alibi

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

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