a knife and asked him to leave. Sun left and went to his classmate’s place. He and his classmate went back to the scene after a few hours but did not find Chen.

Procedural history 

• Sun Wangang was detained on April 24, 1996, and arrested on April 30, 1996. He was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his girlfriend and classmate Chen Xinghui.

• On September 20, 1996, Sun was convicted and sentenced to death by the Zhaotong Intermediate Court of Yunnan Province.

• Sun appealed his conviction to the Yunnan Provincial High Court. The high court remanded the case back to Zhaotong Intermediate Court for re-trial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence. 

• On May 9, 1998, the Zhaotong Intermediate Court again convicted Sun and sentenced him to death.

• On Sun’s second appeal on November 12, 1998, the Yunnan Provincial High Court changed the death sentence to a death penalty with two years suspension. Sun was sent to a prison.

• On January 15, 2004, the Yunnan Provincial High Court reopened the case and eventually acquitted Sun on February 10, 2004.

Date of the conviction

September 20, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

February 10, 2004

Days incarcerated

2,960

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

• Sun and his parents kept petitioning for Sun’s innocence after the conviction.

• In September 2002, Li Maofu a serial rapist-killer who resides in the same county as Sun, was arrested. Sun and his father thought that Li could be the real perpetrator in Sun’s case and wrote to the courts and the procuratorates to alert them.  

• In 2003, Sun’s petition caught the attention of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (the SPP) because he mentioned that Li could be the real perpetrator. The SPP forwarded Sun’s materials to the Yunnan People’s Procuratorate.

• The Yunnan Procuratorate reviewed the entire case dossier and found several cause for doubt in Sun’s case. After interviews with Li and witnesses in Li’s case, and a review of Li’s case dossiers, the Yunnan People’s Procuratorate excluded Li as the real perpetrator in Sun’s case.

• The Yunnan Procuratorate proposed to the Yunnan High Court to reopen Sun’s case on the ground that: 1) a blood test does not rule out the possibility of another perpetrator; 2) Sun made both exculpatory statements and guilty confessions.  His confession did not match the forensic evidence.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Sun claimed that he was tortured by the police and that his guilty confession was completely extorted through deprivation of food, water, and sleep.

Flawed police investigation

• The police officers did not pursue any witness to explain why there was a button and a buckle found at the crime scene that did not belong to Sun nor Chen.  

• Among Sun’s written confessions, one of them was not signed by Sun, as required by the law. Instead, a police officer signed Sun’s name.

Problematic forensic evidence

• The blood samples were contaminated before they reached the lab. No human blood was found on the alleged murder knife. No human sperm was found at the crime scene or in the victim’s body to corroborate Sun’s confession that he committed the murder to cover up the crime of rape.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Sun was represented by a lawyer who argued that Sun was innocent.

Court's errors

• The Zhaotong Intermediate Court did not change the entire collegial panel at retrial after the case was remanded by the Yunnan Provincial High Court. This is a violation of criminal procedural law.

Other developments

• In October 2004, Sun received RMB 165,608 as state compensation.

• After the case was reopened, Sun was represented by Liu Hule, the defense attorney who also represented Du Peiwu (another wrongful conviction exoneree, whose case is also included in this archive).

Information sources

• 被控奸杀女友蒙冤八年获16万国家赔偿

• 孙万刚：从“死刑犯”到无罪释放 文/肖游

• 刘胡乐刑辩30载：11年前以疑罪从无救人，也救过蒙冤警察

• 孙万刚案：真凶落网，死囚重生，“疑罪从轻”制造了多少冤案？

• “大学生杀女友案”的5次判决

• 被控奸杀女友 贫困大学生孙万刚8年洗冤路(图)