Court Error

Guo Li Extortion Case (郭利敲诈勒索案）

The Defendant/Exoneree 

Guo Li (郭利) was born in 1968. He was thirty-nine years old when he was incarcerated and forty-six 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 one thousand 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 five years in prison. Guo appealed.

  • On February 5, 2010, the Chaozhou Intermediate People’s Court (“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 (“Guangdong 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 Guangdong High Court decided to retry the case.

  • On March 22, 2017, the Guangdong 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

Number of Days in Incarceration

1,826 days

Why Was the Case Reopened/Reversed 

  • 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.

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 (“Wu”) was not among them.

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

Procedural History 

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

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

  • On December 2, 2004, the procuratorate formally arrested Wu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Upon Wu’s fourth appeal, on July 6, 2009, the Henan High Court sustained the conviction and sentence.

  • In August 2009, Wu was sent to prison.

Date of the Conviction

June 23, 2005

Date the Wrongful Conviction Was Vacated/Reversed

April 1, 2020

Number of Days in Incarceration

5,612 days

Why Was the Case Reopened 

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

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

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

Factors Contributing to the Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

  • Wu 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 Wu’s physical condition. As a result of torture, Wu 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 gave Wu a polygraph test after the case was sent back for retrial for the third time, but they failed to follow proper procedures and did not ask Wu 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 Wu. Investigators did not look at persons who were on her list. Instead, the police pressed Wang to think of conflicts with Wu.

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

Information Sources

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 twenty-six years old when incarcerated and fifty-three years old when he was acquitted.

Facts

  • On October 24, 1993, six year old Zhang Zhenrong (“Rong”) and four year old Zhang Zhenwei (“Wei”) 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 (“Zhang”) 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. Zhang 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 Zhang’s drinking water tank.

  • After conducting a house-to-house check of all sixty-one households in the village, the police identified Zhang as a suspect. According to the police report, when questioned by the police, Zhang looked nervous and kept rubbing his hands, and was unable to explain the scratches on his hand.

  • On October 27, 1993, the police took Zhang to their station for interrogation on suspicion of killing the children in revenge for their prank. During the interrogation, Zhang 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 Zhang’s working clothes. But the police didn’t conduct forensic examinations of the sack or Zhang’s working clothes.

Procedural History 

  • On October 27, 1993, Zhang was detained under the status “sheltering for investigation.” 

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

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

  • On January 26, 1995, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court (“Intermediate Court”) convicted Zhang 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 (“Jiangxi High Court”) revoked the conviction and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

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

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

Date of the Conviction

January 26, 1995

Date the Wrongful Conviction Was Vacated/Reversed

August 4, 2020

Number of Days in Incarceration

9,778 days

Why Was the Case Reopened 

Factors Contributing to the Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

  • Zhang confessed only after being severely tortured for six days and nights during police interrogation. According to Zhang, 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 Zhang, including his genitals. Zhang 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

Investigator’s 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 Zhang despite indications during their first interaction with him that he was likely not the suspect.

Defense Lawyer's Errors and Absence

  • From Zhang’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

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, Zhang 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.

Information Sources