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

• 昆明杨天勇案7主犯伏法 民警杜培武冤案昭雪

• 杜培武——一名被冤枉的警察

• 杜培武：我是反侦查经验丰富的警察，但是到最后，我还是招供了

• 云南民警杜培武案再审无罪释放

• 真凶归案洗清冤屈 “死囚”获国家赔偿9万元 被错误羁押800多天未得精神赔偿引起争议

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

• 央视《东方时空》报道方俊金案 质疑该案证据不足

• 窃案失主 是永修县法院审判员

• 漳州农民因指纹出现在失窃案现场 被异地关押11月

• 云霄村民方俊金被错抓错判 获国家赔偿23.6万元

• 福建男子被跨省错拘错捕错判 339天后无罪释放

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

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

• 呼格案疑似真凶赵志红案庭审结束 将择期宣判

• 聚焦呼格吉勒图案（新闻报道集）

• 呼格吉勒图案始末：被枪毙9年后另一男子供述杀人经过

• 中国最高法院：证据不足 不予确定赵志红是“呼格案”真凶

• 回访赵志红系列强奸杀人案：证据是决定真凶与否标准

• 呼格吉勒图冤案：内蒙古处分27人　父母失望

• 赵志红――杀害6人，强奸12人的“呼格案”真凶

• 杀害6人赵志红被执行死刑，最高法未认定其为呼格案真凶

Li Huailiang Murder Case (李怀亮故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

• Li Huailiang,(李怀亮), born in 1967.

Facts

• On August 2, 2001, a 13-year-old girl, Guo Xiaohong, left her home in Wanli Village, Yexian in Pingdingshan City, Henan Province. On August 4, 2001, Yexian Police found her dead in a river, naked below the waist. The police believed the girl was murdered, then raped and thrown into a river. On August 7, 2001, police detained Li Huailiang (“Li”) who had allegedly visited the crime scene (he was spotted in the area collecting bugs) and lived in the same village as the victim. Li confessed during the police interrogation. But it is not clear whether his confession was coerced. Based heavily on Li’s alleged admission, and coupled with a witness’s testimony that Li was seen at the crime scene and two cell-mates’ testimony that Li stated to them that he killed the victim, the Yexian District Court found Li guilty of intentional murder.

• Li was then married and has two young daughters.

Procedural history 

• Li was detained on August 7, 2001, and formally arrested on September 13, 2001.

• Li Huailiang was charged and originally convicted of the crime of intentional murder, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by the Yexian District Court in September 2003.

• On December 2, 2003, upon Li’s appeal, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• On February 13, 2004, the Yexian District Court retried this case. Before a decision was made by the Yexian District Court, the case was moved to Pingdingshan Intermediate Court for retrial. 

• On August 3, 2004, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court exercised its jurisdiction and sentenced Li to death.

• On January 22, 2005, upon Li’s appeal, the Henan Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

• On April 11, 2006, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court retried the case, convicted and sentenced Li to death with two-year suspension.

• On September 27, 2006, upon Li’s appeal, the Henan Provincial High Court again vacated the decision of Pingdingshan Court and remanded for retrial.

• On April 25, 2013, the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court retried the case and announced that Li Huailiang is not guilty. Li was released from the police detention center.

Date of the conviction

September 19, 2003

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

April 25, 2013

Days incarcerated

4,279

Why was the case reopened/reversed  

• According to the revised Chinese criminal procedure law, which took effect on January 1, 2013, Li Huailiang’s lawyers requested the judiciary and local government to release Li Huailiang in accordance with Article 96 and Article 97 of the law, which require a defendant to be released or subject to other non-custodial compulsory measures if the case cannot be resolved within the time limit.

• In May 2004, the media published a memo hand-written by the victim’s parents on a paper with the letter head of the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court. It caused a heated nation-wide discussion on this case. The memo states that if the Pingdingshan Intermediate Court would sentence Li to life imprisonment, preferably death penalty, the victim’s parents would accept the decision and stop petitioning and attempting to commit suicide.

• The Pingdinshan Intermediate Court had realized the flaws in the case on the first appeal and remanded for retrial. But it had been under too much pressure from the procuratorate, the police and the victim’s family, to acquit Li.

• Public opinion pushed the case to be retried after the alleged “Death Penalty Guarantee” agreement between the court and the victim’s parents was disclosed.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

• Li Huailiang in his first trial at the Yexian District Court claimed that his interrogators were violent, and that he was beaten with chains until he confessed. The six police officers involved in the interrogation testified in person in-front of the court and denied any coercion. They stated that Li admitted to the crime because he was touched by the police’s kind and educational talk.

Problematic forensic evidence

• Major forensic evidence errors centered around the blood found at the scene.  The blood found was type O, while the victim had type A blood and Li Huailiang had type AB.  Additionally, during the investigation, the police never sought to examine or verify the blood left at the scene. 

• Other forensic evidence includes a footprint left at the scene used as evidence showing Li’s presence.  However, the size of the print was a 38, while Li wears a size 44. 

• The semen found at the scene was tampered and the results of the semen sample analysis were changed several times. 

Errors from extrajudicial concerns

• The Henan Provincial Political-Legal Committee had discussed the case with the police, the procuratorate and the court in 2007, and had come to an internal conclusion that this case did not have sufficient evidence to clearly prove facts, and that the defendant should have been released. The case could have been withdrawn by the police, or dismissed by the procuratorate, or acquitted by the court. But under the pressure of maintaining local stability and out of the fear of accountability, neither the court, the procuratorate or the police had been willing to release Li.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

• None. Li was represented by two lawyers who claimed that Li was innocent.

Other developments

• On January 26, 2014 Li received 980,000 RMB as State compensation.

Information sources

• Innocent man freed after 12 years in prison

• Court Promises Death to Quell Petitions

• 河南死刑保证书案嫌犯曾翻供称遭警方殴打

• “死刑保证书案”李怀亮不满精神赔偿 决定复议

• 想起了李怀亮，那个重获自由的人

• 李怀亮奸杀少女案无罪判决书

• 十起冤案追责盘点：李怀亮案 赵艳锦案

• 河南“死刑保证书”案当事人李怀亮获98万元国家赔偿

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

• 福建“念斌投毒案”终审宣判 上诉人念斌无罪(图)

• 念斌再成犯罪嫌疑人 当年办案者未参与重新立案

• 念斌案讨论为何久久余波未平

• 福建高院:念斌案因事实不清证据不足被宣告无罪

• 念斌：因为扛不住刑讯逼供，我咬舌自尽

• 念斌投放危险物质案二审刑事附带民事判决书　（2012）闽刑终字第10号

• 分析：念斌冤案获平反“非常难得”

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

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

• 聂树斌案疑似真凶受审（聂树斌案新闻报道集）

• 法院:王书金供述与聂树斌案关键情节存重大差异

• 聂树斌案，拖痛两个不幸家庭（2012年2月9日

• 最高人民法院审监庭负责人就最高人民法院指令山东省高级人民法院复查聂树斌故意杀人、强奸妇女一案答记者问

• 中国最高法院决定重审聂树斌奸杀案

• 关注聂树斌案（新闻报道集)

• 程序创新＋理念更新=正义“加速度”

• 王书金进入死刑复核6年 律师：刀下留人并非对被害人不公

• 聂树斌案“真凶”王书金：那个人就是我杀的

• 聂树斌家人获268万赔偿 130万精神赔偿创纪录

• 王书金被执行死刑，“一案两凶”争议15年真凶仍无法确定

• 王书金案二审18日开庭，此前自称是聂树斌案真凶提出上诉

• 王书金被执行死刑 受害者家属：等了27年杀妻之仇终于报了

• 王书金案重审二审 维持死刑原判

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

• 湖北杀妻冤案（新闻报道集)

• 杀妻冤案当事人佘祥林无罪释放后的三大焦点

• 湖北杀妻冤案当年庭审回放：四种口供自相矛盾

• 湖北杀妻冤案当事人获释 两大悬疑待解(组图)

• 11年冤狱两判死刑，佘祥林将要求国家赔偿（佘祥林案新闻报道集）

• 佘祥林国家赔偿案——对健全法治和保障人权起到巨大的推动作用（2005）
  
  

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

• 被控奸杀女友蒙冤八年获16万国家赔偿

• 孙万刚：从“死刑犯”到无罪释放 文/肖游

• 刘胡乐刑辩30载：11年前以疑罪从无救人，也救过蒙冤警察

• 孙万刚案：真凶落网，死囚重生，“疑罪从轻”制造了多少冤案？

• “大学生杀女友案”的5次判决

• 被控奸杀女友 贫困大学生孙万刚8年洗冤路(图)

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

• 打工仔服刑18年真凶落网：不放过打我的警察(图)

• 四川：男子坐冤狱18年获赔150万 出狱后8女找其相亲

• 男子卷入奸杀冤案入狱18年 真凶20年后获死刑

• 内蒙古包头女孩被杀案18年后真凶落网

• 「即刻说法」王本余案：死缓服刑18年，真凶落网，重获自由

• 蒙冤者王本余的人生断面

Yang Botao Murder Case (杨波涛故意杀人案)

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

• 河南杨波涛案无下文 三次被判刑均发回重审(图)

• 河南男子被关十年后终止审查 申请国家赔偿遭困境

• 河南男子被控强奸杀人关押十年后终止侦查

• 男子被关10年后终止审查 申请国家赔偿遭困境

• 商丘一男子被羁押十年未证有罪 自称曾遭严重行刑逼供

• 男子坐十年冤狱后被认定无罪 称办案者主观恶意

• 杨波涛案

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

• 蚌埠“杀妻冤案”昭雪始末

• 大案回顾：安徽蚌埠男子于英生“杀害妻子”入狱，17年后被无罪释放

• 安徽“杀妻冤案” 于英生：17年冤狱洗出的清白

• 安徽蚌埠杀妻案当事人于英生受访：刑讯逼供七天七

• 官员杀妻冤案：区长助理17年冤狱，真凶竟然是交警

• 安徽“于英生冤案”真凶武钦元一审被判死刑

• 于英生案：主任科员被指杀妻，真凶竟是三级警督，他为何含冤17年

• 安徽杀妻冤案真凶判死刑 于英生获5.2万元赔偿

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

• 浙江高院向张辉、张高平各支付国家赔偿金110万余元

• 冤狱十年：张辉、张高平案始末（3）

• 浙江调查张辉、张高平叔侄蒙冤事件

• 张高平叔侄接受央视采访：警方曾连续逼供7天7夜

• 检察官讲述“张高平案”翻案过程

• 冤案当事人讲述刑讯逼供详情:就是江姐也受不了

• 张辉、张高平“强奸”冤案法理研究

• 律师详解浙江叔侄冤案翻案 称必将载入司法史

• 浙江高院五方面反思张氏叔侄案

• 冤案叔侄获赔221万 “女神探”职务未变

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

• 想报仇的女儿与网瘾儿子

• 张新亮“杀妻”疑案

• 河北男子无辜遭羁押2236天讨要国家赔偿3年未果

• 农民杀妻案为何审了五年(组图)

• 张新亮“杀妻”疑案:从死刑到无罪

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

• Zhao Zuohai Sina

• 河南农民赵作海冤案始末

• Senior judge suspended for miscarriage of justice

• Zhao Zuohai (China Daily)

• Murder convict set free after 'victim' turns up (China Daily)

• Zhao Zuohai: Beaten, framed and jailed for a murder that never happened (Independent)

• Case of Wrongful Conviction in Henan Captures National Attention

• 赵作海释放日被定为错案警示日

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

• 被“就地消化”的杀人案重审 检方承认确实没有直接证据

• 省高院撤销判决 但市政法委指示“不杀、不放”被“就地消化”十五年的杀人案

• 被“就地消化”的杀人案：宣告无罪

• 男子经车轮审讯承认杀人 27年后检方承认无证据

• 锦州市中级人民法院对郑永林故意杀人一案再审宣判