Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

Du Peiwu Murder Case (杜培武故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

Huge Jiletu Rape and Murder Case (呼格吉勒图强奸、故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Huge Jiletu (呼格吉勒图), born in 1978; he was 18 when he was executed.

Facts

On the night of April 9, 1996, Huge heard a scream from a women’s restroom near where he worked. Huge and his friend Yan Feng went together to check out what happened. They discovered a female body, naked below the waist, on her back on top of a low wall in the women’s restroom. They reported the crime to the local police. On April 11, 1996, the police suspected that Huge was the perpetrator and detained him for interrogation. Huge was tortured by the police and finally confessed that he raped and killed the victim. Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder, and sentenced to death on May 23, 1996.
Nine years after Huge’s execution, Zhao Zhihong who was arrested for a series of rape and murder charges confessed that he was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.
Other special facts about this case:
- Huge’s case was highly publicized in 1996 as a triumph of cracking down on crimes. Some police officers, prosecutors and judges were promoted due to their work on Huge’s case.
- In 1996, China was in its second “strike hard” campaign against violent crimes. The campaign required that certain types of crimes, usually violent crimes, should be punished strictly, severely and quickly. At that time, the authority to review death penalty cases was delegated to provincial high courts by the Supreme People’s Court. In Huge’s case, it was the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court that reviewed his appeal and affirmed his death penalty.

Procedural history

On May 23, 1996, Huge was convicted of hooliganism and intentional murder of a woman in a public restroom and sentenced to death by the Hohhot City Intermediate Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
On June 5, 1996, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court affirmed the judgment and Huge’s death penalty upon his appeal.
On June 10, 1996, 62 days after the crime was discovered, Huge was executed.
On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong, a serial rapist and killer was arrested. Among over 20 other cases of rape and murder from 1996 to 2005, Zhao voluntarily confessed that he also committed the crime in Huge’s case.
In March 2006, the Political-Legal Committee of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region started reviewing Huge’s case and concluded in August 2006 that Huge was wrongfully convicted.
On November 28, 2006, the Hohhot City Intermediate Court heard the Zhao Zhihong case.
On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court re-opened the Huge case.
On December 15, 2014, after having reviewed all case documents, and retried the case, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court announced that Huge was not guilty.

Date of the conviction

May 23, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 15, 2014

Days incarcerated

Executed.

Why was the case reopened/reversed

On October 23, 2005, Zhao Zhihong was arrested and confessed his crime in Huge’s case. Zhao’s confessions was voluntary and consistent. Since then, Huge’s family petitioned to re-open Huge case. Meanwhile, both cases were highly publicized by China’s news media and raised a lot of public attention. In March 2006, the Inner Mongolia Political-Legal Committee formed a review group on Huge case and preliminarily concluded that Huge was wrongfully convicted. Some news media in China kept reporting these two cases. Public opinion had a great impact on the re-opening of Huge case. On November 20, 2014, the Inner Mongolia High Court decided to re-open the case.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

The police deceived Huge by telling him that the victim did not die, and that he could go home as soon as he confessed.
Huge was physically and mentally tortured during police interrogation. They did not allow Huge to use the restroom unless he confessed first. Huge was told that he had to confess in accordance with what the police had told him. His testimonies during the first police interrogation and during the prosecutors’ interrogation contested that he did not commit the crime. But the procuratorate failed to pay attention to Huge’s contesting testimony.

Flawed police investigation

In order to explain Huge’s motive of the crime, the police tried to make eyewitness Yan Feng testify that Huge watched pornography. But Yan Feng contested. Under the pressure from the police, Yan Feng had to fabricate that Huge had made dirty jokes.

Problematic forensic evidence

The police collected the sperm sample from inside of the victim’s body. But no forensic test was done.
The police in Zhao Zhihong’s case also collected Zhao’s sperm sample, but did not conduct any forensic test to identify whether the sample from the victim matched the sample from Zhao.
In Huge’s case, the alleged most powerful incriminating evidence was the forensic evidence showing that the type of blood found in Huge’s nail matches that from the victim’s cut on her neck. But the first response police officer who investigated the crime scene informed a reporter at the Xinhua Net in 2014, that the victim did not have any cut. Unfortunately, this police officer did not handle this case after he handed the first report to the police station, and did not testify for the case.

Prosecutorial errors

The procuratorate did not check the work of the police before indicting Huge.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

Huge was represented by two lawyers, but the lawyers did not claim Huge was innocent. Instead, their defense hinged on attempting to obtain a lesser punishment and only argued that Huge was a first-time offender and a national minority.

Court's errors

Failed to exclude the illegally gathered evidence (i.e. confession extorted from torture, fabricated blood test from the victim’s neck).
Failed to admit Huge’s exculpatory testimony. Did not carefully analyze the conflicting evidence.

Other developments

It took nine years for the court to re-open the Huge case after Zhao Zhihong admitted that he was the real perpetrator in the Huge case. By that time, many of the people involved in the handling of Huge’s case had been promoted to high and important positions. A retired prosecutor who has supported the re-opening of Huge case was threatened and severely injured by anonymous people.
In December 2014, a Deputy Chief Judge of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High Court offered an apology to Huge’s parents.
On February 3, 2015, the parents of Huge received about RMB 2.05 million of State compensation.
The president of the Supreme People’s Court Zhou Qiang mentioned this case in his 2014 annual report to the National People’s Congress, stressing “we are the one that should be deeply blamed for those wrongfully convicted, such as Huge.”
Zhao Zhihong was convicted of four counts of crime: murder, rape, robbery and theft, and was sentenced to death in 2015. He was executed on July 30, 2019. However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Zhao was the real perpetrator in Huge’s case.
In January 2016, 11 police officers, 7 prosecutors and 8 judges were held accountable for Huge’s wrongful conviction and were punished by the Chinese Communist Party’s internal disciplines from severe disciplinary admonition to major demerit recording.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

Nie Shubin Rape and Murder Case (聂树斌故意杀人、强奸案)

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Nie Shubin (聂树斌), born on November 6, 1974; he was 21 when he was convicted and executed for rape and intentional murder.

Facts

On August 5, 1994, a decomposed female body was found in a corn field nearby an industrial compound. Nie, who was working at one of the factories in the compound, was found to be suspicious for “often riding a mountain bike following women,” as some unnamed witnesses stated. Nie was detained and questioned on October 1, 1994. While in custody, he did not confess until the sixth day. On October 9, 1994, Nie was formally arrested.

Procedural history

On March 15, 1995, the Shijiazhuang Intermediate Court convicted Nie of intentional murder and rape and imposed the death sentence on him.
On April 25, 1995, the Hebei Province High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
On April 27, 1995, Nie was executed.

Date of the conviction

March 15, 1995

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 2, 2016

Days incarcerated

Executed

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Nie Shubin’s mother kept petitioning ever since he was detained.
The victim’s family had doubted Nie’s capacity to commit the crime since day one. They claimed the victim was a 36-year-old married woman with some martial arts training and Nie was a 21-year-old lightly built man.
In January 2005, Wang Shujin, who was then a suspect of several other rapes and murders, was detained by the police in Henan Province. He voluntarily confessed many times that he had raped and murdered a woman in a corn field of the west of Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province. After his case transferred to the Hebei police, Wang first learned that the Shijiazhuang case had been cleared and “the perpetrator” had been executed. Nevertheless, Wang had still insisted that he was the real perpetrator in Nie’s case.
A local new paper profiled this unusual case with the title - “one murder two real perpetrators.“
After Wang Shujin’s confession, Nie’s case attracted a lot of public attention, which pushed for clarification of the Nie case and delayed Wang’s execution.
On March 16, 2005, the Hebei Provincial Political-Legal Committee promised to investigate the Nie case and release a conclusion in one month. But a conclusion had not been released before Nie was exonerated by the SPC.
In December 2014, the SPC appointed the Shandong Provincial High Court to exercise jurisdiction over Nie’s case review. After review, the Shandong Provincial High Court concluded that the original conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the possibility that Nie was not the real perpetrator cannot be excluded. It further suggested the SPC to re-open this case.
In March 2015, Nie’s lawyers were allowed the first time to review the entire case files.
In June 2016, the SPC decided to re-open this case.
On December 2, 2016, the SPC publicly announced that Nie was not guilty.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Nie was tortured by the police and forced to confess. According to Nie’s lawyer, and a police officer Zheng who worked at the same police station where Nie’s case was handled, Nie confessed because he was beaten by the police. According to police officer Zheng, it was very common in the 1990s, especially during the “strike hard” campaign, that suspects were beaten and forced to confess.

Dubious witness identification/statements

No eye witnesses at the crime scene.
Some witness statements indicated that a young man that likes to ride a mountain bike was following women and looking at them with “evil eyes.”

Problematic forensic evidence

No sperm collected. No DNA test done.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

Nie’s lawyer Zhang Jinghe was appointed by the court for free. He did not claim Nie was innocent, but raised that Nie was a first-time offender and had shown repentance after the crime, with hope that Nie could receive a lenient sentence.

Court's errors

Failed to exclude the forensic report and the crime scene investigation report even though those two documentations were not signed by two witnesses as required by the law.
Failed to exclude the illegally extracted confession.

Other developments

In March 2007, Wang was convicted of a series of murders and rapes and was sentenced to death, but was acquitted of the murder and rape in Nie’s case.
During Wang’s trial, Wang and his lawyer tried to prove Wang committed the crime in Nie’s case, while the prosecutor contested that Wang did not commit that offense.
In April 2007, Wang appealed his conviction on the ground that his offense in Shijiazhuang was not prosecuted.
In September 2013, Wang’s appeal was overturned and the conviction was affirmed on the ground that Wang’s confession on that crime does not match some physical evidence. For example, Wang confessed that he stepped on the chest of the body after the crime, but the forensic evidence does not show there is any chest fracture on the body; Wang confessed that the victim was wearing a shirt with a pattern of small flowers, but the physical evidence shows that the pattern is different. However, the victim’s father claimed that the police came to their home and took more than one of the victim’s shirts. The victim’s father also claimed that the shirt the police presented at Nie’s trial is different from the one they presented at Wang’s trial.
During the death penalty review process, in November 2020, the SPC remanded Wang’s case to the trial court for a new trial, citing discovery of new evidence.
The trial court again convicted Wang of murder and rape, and sentenced him to death. Wang appealed.
Wang’s conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate court in December 2020.
Wang was executed on February 2, 2021 after the SPC reviewed and affirmed Wang’s death penalty sentence.
There is speculation that Wang was seeking credit by confessing to the offense in Nie’s case because it could lead to a lenient sentence if he confessed to a crime committed by him but not known by the investigator before his confession.
In March 2017, Nie’s parents received 2.68 million RMB of State compensation.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 23, 2022

She Xianglin Murder Case (佘祥林故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 23, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

Sun Wangang Murder Case (孙万刚故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 18, 2022

Yang Botao Murder Case (杨波涛故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 18, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Yang Botao (杨波涛), born in 1975

Facts

On August 16, 2001, the victim Li Yueying called Yang Botao’s sister (her former classmate) to tell her that she wanted to travel to Yiwu, which is a city in Zhejiang Province. Yang’s sister told Li that if she could not get a bus ticket in Shangqiu that day, Li could stay with her overnight and Li could get the door key at her brother’s (Yang Botao) store. Yang’s sister did not hear from Li after that. Yang testified that he did not meet with Li either. On September 7, 2001, Li’s mother reported her daughter’s disappearance to the police. Three days later, the police received reports about six human segments at two locations. On September 10, 2001, the police questioned Yang Botao as one of the 27 suspects, and later excluded him because his fingerprint did not match the one found at the crime scene. Two years later, the DNA test showed that these segments were all from Li. On December 27, 2003, Yang was put under residential surveillance by the police. He was detained on June 27, 2004 and was arrested on July 6, 2004.
Other special facts about this case:
- There were multiple crime scenes in this case. During the police investigation, the police did not reach and investigate every crime scene.
- It is not clear why there is two-year gap between the discovery of the human segments and the DNA testing of these samples, which eventually identified the victim.
- In February 2004, Liu Yuzhou took the office to become the head of Liangyuan Police in Shangqiu City, where the case was handled. One of his tasks was to investigate this case.
- Yang Botao claimed that Liu Yuzhou interrogated him in person. He was severely tortured. Among many interrogations, one of his interrogation lasted 17 consecutive days.
- After 17 days of interrogation, Yang confessed. The police did not conduct any further inquiries.
- Before 2013, there was no limits in the Criminal Procedure Law in China as to how many times a case can be remanded by the appellate courts. Beginning in 2013, according to the amendment to this law, it is limited to two times in each case.

Procedural history

On September 5, 2004, the police sent the case to the Shangqiu City Procuratorate for prosecution. It was sent back by the prosecutor’s office twice for supplementary investigation.
On July 25, 2005, the Shangqiu City Procuratorate indicted Yang with the charge of the crime of intentional murder.
On September 1, 2005, he was convicted and sentenced to death with two years suspension by the Shangqiu Intermediate Court of Henan Province.
The Henan Provincial High Court remanded this case for retrial on the ground of uncleared facts after Yang’s appeal.
On Oct 16, 2006, the Shangqiu Intermediate Court again convicted Yang and sentenced him to death with two years suspension.
On Oct 29, 2007, the Henan Provincial High Court remanded for retrial for the second time on the same grounds of unclear facts.
On June 12, 2009, the Shangqiu Intermediate Court convicted Yang again for the same crime but changed the sentence to life imprisonment.
On September 26, 2009, the Henan Provincial High Court remanded for retrial for the third time for the same reasons.
After a hearing that was not open to the public, the Shangqiu City Procuratorate withdrew the case and referred the case back to the police on August 23, 2013.
On February 12, 2014, the police changed the compulsory measure against Yang from detention to released on guarantee pending trial.
On Feb 10, 2015, the police terminated their investigation on Yang Botao, but claimed that they were continuing investigating new evidence in this case.

Date of the conviction

September 1, 2005

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

On February 10, 2015, Yang was released from the police compulsory measure because the police terminated investigation against him. But his original conviction was not vacated.

Days incarcerated

3,087

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Yang and his lawyer maintained his innocence. Yang’s family petitioned on his behalf through the years.
Yang insisted that he confessed only once during the police interrogations. He confessed only because the police interrogated him for 17 consecutive days and nights. He was severely tortured.
Starting 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee and the Supreme People’s Court began to stress the significance of preventing and redressing wrongful convictions.
In 2013 and 2014, the Chinese Communist Party stressed how to prevent and redress wrongful convictions during the Third and Fourth Plenums.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Yang was severely tortured. According to Yang, he had been subject to various torture methods, including being forced to swallow chili water and human waste fluids; body hair being pulled out, including his pubic hair; being physically assaulted; and being hung in the air by his wrists. He had been interrogated for 17 consecutive days before he gave the first and only confession.

Dubious witness identification

The police used a jailhouse informant to solicit Yang’s confession. The informant provided an audio recording in which he testified that Yang Botao confessed to him about the murder.

Problematic forensic evidence

No DNA testing had been done for two years after the human segments were found.
No test had been done on the alleged murder weapon, a metal saw, as to whether there was blood stain or fingerprints.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. The defense lawyer pointed out more than 100 problems in this case and defended Yang’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

The prosecutor listed 15 witnesses, including 5 from Yang’s cell. None of these witnesses testified in court.

Court's errors

Failed to admit Yang’s in-court testimony. Failed to exclude illegally gathered evidence.

Other developments

In 2011, Liu Yuzhou, the then head of the Liangyuan Police of Shangqiu City, was convicted of the crimes of bribery and torture, and was sentenced to prison for 17 years.
Yang Botao’s lawyer is helping him seek state compensation. However, the lawyer thinks that Yang might not be eligible according to the current State Compensation Law because he did not have a not-guilty judgement from the court, a non-prosecution decision from the procuratorate, or a case withdrawal decision from the police. The police refused to issue a case withdrawal decision because they claimed that the investigation will continue, just not against Yang Botao (last updated June 20, 2022).

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

Yu Yingsheng Murder Case (余英生故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

Zhang Xinliang Murder Case (张新亮故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Zhao Zuohai Murder Case (赵作海故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

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)