female

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

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