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.