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 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 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.