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.