exculpatory evidence

Bai Chunrong Theft Case (白春荣盗窃案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Bai Chunrong (白春荣), born on December 17, 1955.

Facts

  • On October 27, 1988, Bai Chunrong bought some fabric at a cloth market in Nanhai County, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, and stored her goods at Store No.1. The next day, Bai went back to the same market where she met a person from her hometown village offering to sell her some extra fabric at a good bargaining price. Bai bought the fabric and stored it at Store No. 1. When Bai went to buy more fabric, she heard shouting and saw lots of people enter Store No.1 to see what was going on. She followed the crowd into the store and was detained by the security guards.  The store owners reported that some of their fabric was stolen and Bai was arrested, tried and convicted of theft.

  • The store owners did not report the stolen fabric until they were notified by the police that some of their fabric was found in Store No.1.

  • Bai did not confess.

Procedural history 

  • Bai was detained by the police on October 28, 1988, under the rubric of “sheltering for investigation.” On May 4, 1989, she was formally arrested.

  • On July 28, 1989, Bai was convicted of theft for stealing fabric and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment by the Nanhai County District Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province. On March 28, 1990, the Foshan Intermediate Court affirmed the judgment upon Bai’s appeal.

  • On February 8, 1996, Bai was released after serving her full term in prison.

  • On March 20, 2014, Bai was exonerated by the Foshan Intermediate Court on the ground of insufficient evidence.    

Date of the conviction

July 28, 1989

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

March 20, 2014

Days incarcerated

2,659

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Bai had insisted on her innocence since the first day of her detention. She kept petitioning to re-open her case even after she finished her jail time.

  • In 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee issued a guidance addressing wrongful conviction, which resulted in a nation-wide campaign to correct wrongful convictions.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

Flawed police investigation

  • The police required Bai to provide receipts for all the fabric she stored at the Store No.1 to prove her innocence. But Bai could only provide one receipt for one bag of fabric. Bai informed them of her sources for the bags of fabric, but the police failed to verify them.

Dubious witness identification/statements

  • There was no witness description of the lost fabric before the witnesses were shown the found fabric. Even when one of the witnesses was in the Store No.1 helping Bai organize the fabric, he did not notice or recognize that his lost fabric was actually right in front of him until the security guard informed him later.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Bai was represented by counsel who defended her innocence.

Court's errors

  • Failed to insist the principle that when there is a doubt about a fact, the presumption should benefit the defendant.

Other developments

  • On September 4, 2014, Bai received RMB 650,000 of State compensation.

Information sources

Du Peiwu Murder Case (杜培武故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Du Peiwu (杜培武), born in 1967; he was a police officer at the Kunming Public Security Bureau at the time of the incident.

Facts

  • On April 20, 1998, Du Peiwu’s wife and another police officer, Wang, were found shot dead in Wang’s vehicle. The investigating police suspected that Du’s wife and Wang were having an affair and that Du killed them for revenge.

  • On April 22, 1998, Du was detained and interrogated. He confessed after 70 days of interrogation.

  • In June 2000, after Du’s conviction, a group of gang members were arrested for a series of robberies. One of the gang members, Yang Tianyong (a police officer), confessed that he committed the crime in Du’s case. Following Yang’s instruction, the police found the handgun in the drawer of Yang’s apartment, which was linked to the shots that killed the two victims in Du’s case.

  • Both Du and Yang were police officers before they were convicted.

  • The handgun used to shoot the two victims was not found during Du’s investigation.

Procedural history 

  • Du Peiwu was charged with intentional murder of his wife and another police officer.

  • On February 5, 1999, Du was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Kunming Intermediate Court in Yunnan Province.

  • On October 20, 1999, the Yunnan Provincial High Court confirmed the conviction but changed the sentence to death with two years suspension.

  • On July 6, 2000, Du was exonerated by the Yunnan Provincial High Court because the real perpetrator Yang Tianyong came forward and was convicted.    

Date of the conviction

February 5, 1999

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 6, 2000

Days incarcerated

814

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

On June 17, 2000, the police arrested a group of gang members who had committed serial armed robberies in Kunming City. Yang Tianyong, one of the gang members, confessed that this group also committed the crime in Du’s case and laughed at the police’s incompetence in Du’s case. Later, the police discovered the handgun which was used to shoot the two victims and a mini-recorder belonging to one of the victims was found in a drawer in Yang’s home.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • The police interrogated Du Peiwu for 70 days, including periods of 10 days consecutively and 20 days consecutively. Consistent with Chinese law, lawyers were not allowed to be present during the police interrogation.

  • Du was severely physically and mentally tortured by the police. Du was deprived of sleep, beaten by the police using their fists and electric rods. The police officers tied Du’s hands and hung Du against a door in the air. Du claims that he confessed to stop the torture.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The mud found on Du’s shoes and pants did not match the mud on the brake plate and gas plate on the vehicle.

  • There were two contradicting reports based on a dog sniffing test concerning whether Du had been in the vehicle where the victims were found.

  • Du also underwent two polygraph tests. The results did not positively show that Du was lying on major issues, but it also did not show that Du was not lying at all. The polygraph expert failed to explain the possible error and inaccuracy in the polygraph tests.

Prosecutorial errors

  • The procuratorate suppressed evidence that proved Du was tortured.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Du was represented by counsel and claimed his innocence.

Court's errors

  • Failed to credit the physical evidence (Du’s shirt which was torn during torture) Du presented at court, as well as Du’s in-court statement, that he was tortured. Refused to credit Du’s in-court exculpatory statements.

  • Failed to consider exculpatory witness identifications and testimonies: No eye witness identified Du as the perpetrator.

Other developments

  • Two police officers in Du’s case were convicted of extorting confession through torture after Du’s acquittal.

  • In October 2001, Du was rewarded RMB 91,141 State compensation by the Yunnan Provincial High Court.

Information sources

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

She Xianglin Murder Case (佘祥林故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • She Xianglin (佘祥林), born on March 7, 1966; he was twenty-eight when he became suspected in the case and was thirty-nine when he was finally acquitted.

Facts

  • In the beginning of 1994, She Xianglin’s wife Zhang Zaiyu disappeared. A few months later, a badly decomposed female body was found at a nearby reservoir. Zhang’s family identified the corpse as Zhang Zaiyu and suspected She killed Zhang because Zhang had a mental disorder. It was rumored that She was having an improper relationship with a young woman. About eleven years after She had been convicted of intentional murder of Zhang Zaiyu, Zhang reappeared alive in She’s village.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • After She’s conviction, Zhang Zaiyu sent letters to her brother. But her brother did not disclose this until Zhang Zaiyu came back to the village in person.

    • When the female body was found, another family came to the police claiming that the victim was their family member.

Procedural history 

  • On April 12, 1994, She was put on residential surveillance. On April 22, 1994, She was criminally detained and six days later he was arrested.

  • She Xianglin was charged with intentional murder of his wife.  On Oct 13, 1994, She was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Jingzhou Intermediate Court of Hubei Province.

  • On January 6, 1995, She’s appeal was heard and the Hubei High Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

  • During the first retrial, this case was twice returned to the local county procuratorate for supplementary investigation.

  • On November 23, 1997, when the local county procuratorate referred this case the third time to the city procuratorate and requested the latter to prosecute She at the intermediate court, the city procuratorate rejected the case on the ground that the alleged offense was not serious enough to be prosecuted in an intermediate court and referred the case back to the local county procuratorate to prosecute at a local district court.

  • On June 15, 1998, She was convicted by the Jingshan District Court for intentional murder and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

  • On September 22, 1998, She’s appeal was denied by the Jingmen Intermediate Court and his conviction was affirmed.

  • On March 28, 2005, Zhang Zaiyu reappeared in She’s village.

  • On April 1, 2005, She was released from the prison by obtaining a guarantor.

  • On April 13, 2005, She was exonerated.

Date of the conviction

June 15, 1998

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

April 13, 2005

Days incarcerated

3,995

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

She’s mother and brother petitioned for She since She was detained. Eleven years after She’s detention and conviction, the alleged victim reappeared in person.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • She was physically and verbally abused by the police and gave four different confessions. He was interrogated for ten consecutive days, was beaten and lost part of a finger.

Flawed police investigation

  • Witnesses who testified that there was a stranger in their village who might be Zhang Zaiyu were detained for months for alleged perjury. Some defense witnesses were tortured and detained until they changed their testimony.

  • When the police learned of exculpatory evidence, they tried to suppress the evidence.

  • Police ignored the other family who claimed that the victim was actually their family member.

Dubious witness identification/statements

  • Zhang’s family did not see the victim’s body. Their identification was based on the police’s description about the height and the build of the victim. Zhang’s family identified the body despite the fact that the body did not have a scar on the stomach, which was one of the Zhang’s identifying features.

  • Witnesses changed their testimony after being detained and threatened by the police.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • No DNA evidence collected to identify the body.

  • No tools for the alleged crime were found.

Prosecutorial errors

  • Prosecutors acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s decision, knowing it was not supported by evidence.

  • Prosecutors did not explain the conflicting evidence during the prosecution.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. She was represented by a lawyer who maintained She’s innocence.

Court's errors

  • Acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s not-evidence-based decision.

  • Ignored the unexplainable doubts in this case. For example, the missing stones, bags, and ropes allegedly used by She during the act; whether She was capable of taking the alleged route of killing the victim at one place and hauling the body to dump it, by himself, at another place; and why She’s confessions yielded four different versions of the story.

Other developments

  • During She’s appeal, Zhang’s family organized 220 villagers to petition the appellate court (Hubei Provincial High Court) to pressure the court to reject She’s appeal.

  • One of the police officers in She’s case was charged with torturing She and committed suicide.

  • In September 2005, She received about RMB700,000 from the state in compensation.

Information sources

Sun Wangang Murder Case (孙万刚故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Sun Wangang (孙万刚), born on November 4, 1975; he was twenty-one and a college student when the case began and was twenty-nine when he was finally acquitted.

Facts

  • On January 3, 1996, a student called the police to report finding a female body near a factory. The police on the crime scene said the victim was Chen Xinghui and parts of her body were cut off and missing.  Sun was suspected because he went out with Chen the night before and went back to the place of another classmate alone after the time the crime was committed. Sun was placed under sheltering for investigation, a police compulsory measure, on January 3, 1996.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Sun claimed that he and the victim had been to the crime scene before he was knocked out by something. When he woke up, he found that Chen was talking with a man in black. The man threatened Sun with a knife and asked him to leave. Sun left and went to his classmate’s place. He and his classmate went back to the scene after a few hours but did not find Chen.

Procedural history 

  • Sun Wangang was detained on April 24, 1996, and arrested on April 30, 1996. He was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his girlfriend and classmate Chen Xinghui.

  • On September 20, 1996, Sun was convicted and sentenced to death by the Zhaotong Intermediate Court of Yunnan Province.

  • Sun appealed his conviction to the Yunnan Provincial High Court. The high court remanded the case back to Zhaotong Intermediate Court for re-trial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence. 

  • On May 9, 1998, the Zhaotong Intermediate Court again convicted Sun and sentenced him to death.

  • On Sun’s second appeal on November 12, 1998, the Yunnan Provincial High Court changed the death sentence to a death penalty with two years suspension. Sun was sent to a prison.

  • On January 15, 2004, the Yunnan Provincial High Court reopened the case and eventually acquitted Sun on February 10, 2004.

Date of the conviction

September 20, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

February 10, 2004

Days incarcerated

2,960

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Sun and his parents kept petitioning for Sun’s innocence after the conviction.

  • In September 2002, Li Maofu a serial rapist-killer who resides in the same county as Sun, was arrested. Sun and his father thought that Li could be the real perpetrator in Sun’s case and wrote to the courts and the procuratorates to alert them.  

  • In 2003, Sun’s petition caught the attention of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (the SPP) because he mentioned that Li could be the real perpetrator. The SPP forwarded Sun’s materials to the Yunnan People’s Procuratorate.

  • The Yunnan Procuratorate reviewed the entire case dossier and found several cause for doubt in Sun’s case. After interviews with Li and witnesses in Li’s case, and a review of Li’s case dossiers, the Yunnan People’s Procuratorate excluded Li as the real perpetrator in Sun’s case.

  • The Yunnan Procuratorate proposed to the Yunnan High Court to reopen Sun’s case on the ground that: 1) a blood test does not rule out the possibility of another perpetrator; 2) Sun made both exculpatory statements and guilty confessions.  His confession did not match the forensic evidence.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Sun claimed that he was tortured by the police and that his guilty confession was completely extorted through deprivation of food, water, and sleep.

Flawed police investigation

  • The police officers did not pursue any witness to explain why there was a button and a buckle found at the crime scene that did not belong to Sun nor Chen.  

  • Among Sun’s written confessions, one of them was not signed by Sun, as required by the law. Instead, a police officer signed Sun’s name.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The blood samples were contaminated before they reached the lab. No human blood was found on the alleged murder knife. No human sperm was found at the crime scene or in the victim’s body to corroborate Sun’s confession that he committed the murder to cover up the crime of rape.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Sun was represented by a lawyer who argued that Sun was innocent.

Court's errors

  • The Zhaotong Intermediate Court did not change the entire collegial panel at retrial after the case was remanded by the Yunnan Provincial High Court. This is a violation of criminal procedural law.

Other developments

  • In October 2004, Sun received RMB 165,608 as state compensation.

  • After the case was reopened, Sun was represented by Liu Hule, the defense attorney who also represented Du Peiwu (another wrongful conviction exoneree, whose case is also included in this archive).

Information sources

Wang Benyu Rape and Murder Case (王本余故意杀人、奸淫幼女案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Wang Benyu (王本余), born in 1954; he was 42 when he was arrested and was 60 when he was finally released.

Facts

  • In December 15, 1994, when Wang came back to his rental apartment from work, Li Yanming, Wang’s roommate, told Wang that he killed a little girl. Li asked Wang to help him dispose of the body. Li threatened that if Wang turned him in, Li was going to kill Wang and Wang’s six-year-old daughter, who was living with them, just like he killed the girl. Later Li also begged Wang not to report the incident. That night, Wang carried Li and the body in Wang’s tricycle to dump the body at a place about six thousand yards away from their rental apartment. The next day, Li ran away and Wang was detained by the police.

  • Wang did not appeal because he was told by a ward at the detention center that he would get transferred to a prison sooner without any further delay from the appellate proceeding (usually the living conditions in a prison are considered better that that in a detention center). Wang later said that he would rather die than be kept in a detention center.

Procedural history 

  • In March 1995, the police sent the case to the Baotou City Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The procuratorate later sent the case back to the police for supplemental investigation due to lack of forensic evidence to connect Wang to the crime and the suspicion that Li Yanming might be the real perpetrator.

  • In November 1996, Wang Benyu was charged with the crime of rape and intentional murder. He was originally convicted and sentenced to death with two years suspension by the Baotou Intermediate Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Wang Benyu did not appeal.

  • In March 1997, the High Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region reviewed and approved Wang’s sentence.

Date of the conviction

March, 1997

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 22, 2013

Days incarcerated

6,793 days

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • After Wang was sent to prison to serve his time, he started to write petition letters claiming that he was wrongfully convicted. But he stopped petitioning after the first two years of imprisonment because he realized that his petition made his sentence commutation difficult.

  • On February 13, 2012, Li Yanming was arrested by the police in Beijing for another murder. Li confessed that he committed the rape and murder in Wang’s case.

  • On July 22, 2013, Wang was released.

  • In September 2013, the Baotou Intermediate Court re-tried the case and found that Wang was not guilty of rape and murder, but was guilty of concealing a crime. Wang was sentenced to three years imprisonment. Because Wang had served his time for 18 years before the second conviction, he was released right away.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Wang did not confess until he was severely physically tortured by the police. He gave 10 statements before trial, with eight statements indicating that Li Yanming was the real perpetrator, and two indicating himself.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The victim had a bite mark on her face. Wang has two protruding teeth. Without any testing, the police told Wang that they think the mark must have been left by him. No semen was found, though Wang confessed that he ejaculated inside of the victim’s body. No DNA testing had been done in this case.

Dubious witness identification

  • Wang Benyu’s daughter, who was eight at the time, gave written statements identifying her father as the perpetrator who killed the victim.

Ignored exculpatory evidence

  • Wang told the police that Li Yanming was the real culprit and provided the police with Li’s hometown address. But the police did not conduct a thorough investigation on Li’s whereabouts.

Prosecutorial errors

  • Both the procuratorate and the court compromised with the Baotou City Political-Legal Committee, which had set a tone for the case in September 1996. The compromise was that although this is a difficult case, the procuratorate still could charge Wang for rape and murder, and the court should make its decision according to the actual circumstances.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Wang was represented by a lawyer who defended him by arguing that the case lacks evidence to implicate Wang, and that Wang is an accessory offender of the crime charged.

Court's errors

  • Compromised with the local political-legal committee.

Other developments

  • In November 2013, Wang received state compensation of 1.5 million RMB.

Information sources

Yu Yingsheng Murder Case (余英生故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Yu Yingsheng (余英生), born in 1962

Facts

  • On December 2, 1996, Yu’s wife Han Lu was found raped and murdered in their bedroom at their apartment in Bengbu City of Anhui Province. The police did not find any evidence indicating that the apartment was broken into. Therefore, the police suspected that the culprit might be one of the victim’s acquaintances. On December 12, 1996, Yu was detained and interrogated for seven consecutive days. On December 19, 1996, the police claimed that the case was cleared and arrested Yu on December 22, 1996. The police alleged that Yu had disputes with his wife and killed her by cutting her neck. In order to cover the crime, Yu was also alleged to have moved the propane tank from the kitchen to their bedroom (where the victim was killed) and ignited a candle attempting to destroy the crime scene.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Before getting involved in this case, Yu was a government official in Bengbu City, and was considered by his supervisors to be a prominent candidate for a promotion.

    • On November 27, 1996, the Police Bureau of Bengbu City launched a strike hard campaign to crack down serious crimes.

    • Yu’s parents-in-law told the police that Yu and Han got along fairly well, and that on the day of the crime, Yu took his son to school in the morning and then went to his office.

Procedural history 

  • On April 7, 1998, Yu was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to death with two-year suspension by the Bengbu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province. Yu appealed.

  • In September 1998, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case to the intermediate court for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

  • In September 1999, the Bengbu Intermediate Court retried the case and came to the same decision. Yu appealed this decision again.

  • On May 15, 2000, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial again on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

  • On October 25, 2000, the Bengbu Intermediate Court again convicted Yu of intentional murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

  • Upon Yu’s appeal, the Anhui Provincial High Court affirmed the intermediate court’s decision on July 1, 2001.

Date of the conviction

December 22, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 13, 2013

Days incarcerated

6,099

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Yu’s lawyer and his family members had kept petitioning for Yu’s innocence throughout the 17 years he was incarcerated.

  • On May 8, 2013, the Petition Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate organized experts to discuss the Yu Yingsheng case.

  • On May 31, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court decided to reopen the case pursuant to Article 243 of the PRC Criminal Law, which is about the crime of false accusation.

  • On August 13, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court publicly announced that Yu was not guilty because of insufficient evidence and unclear facts in this case after retrial.

  • In August 2013, the Central Political Legal Committee (the CPLC) issued a guideline addressing the issue of wrongful convictions.

  • The Yu Yingsheng case was the first case where the defendant received the benefit of doubt in Anhui Province after the CPLC’s guideline.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Yu was interrogated for seven consecutive days and nights. He was sleep deprived. He was forced to “shower” for three hours in cold water outside of a building when it was snowing. Yu claimed that the police forced him to come up with a story for this case.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • On February 3, 1997, a DNA testing of the stain on the victim’s underpants found human semen specimen and it did not match Yu. However, the prosecutor’s theory was that Yu collected the semen from a discarded condom of another person to tamper the crime scene.

  • The police originally found two fingerprints on the dresser in Yu’s bedroom, which did not match Yu or his family members. However, this evidence was not disclosed to the defense during the trials. The fingerprint report provided by the prosecutor stated that there were no fingerprints from non-family members at the crime scene. In 2013 when the case was reviewed, a document in the police’s possession about two foreign fingerprints at the crime scene was discovered.

  • The police did not test the fingerprints on the propane tank.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. The defense lawyer pointed out that the DNA testing excluded Yu as the perpetrator and defended Yu’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

  • The prosecutor failed to provide the exculpatory evidence - the testing of the two fingerprints- to the defense.

  • The prosecutor failed to reasonably explain why the DNA testing is not a match.

Court's errors

  • Failed to admit exculpatory evidence.

  • Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence.

Other developments

  • After Yu was released, the Bengbu Police re-investigated this case and retested the DNA sample collected 17 years ago. The new DNA testing linked to Wu Qinyuan, a local police officer. On November 27, 2013, Wu was approached by the police and confessed that he was the real culprit in Yu’s case. According to Wu’s confession, he knew Yu’s wife Han through common friends and liked her. On the day of the crime, he went to Han’s apartment and raped her when he found that she was home alone. While committing rape, Wu accidentally suffocated Han, so Wu decided to tamper the crime scene by moving the propane tank and igniting the candle in order to blow up the crime scene.

  • Through the years, Wu had been a police officer in Benghu City.

  • On May 5, 2015, Wu was convicted of rape and was sentenced to death by the Wuhu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province.

  • Wu attempted to tamper with the murder site by trying to burn it down. A gas can and an igniter candle were found on the spot. There were no fingerprints taken from the gas can or igniter candle. It appears the only evidence linking Wu to the crime was the DNA sample.

  • In 2013, Yu received state compensation of over 1 million RMB.

  • Yu’s family and Han’s mother received apologies from the police.

Information sources

Zhang Hui, Zhang Gaoping Rape Case (张辉、张高平强奸案)

The defendants/exonerees

  • Zhang Gaoping (张高平), born in 1965

  • Zhang Hui (张辉), born in 1976

Facts

  • In the evening of May 18, 2003, as requested by a friend, Zhang Hui and Zhang Gaoping gave a ride to a 17-year old girl from Anhui Province to Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province while en route to deliver electric cables to one of their clients in Shanghai. The next morning, the girl was found dead and naked in a ditch in a suburb of Hangzhou. The police found the phone numbers of the Zhangs on the victim’s person and therefore detained them on May 23, 2003. On June 28, 2003, the police arrested the Zhangs. The Zhangs were convicted of rape on April 21, 2004.

  • Zhang Hui and Zhang Gaoping are relatives of each other. Zhang Hui is the nephew, and Zhang Gaoping is the uncle.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • The Zhangs claimed that they dropped off the girl in Hangzhou in the early morning of May 19, 2003. They insisted that they are innocent.

    • Yuan Lianfang, a cellmate and the head of the Zhangs’ cell room during pretrial detention, forced them to copy out a pre-written confession letter.

Procedural history 

  • On April 21, 2004, Zhang Gaoping and Zhang Hui were convicted of rape by the Hangzhou Intermediate Court. Zhang Hui was sentenced to death and Zhang Gaoping was sentenced to life imprisonment.

  • On October 19, 2004, the Zhejiang Province High Court commuted both of their sentences upon appeal. Zhang Hui was sentenced to death with two-year suspension and Zhang Gaoping was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Date of the convictions

April 21, 2004

Date the wrongful convictions were reversed

March 26, 2013

Days incarcerated

7,192 (total for two defendants)

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Zhang Gaoping, Zhang Hui and his father Zhang Gaofa, had continuously petitioned even after the convictions.

  • On March 18, 2005, Zhang Gaoping learned while watching TV in the prison that a man named Gou Haifeng, a former taxi driver and criminal offender was executed for murdering a young girl in a suburb of Hangzhou. Zhang Gaoping thought that Gou might be the real perpetrator in his case because of the similar victim profiles, the similar locations where the bodies were found, and the similar method of killing.

  • In 2008, Zhang Gaoping read an article about another case where the defendant, Ma Tingxin, was also compelled to confess by Yuan Lianfang. The Zhangs believed that Yuan is the same cellmate who beat and forced them into confession. Zhang Hui mailed this article to his father Zhang Gaofa; and Zhang Gaoping provided this article to a prosecutor named Zhang Biao (not related), who was in charge of supervising the prison where Zhang Gaoping was serving his time.

  • At the same time, Zhang Gaoping’s stubborn and consistent refusal to comply with prison rules attracted the attention of the local procuratorate.

  • Through investigation, prosecutor Zhang Biao found that Yuan Lianfang was a prisoner used by the police in multiple cases to help extort confessions from other inmates. Zhang Biao reported his finding to his supervisors and other government agencies and kept bringing this case to his supervisors’ attention till it was reopened.

  • Zhang Gaofa and prosecutor Zhang Biao finally found Ma Tingxin’s lawyer who agreed to provide free legal aid to Zhang Hui. The lawyer, Zhu Mingyong, later found that court documents showed that Yuan Lianfang had received sentence commutation twice when he was sent to other detention centers to assist the police in closing cases.

  • In 2010, lawyer Zhu started filing petitions with the court to re-open the Zhangs’ case.

  • On November 21, 2011, the Dongfang Daily newspaper reported on the suspicious facts in the Zhangs’ case and the identity of Yuan Lianfang. The next day, the Hangzhou police checked the DNA sample in Zhangs’ case against that of Gou Haifeng’s, who had been executed for his previous crimes, and found a match.

  • The media reports on this case accelerated the re-opening of this case. The police finally checked the DNA evidence they should have checked six years earlier.

  • On February 27, 2012, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court re-opened the case and organized a new collegial bench to rehear the case.

  • On March 20, 2013, the Zhejiang High Court retried the Zhangs’ case and publicly announced that the defendants are not guilty six days later.

Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions

False confessions

  • The Zhangs were severely tortured, both physically and mentally, by the police. They were deprived of food and sleep. The police used their cellmate Yuan Lianfang to extort false confessions from the Zhangs.

  • The Zhangs also underwent police interrogation for seven consecutive days and nights.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The DNA sample, which was found in the victim’s finger nails, did not match the Zhangs. But the judgment explained that victim might have caught the DNA sample from somewhere else. Therefore, it did not prove that the defendants had not committed the crime.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Both defendants were represented by lawyers who maintained their innocence.

Court's errors

  • Did not exclude illegally obtained evidence. Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence. In the final retrial, the Zhejiang High Court finally excluded the illegally obtained evidence it had originally admitted.

Other developments

  • Nie Haifen, a police officer who was in charge of investigation in this case, was rewarded by the Hangzhou Police in 2006 for her extraordinary service for more than 20 years. In her promotion materials, it stated that she had “led the investigation of over 350 serious and major cases in the past five years. Her cases were 100% accurately resolved. … no wrongful convictions …”

  • On May 17, 2013, the Zhejiang High Court decided that the Zhangs were entitled to State compensation totaling 2.21 million RMB (last updated June 20, 2022).

Information sources

Zhang Xinliang Murder Case (张新亮故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zhang Xinliang (张新亮), born in 1967.

Facts

  • Zhang’s wife Han Shujuan usually worked at home to attend to the couple’s automobile parts business. On October 15, 1999, Zhang came back to their house, and couldn’t find Han. Zhang’s two children were at home but did not know their mother’s whereabouts. Zhang tried to call his uncles for help but found that the telephone line was cut off and the locks on their closet drawers were broken. After Zhang took his children to his relatives and came back with the adult relatives for help, they found that Han had died in the corner of a room at Zhang’s house. There was blood on the victim’s neck and eyes. According to the police, Zhang was suspected to be the offender for five reasons: 1) he did not appear to be very sad and was too scared to move the body when requested by the police; 2) he accurately stated the time he left home and came back on the day of the crime; 3) he originally claimed that some cash and receipts were missing but the police found these in their house; 4) he was not the person who first reported the murder to the police; and 5) he was the one who first found one of the broken locks under a wooden case. Zhang was detained by the police on October 20, 1999.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Zhang asked one of his uncles to report to the police after they found Han’s body.

    • Zhang and his relatives were at the crime scene helping with the police investigation and assisting the medical examiner during the autopsy examination.

    • Zhang’s relatives testified that after the crime, Zhang had not changed his outfit for about 5 days. There was no bloodstain on his clothes or shoes.

    • Zhang’s two children were then 13- and 10-years old. The older child testified that before she and her brother left for school, a bulky red-face man came on a red motorcycle. She also told the police that this person often came to their store to buy things, and that he was then inside of their house and talking to her mother. But no investigation was conducted on the reported man.

Procedural history 

  • On November 8, 2000, Zhang was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his wife.

  • On March 27, 2001, Zhang was convicted and sentenced to death by the Xingtai Intermediate Court of Hebei Province. Zhang appealed.

  • On July 4, 2001, Zhang’s case was remanded for retrial by the Hebei Provincial High Court on the ground of insufficient evidence.

  • On July 2, 2002, the Xingtai Intermediate Court again convicted Zhang and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Zhang appealed again.

  • On August 21, 2002, the Hebei Provincial High Court again remanded this case for retrial.

  • On July 28, 2003, Zhang was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Xingtai Intermediate Court.

  • On April 27, 2005, Hebei Provincial High Court tried Zhang’s case upon his appeal.

  • On August 8, 2005, Zhang was acquitted by the Hebei Provincial High Court and was released from the prison on December 2, 2005.

Date of the conviction

March 27, 2001

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 8, 2005

Days incarcerated

2,236

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Zhang’s lawyers kept presenting evidence about Zhang’s innocence through and after the trials.

  • The victim’s family did not press the police to punish Zhang.

  • Zhang’s family insisted on hiring the best lawyer they could afford. Professor Gu Yongzhong, a prominent law professor and lawyer in China, was retained by Zhang for his third appeal.

  • In 2005, Hebei Province launched a “promotion for rule of law” campaign. The Zhang Xinliang case is one of the top ten cases that were highly publicized during that campaign.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Zhang was severely tortured by the police. He had undergone physical assault, sleep deprivation and starvation. Zhang was also deceived and beaten and was forced to write a confession. This confession was admitted in the third remanded trial at the Xingtai Intermediate Court.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The forensic report showed that the victim had “jet-like” bleeding when she was killed and the victim had blood-type A. Zhang had not changed his jacket for five days after the murder. But no blood stain was found on Zhang’s clothes.

Flawed police investigation

  • Police did not investigate information provided by the victim’s older child and Zhang’s neighbor about a strange big man with a red motorcycle.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. The defense lawyers pointed out the problems in this case and defended Zhang’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

  • Failed to keep the threshold of indictment.

  • When the appellate court remanded the case for retrial for the second time, it provided a written documents with issues of reasonable doubts in this case. Instead of conducting further investigation, the prosecutor’s office responded in paper to these issues and pointed out that the court’s doubts were not supported by evidence.

Court's errors

  • Failed to exclude illegally obtained confession. Zhang recanted at trial, but the court did not admit his recantation.

  • The appellate court could have directly corrected the mistakes it found in this case.

  • A neighbor of Zhang provided a statement to Zhang’s lawyer that he saw a man on red motorcycle stopped in front of Zhang’s house and heard the motorcycle engine was turned on a few minutes later. Zhang’s lawyer provided this written statement to the court, it was missing from the court’s case dossier.

Other developments

  • On November 16, 2007, Zhang was rewarded state compensation of 18,700 RMB by the Hebei Provincial High Court. However, Zhang has not received the compensation (last updated on June 20, 2022).

Information sources

Zhao Zuohai Murder Case (赵作海故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zhao Zuohai (赵作海), born in 1952; he was 47 when he was arrested and was 58 when he was acquitted.

Facts

  • On October 30, 1997, Zhao Zuohai had a fight with Zhao Zhenshang (赵振晌), in which the former was injured. Zhao Zhenshang was not seen afterward. In February 1998, police detained Zhao Zuohai for investigation for 20 days and then released. On May 8, 1999, a body was found in an advanced state of decay in Zhao Zuohai’s village. The police did not find the head or the legs of the body. The next day, police again detained Zhao Zuohai. From May 10 to June 18, 1999, Zhao Zuohai confessed nine times after being seriously tortured by the police.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • The body was identified by Zhao Zhenshang’s family. No DNA identification was done.

    • Zhao Zuohai did not appeal his conviction.

    • Zhao Zuohai was represented by a legal intern, not a lawyer.

    • The procuratorate delayed charging Zhao Zuohai because of insufficient evidence until directed to do so by the local political-legal committee as part of a campaign to clear a backlog of cases.

Procedural history 

  • Zhao Zuohai was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his fellow villager Zhao Zhenshang. He was convicted and sentenced to death with a two-year suspension by the Shangqiu Intermediate Court of Henan Province. Zhao Zuohai did not appeal.     

Date of the conviction

December 5, 2002

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

May 9, 2010

Days Incarcerated

2,712

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

On April 30, 2010, Zhao Zhenshang reappeared at his village and confessed that on the night of the fight with Zhao Zuohai, he injured Zhao Zuohai’s head with a chopping knife. Out of concern that Zhao Zuohai might die, Zhao Zhenshang grabbed some personal belongings and fled. Zhao Zhenshang survived by collecting and reselling recyclables during his absence.  Zhao Zhenshang came back to his village because he had had a stroke and could not afford any treatment.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Zhao Zuohai was tortured by the police, who kicked, punched, and hit him with gun handles and sticks. They set off firecrackers on his head. He confessed after torture, but recanted and claimed his innocence in court.

Flawed police investigation

  • In order to find an excuse to explain the fight between Zhao Zuohai and Zhao Zhenshang, the police tortured a witness surnamed Du to force her to admit that the two men fought over her.

Dubious witness identification/statements

  • Zhao Zhenshang’s family identified the body as Zhao Zhenshang without checking any personal features on his body (such as the clothes).

  • Zhao Zhenshang’s family did not report that Zhao Zhenshang’s personal belongings were missing after his disappearance.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The police did not look for a weapon.

  • No DNA identification indicated that the victim was Zhao Zhenshang.

Prosecutorial errors

  • The procuratorate returned the case to the police twice for additional investigation, but compromised with the police after the Shangqiu City Political-Legal Committee intervened.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • Zhao Zuohai was represented by a legal intern who was not a qualified lawyer.

Court's errors

  • Failed to admit Zhao Zuohai’s in-court testimony.

  • Did not exclude illegally gathered evidence (such as Zhao Zhuhai’s coerced confession and Ms. Du’s coerced statements).

  • Although no DNA test was done to identify the victim as Zhao Zhenshang, the court convicted the defendant and imposed a lenient sentence under the consideration of unforeseen circumstances (whether the victim was Zhao Zhenshang).

Other developments

  • Three police officers in Zhao Zuohai’s case were arrested after Zhao Zuohai’s exoneration.

  • Four judges responsible for reviewing the case were suspended and investigated.

  • This case triggered awareness of the problem of wrongful convictions.

  • The chief judge of the Henan Provincial High Court apologized to Zhao Zuohai after his exoneration.

  • Zhao Zuohai received RMB 650,000 from the government as state compensation.

Information sources



Zheng Yonglin Case Murder Case (郑永林故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zheng Yonglin (郑永林), born in 1968. He was 18 when he was detained.

Facts

  • About 4 p.m. on June 4, 1987, Zheng Yonglin was hanging out at his sister’s grocery store while his sister and her fiancé Wang (the co-owner of the store) were gone. The 12-year-old girl of the Wang family (the sibling of the fiancé) was alone in the store attending business. Zheng drank some water and turned on music for a few minutes at the store. When he was stepping out of the store to go home, he saw a man coming into the store for some soda. Zheng told the young girl to check out the soda and left the store. Around 5:20 p.m. that day, the mother of the young girl (Zheng’s sister’s mother-in-law) found that the store was locked from the inside. When she opened the door, she found her daughter dead and lying in a pool of blood. When the police arrived, neighbors and relatives had already contaminated the crime scene. On June 7, 1987, Zheng was detained and interrogated by the police. He was subsequently placed under sheltering for investigation till January 23, 1992 when he was arrested.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Sheltering For Investigation was a police compulsory measure and was abolished on January 1, 1997.

    • A witness testified that at 4:50 p.m. on the day of the crime, he noticed that the door of Wang’s grocery store was locked.

    • Multiple witnesses testified to the police that Zheng left the grocery store around 4:20 p.m. and went home on the day of the crime. Multiple witnesses testified that after Zheng went home, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. that day, he went out to watch people fishing after fetching some vegetable from a farmer’s market for his mother.

    • The victim’s family put a lot of pressure on this case. The fiancé of Zheng’s sister cut off his finger and threatened to kill everyone in the Zheng family if Zheng was found not guilty and released.

    • The Political-Legal Committee of the Jinzhou City intervened in the case and created a solution plan – having the Beining District Court take the first instance trial and the Jinzhou Intermediate Court sustain the district court’s decision upon the defendant’s appeal. This way, the final decision of this case could be under control of the Jinzhou government. But according to the Criminal Procedure Law, a district court should not have jurisdiction over such a serious crime.

Procedural history 

  • In 1993, Zheng was convicted of intentional murder and was sentenced to death with two years suspension by the Jinzhou Intermediate Court of Liaoning Province.

  • Upon Zheng’s appeal, in 1995, the Liaoning Provincial High Court remanded the case back to the Jinzhou Intermediate Court for retrial citing insufficient evidence and unclear facts.

  • On January 2, 1997, the Beining District Court tried this case, convicted Zheng of intentional murder and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. Zheng appealed.

  • On October 30, 1997, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court sustained the district court’s decision.

Date of the conviction

1993

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

January 29, 2014

Days incarcerated

5,114

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • On June 6, 2001, Zheng was released after having served his time.

  • Zheng’s family and his lawyers, one of whom is a retired judge, former prosecutor and police officer, had been petitioning on Zheng’s behalf for over 20 years.

  • In May 2013, the influential newspaper “Southern Weekend” reported on the case and attracted nationwide attention.

  • Starting 2013, the Central Political-Legal Committee and the Supreme People’s Court began to stress the importance of prevention and redressing wrongful convictions. Soon after, the Chinese Communist Party’s Congress meetings also stressed the significance of “rule of law“ in China.

  • On November 26, 2013, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court decided to re-open this case.

  • On January 16, 2014, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court announced that Zheng Yonglin was not guilty.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Zheng was interrogated for three consecutive days and nights. He had undergone electric shot and sleep deprivation. The police told Zheng that they knew he did it because there was a photo of the culprit in the victim’s eyes. Zheng finally confessed.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • No forensic samples were collected on the fingerprints, footprints and bloodstained clothes from the crime scene.

  • In his forced confession, Zheng said that he used a knife to kill the girl. But the knife was not found.

  • The blood trace found on Zheng’s bicycle handle was too little to test. It could not be verified as human blood or animal blood.

  • There was a glove found at the crime scene, but no forensic testing was done to find out whether it was used during the crime.

Flawed police investigation

  • The police did not pursue the man who was at the store when Zheng left despite Zheng’s testimony and other witnesses’ testimony.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. The defense lawyers defended Zheng’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

  • Failed to keep the threshold of indictment. The procuratorate refused the police’s application to arrest Zheng four times on the ground of insufficient evidence. But it compromised with the police and approved the arrest after the Jinzhou City Political-Legal Committee intervened.

Court's errors

  • The court realized that there was no direct evidence to prove that Zheng was guilty; however, it had already compromised and agreed with the Jinzhou City Political-Legal Committee to convict Zheng.

Other developments

  • No lawsuit has been filed for state compensation (last updated on June 22, 2022)

Information sources