Fujian Province

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

Wu Changlong, et al. Bombing Case (吴昌龙等五人爆炸案)

The Defendant/Exoneree 

  • Wu Changlong (吴昌龙), born on Nov. 26, 1975

  • Chen Keyun (陈科云), born on Jan. 26, 1952

  • Du Jiesheng (杜捷生), born on Jan. 4, 1965

  • Tan Minhua (谈敏华), born on Nov. 28, 1979

  • Xie Qing (谢清) , born on May 1, 1955 (Chen Keyun’s wife)

Facts

  • On June 23, 2001, a portable vest fitted with explosives was placed at the entrance of the Letters and Petitions Reception Area at the Fuqing Discipline and Inspection Commission office. At around 8 a.m. the next day (June 24), the vest was detonated and the explosion killed Wu Zhangxiong, who was told to fetch the package and was the driver of the recipient, Mayor Fang. After an investigation by the Fuqing Public Security Bureau, they believed that Chen Keyun, the then manager of a big company who was under the investigation of the Chinese Communist Party’s disciplinary committee, in order to take revenge against the disciplinary committee, conspired with Wu Changlong, his driver, to make, plant and explode a bomb at the Fuqing City Party Disciplinary Committee. Tan Minhua sold some explosives to Du Jiesheng, who later sold them to Wu Changlong and Chen Keyun. Xie Qing provided a false alibi for Chen during the police investigation.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Wang Xiaogang, another person who was originally prosecuted for providing explosives to Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong, was acquitted after the first trial.

Procedural History 

  • Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong were detained by the police on November 7, 2001. Du Jiesheng was detained on October 4, 2001. Tan Minhua was detained on October 26, 2001. Xie Qing was detained on October 20, 2001.

  • In January 2002, the case was sent to the prosecutors’ office for review and prosecution. After review, the prosecutor’s office twice sent the case back to the police for supplementary investigation due to lack of sufficient evidence.

  • In July 2002, the prosecutors’ office indicted the five defendants and sent the case to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court for trial. The court also sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office for supplementary investigation for insufficient evidence.

  • Wu and Chen were charged and convicted of the crime of bombing and were sentenced to death with two years suspension; Du and Tan were charged and convicted of the crime of illegally buying/selling explosive materials and were sentenced to ten years imprisonment; Xie was charged and convicted of the crime of perjury and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Fuzhou Intermediate Court of Fujian Province convicted and sentenced the five defendants on November 30, 2004.

  • Upon the appeal from all five defendants, on December 31, 2005, the Fujian Provincial High Court remanded the case to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

  • After retrial, on October 10, 2006, the Fuzhou Intermediate court re-convicted all the defendants, sustained the sentence for Chen and Wu, and reduced the sentence for Du, Tan and Xie to imprisonment of 7 years, 6 years and 2 years, respectively.

  • Upon the appeal from all five defendants, the Fujian High Court heard the case on April 26, 2011 and acquitted all defendants on May 3, 2013.

Date Of The Conviction

November 30, 2004

Date The Wrongful Conviction Was Reversed

May 3, 2013

Days Incarcerated

14,111 (total for five defendants)

Why Was The Case Reopened/Reversed 

  • Wu Changlong’s family used various methods to petition for Wu’s innocence through the years. Some of his family members had been detained by the police for their repetitive petitioning.

  • All five defendants’ lawyers kept challenging the prosecutors’ evidence and publicizing the progress of the case to the media.

  • It attracted the media’s attention when the crime occurred because it was a rare extremely violent crime against the local disciplinary commission. In May 2005, the China Youth Daily newspaper profiled this case with the title “Two Defendants on Death Row: We Are Wronged.” It drew more public attention to this case.

  • Starting 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee and the Supreme People’s Court began to stress the significance of preventing and redressing wrongful convictions, and issued several guidelines and statements on this subject.

  • Upon the second appeal, the Fujian High Court finally publicly tried the case and found that although it is clear that an explosion and a death did occur, there were several pieces of conflicting evidence and points of doubt, as well as the problem that the original decision from the Fuzhou Intermediate Court was not supported by corroborative evidence. The Fujian High Court found that the facts were unclear and the evidence failed to establish the conclusion that Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong carried out the explosion; that Du Jiesheng and Tan Minhua provided explosive materials and the detonator; and that Xie Qing committed perjury by providing false information/testimony during the investigation.

Factors Contributing To The Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

  • According to reports, Wu Changlong’s false confession was obtained through torture during 53 days of interrogation and three failed suicide attempts. He was beaten up and deprived of sleep and access to bathroom. After such harsh torture and interrogation, he made a false confession and implicated Chen Keyun as his accomplice.

  • It was reported that Chen Keyun was tortured during his interrogation, causing him to confess and implicate the other three.

  • All five of the defendants submitted requests to have their injuries evaluated to corroborate the claims of torture. However, none of the requests were ever granted.

  • All defendants recanted their confessions in court.

Prosecutorial Errors

  • The Political-Legal Committee of Fuqing City intervened the case and suggested the procuratorate approve the police application of arresting Xie Qing. The procuratorate compromised because of the intervention.

Court's Errors

  • Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence and failed to give the benefit of doubt to the defendants.

Defense Lawyer's Errors/Absence

  • None. The defense lawyers of five defendants defended their clients’ innocence.

Other Developments

  • After the defendants were acquitted, the Central Propaganda Department was ordered to limit the amount of media coverage detailing the wrongful convictions and the number of media interviews the five could accept.

  • On September 2, 2013, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ordered the state to compensate five defendants with over 4.2 million RMB.

  • In August 2013, Wu Changlong’s sister and some of the defense lawyers in this case set up the “Wu Changlong Legal Aid Foundation” to help these suffering from prolonged pretrial incarceration.

  • On November 20, 2013, Wu Changlong was designated as the ambassador of an innocence project in China.

Information Sources