The Defendant/Exoneree
Guo Li (郭利) was born in 1968; he was 39 years old when he was incarcerated and 46 years old when he was acquitted.
Facts
In September 2008, a Chinese government watchdog announced that some batches of Scient (施恩) brand infant formula milk powder contained melamine. Guo Li (“Guo”) had been giving Scient formula to his daughter. After hearing the news, he took her to a hospital for a physical examination. Tests showed that his daughter’s kidneys were malfunctioning. Guo sent the remaining Scient formula in his kitchen to the National Food Quality and Safety Supervision and Inspection Center for testing. The tests found the samples contained up to 132.mg/kg of melamine, more than one hundred times the national standard of less than 1mg/kg.
Guo contacted the sellers and the manufacturer of Scient formula to seek compensation and revealed his findings to the media.
On June 13, 2009, Scient company and Guo reached a settlement of 400,000 RMB with a signed waiver of any further allegations or compensation.
A TV station subsequently broadcast a news report featuring Guo’s claims about Scient baby formula. Four days later, on June 29, 2009, Scient and its controlling shareholder, the Guangdong Yashili (雅士利) Co. (“the Company”), contacted Guo and asked to meet with him. Guo met with the representatives of Scient and the Company at their headquarters. With their encouragement, Guo asked for an additional 3 million RMB in compensation, to which they agreed. The next day, the Company reported to the police that Guo was blackmailing them. Guo was approached by the police in Hangzhou, a city about 1,000 miles from Guo’s Beijing home. Police transferred him from Hangzhou to Chao’an County in Guangdong Province, where the Company is registered.
Procedural History
On July 23, 2009, Guo was detained on suspicion of extortion.
On August 5, 2009, Guo was formally arrested.
On January 8, 2010, the Chao’an County People’s Court convicted Guo of extortion and sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Guo appealed.
On February 5, 2010, the Chaozhou Intermediate People’s Court (“the Intermediate Court”) sustained the lower court’s decision. Guo was sent to Jieyang Prison in Guangdong Province to serve his sentence.
On May 31, 2010, the Guangdong High People’s court (“the High Court”) decided to open the case and assigned the Intermediate Court to rehear it.
On December 30, 2010, the Intermediate Court retried the case and handed down the same conviction and sentence.
On July 22, 2014, Guo was released after completing his sentence.
On May 21, 2015, the High Court decided to retry the case.
On March 22, 2017, the High Court decided Guo was not guilty and acquitted him.
Date of the Conviction
February 5, 2010
Date the Wrongful Conviction Was Vacated/Reversed
March 22, 2017
Days incarcerated
1,826 days
Why Was the Case Reopened
Guo never admitted guilt.
After completing his prison term, Guo traveled to various places to gather evidence of his innocence.
Guo’s lawyer, Zhang Yansheng (“张燕生”), who has represented defendants in other high-profile exoneration cases, advised him to petition.
Guo’s case was reported by many media organizations and received public support.
Factors Contributing to the Wrongful Conviction
Unreliable Witness Statement
Guo’s wife, who divorced him while his case was pending, was a witness for the prosecution. Her statement provided the major evidence against Guo. She testified that their “daughter has been in good health conditions and has had no symptoms,” in contradiction with the medical records showing kidney malfunction.
Local Protectionism
Based on social media posts, some members of the public believe local protectionism may have contributed to Guo’s conviction. The company was registered in Chao’an County in Guangdong Province and was a major taxpayer there. Guo was arrested and convicted there.
Other Developments
On September 19, 2016 the Supreme People’s Court released a rule concerning reductions in sentence and release on parole (“关于办理减刑，假释案件具体应用法律规定”), which took effect on January 1, 2018. One provision states that “the right of a convicted person to appeal during the execution of his sentence shall be protected by law, and his justified appeal shall not be considered as a plea of not guilty and repentance without sufficient analysis.” Some believe that Guo’s case contributed to the drafting of this provision.
After his acquittal, Guo filed a claim with the Intermediate Court for state compensation and was awarded 638,183.14 RMB.