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 23, 2022

She Xianglin Murder Case (佘祥林故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 23, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

She Xianglin (佘祥林), born on March 7, 1966; he was twenty-eight when he became suspected in the case and was thirty-nine when he was finally acquitted.

Facts

In the beginning of 1994, She Xianglin’s wife Zhang Zaiyu disappeared. A few months later, a badly decomposed female body was found at a nearby reservoir. Zhang’s family identified the corpse as Zhang Zaiyu and suspected She killed Zhang because Zhang had a mental disorder. It was rumored that She was having an improper relationship with a young woman. About eleven years after She had been convicted of intentional murder of Zhang Zaiyu, Zhang reappeared alive in She’s village.
Other special facts about this case:
- After She’s conviction, Zhang Zaiyu sent letters to her brother. But her brother did not disclose this until Zhang Zaiyu came back to the village in person.
- When the female body was found, another family came to the police claiming that the victim was their family member.

Procedural history

On April 12, 1994, She was put on residential surveillance. On April 22, 1994, She was criminally detained and six days later he was arrested.
She Xianglin was charged with intentional murder of his wife. On Oct 13, 1994, She was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Jingzhou Intermediate Court of Hubei Province.
On January 6, 1995, She’s appeal was heard and the Hubei High Court remanded the case for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
During the first retrial, this case was twice returned to the local county procuratorate for supplementary investigation.
On November 23, 1997, when the local county procuratorate referred this case the third time to the city procuratorate and requested the latter to prosecute She at the intermediate court, the city procuratorate rejected the case on the ground that the alleged offense was not serious enough to be prosecuted in an intermediate court and referred the case back to the local county procuratorate to prosecute at a local district court.
On June 15, 1998, She was convicted by the Jingshan District Court for intentional murder and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
On September 22, 1998, She’s appeal was denied by the Jingmen Intermediate Court and his conviction was affirmed.
On March 28, 2005, Zhang Zaiyu reappeared in She’s village.
On April 1, 2005, She was released from the prison by obtaining a guarantor.
On April 13, 2005, She was exonerated.

Date of the conviction

June 15, 1998

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

April 13, 2005

Days incarcerated

3,995

Why was the case reopened/reversed

She’s mother and brother petitioned for She since She was detained. Eleven years after She’s detention and conviction, the alleged victim reappeared in person.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

She was physically and verbally abused by the police and gave four different confessions. He was interrogated for ten consecutive days, was beaten and lost part of a finger.

Flawed police investigation

Witnesses who testified that there was a stranger in their village who might be Zhang Zaiyu were detained for months for alleged perjury. Some defense witnesses were tortured and detained until they changed their testimony.
When the police learned of exculpatory evidence, they tried to suppress the evidence.
Police ignored the other family who claimed that the victim was actually their family member.

Dubious witness identification/statements

Zhang’s family did not see the victim’s body. Their identification was based on the police’s description about the height and the build of the victim. Zhang’s family identified the body despite the fact that the body did not have a scar on the stomach, which was one of the Zhang’s identifying features.
Witnesses changed their testimony after being detained and threatened by the police.

Problematic forensic evidence

No DNA evidence collected to identify the body.
No tools for the alleged crime were found.

Prosecutorial errors

Prosecutors acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s decision, knowing it was not supported by evidence.
Prosecutors did not explain the conflicting evidence during the prosecution.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. She was represented by a lawyer who maintained She’s innocence.

Court's errors

Acquiesced to the Political-Legal Committee’s not-evidence-based decision.
Ignored the unexplainable doubts in this case. For example, the missing stones, bags, and ropes allegedly used by She during the act; whether She was capable of taking the alleged route of killing the victim at one place and hauling the body to dump it, by himself, at another place; and why She’s confessions yielded four different versions of the story.

Other developments

During She’s appeal, Zhang’s family organized 220 villagers to petition the appellate court (Hubei Provincial High Court) to pressure the court to reject She’s appeal.
One of the police officers in She’s case was charged with torturing She and committed suicide.
In September 2005, She received about RMB700,000 from the state in compensation.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

Wu Changlong, et al. Bombing Case (吴昌龙等五人爆炸案)

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

The Defendant/Exoneree

Wu Changlong (吴昌龙), born on Nov. 26, 1975
Chen Keyun (陈科云), born on Jan. 26, 1952
Du Jiesheng (杜捷生), born on Jan. 4, 1965
Tan Minhua (谈敏华), born on Nov. 28, 1979
Xie Qing (谢清) , born on May 1, 1955 (Chen Keyun’s wife)

Facts

On June 23, 2001, a portable vest fitted with explosives was placed at the entrance of the Letters and Petitions Reception Area at the Fuqing Discipline and Inspection Commission office. At around 8 a.m. the next day (June 24), the vest was detonated and the explosion killed Wu Zhangxiong, who was told to fetch the package and was the driver of the recipient, Mayor Fang. After an investigation by the Fuqing Public Security Bureau, they believed that Chen Keyun, the then manager of a big company who was under the investigation of the Chinese Communist Party’s disciplinary committee, in order to take revenge against the disciplinary committee, conspired with Wu Changlong, his driver, to make, plant and explode a bomb at the Fuqing City Party Disciplinary Committee. Tan Minhua sold some explosives to Du Jiesheng, who later sold them to Wu Changlong and Chen Keyun. Xie Qing provided a false alibi for Chen during the police investigation.
Other special facts about this case:
- Wang Xiaogang, another person who was originally prosecuted for providing explosives to Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong, was acquitted after the first trial.

Procedural History

Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong were detained by the police on November 7, 2001. Du Jiesheng was detained on October 4, 2001. Tan Minhua was detained on October 26, 2001. Xie Qing was detained on October 20, 2001.
In January 2002, the case was sent to the prosecutors’ office for review and prosecution. After review, the prosecutor’s office twice sent the case back to the police for supplementary investigation due to lack of sufficient evidence.
In July 2002, the prosecutors’ office indicted the five defendants and sent the case to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court for trial. The court also sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office for supplementary investigation for insufficient evidence.
Wu and Chen were charged and convicted of the crime of bombing and were sentenced to death with two years suspension; Du and Tan were charged and convicted of the crime of illegally buying/selling explosive materials and were sentenced to ten years imprisonment; Xie was charged and convicted of the crime of perjury and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Fuzhou Intermediate Court of Fujian Province convicted and sentenced the five defendants on November 30, 2004.
Upon the appeal from all five defendants, on December 31, 2005, the Fujian Provincial High Court remanded the case to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
After retrial, on October 10, 2006, the Fuzhou Intermediate court re-convicted all the defendants, sustained the sentence for Chen and Wu, and reduced the sentence for Du, Tan and Xie to imprisonment of 7 years, 6 years and 2 years, respectively.
Upon the appeal from all five defendants, the Fujian High Court heard the case on April 26, 2011 and acquitted all defendants on May 3, 2013.

Date Of The Conviction

November 30, 2004

Date The Wrongful Conviction Was Reversed

May 3, 2013

Days Incarcerated

14,111 (total for five defendants)

Why Was The Case Reopened/Reversed

Wu Changlong’s family used various methods to petition for Wu’s innocence through the years. Some of his family members had been detained by the police for their repetitive petitioning.
All five defendants’ lawyers kept challenging the prosecutors’ evidence and publicizing the progress of the case to the media.
It attracted the media’s attention when the crime occurred because it was a rare extremely violent crime against the local disciplinary commission. In May 2005, the China Youth Daily newspaper profiled this case with the title “Two Defendants on Death Row: We Are Wronged.” It drew more public attention to this case.
Starting 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee and the Supreme People’s Court began to stress the significance of preventing and redressing wrongful convictions, and issued several guidelines and statements on this subject.
Upon the second appeal, the Fujian High Court finally publicly tried the case and found that although it is clear that an explosion and a death did occur, there were several pieces of conflicting evidence and points of doubt, as well as the problem that the original decision from the Fuzhou Intermediate Court was not supported by corroborative evidence. The Fujian High Court found that the facts were unclear and the evidence failed to establish the conclusion that Chen Keyun and Wu Changlong carried out the explosion; that Du Jiesheng and Tan Minhua provided explosive materials and the detonator; and that Xie Qing committed perjury by providing false information/testimony during the investigation.

Factors Contributing To The Wrongful Conviction

False Confession

According to reports, Wu Changlong’s false confession was obtained through torture during 53 days of interrogation and three failed suicide attempts. He was beaten up and deprived of sleep and access to bathroom. After such harsh torture and interrogation, he made a false confession and implicated Chen Keyun as his accomplice.
It was reported that Chen Keyun was tortured during his interrogation, causing him to confess and implicate the other three.
All five of the defendants submitted requests to have their injuries evaluated to corroborate the claims of torture. However, none of the requests were ever granted.
All defendants recanted their confessions in court.

Prosecutorial Errors

The Political-Legal Committee of Fuqing City intervened the case and suggested the procuratorate approve the police application of arresting Xie Qing. The procuratorate compromised because of the intervention.

Court's Errors

Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence and failed to give the benefit of doubt to the defendants.

Defense Lawyer's Errors/Absence

None. The defense lawyers of five defendants defended their clients’ innocence.

Other Developments

After the defendants were acquitted, the Central Propaganda Department was ordered to limit the amount of media coverage detailing the wrongful convictions and the number of media interviews the five could accept.
On September 2, 2013, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ordered the state to compensate five defendants with over 4.2 million RMB.
In August 2013, Wu Changlong’s sister and some of the defense lawyers in this case set up the “Wu Changlong Legal Aid Foundation” to help these suffering from prolonged pretrial incarceration.
On November 20, 2013, Wu Changlong was designated as the ambassador of an innocence project in China.

Information Sources

Chi Yin

May 18, 2022

Yang Botao Murder Case (杨波涛故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 18, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Yang Botao (杨波涛), born in 1975

Facts

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

Procedural history

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

Date of the conviction

September 1, 2005

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

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

Days incarcerated

3,087

Why was the case reopened/reversed

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

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

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

Dubious witness identification

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

Problematic forensic evidence

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

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

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

Prosecutorial errors

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

Court's errors

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

Other developments

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

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

Yu Yingsheng Murder Case (余英生故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

The defendant/exoneree

Yu Yingsheng (余英生), born in 1962

Facts

On December 2, 1996, Yu’s wife Han Lu was found raped and murdered in their bedroom at their apartment in Bengbu City of Anhui Province. The police did not find any evidence indicating that the apartment was broken into. Therefore, the police suspected that the culprit might be one of the victim’s acquaintances. On December 12, 1996, Yu was detained and interrogated for seven consecutive days. On December 19, 1996, the police claimed that the case was cleared and arrested Yu on December 22, 1996. The police alleged that Yu had disputes with his wife and killed her by cutting her neck. In order to cover the crime, Yu was also alleged to have moved the propane tank from the kitchen to their bedroom (where the victim was killed) and ignited a candle attempting to destroy the crime scene.
Other special facts about this case:
- Before getting involved in this case, Yu was a government official in Bengbu City, and was considered by his supervisors to be a prominent candidate for a promotion.
- On November 27, 1996, the Police Bureau of Bengbu City launched a strike hard campaign to crack down serious crimes.
- Yu’s parents-in-law told the police that Yu and Han got along fairly well, and that on the day of the crime, Yu took his son to school in the morning and then went to his office.

Procedural history

On April 7, 1998, Yu was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to death with two-year suspension by the Bengbu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province. Yu appealed.
In September 1998, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case to the intermediate court for retrial on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
In September 1999, the Bengbu Intermediate Court retried the case and came to the same decision. Yu appealed this decision again.
On May 15, 2000, the Anhui Provincial High Court remanded the case for retrial again on the ground of insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
On October 25, 2000, the Bengbu Intermediate Court again convicted Yu of intentional murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Upon Yu’s appeal, the Anhui Provincial High Court affirmed the intermediate court’s decision on July 1, 2001.

Date of the conviction

December 22, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 13, 2013

Days incarcerated

6,099

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Yu’s lawyer and his family members had kept petitioning for Yu’s innocence throughout the 17 years he was incarcerated.
On May 8, 2013, the Petition Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate organized experts to discuss the Yu Yingsheng case.
On May 31, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court decided to reopen the case pursuant to Article 243 of the PRC Criminal Law, which is about the crime of false accusation.
On August 13, 2013, the Anhui Provincial High Court publicly announced that Yu was not guilty because of insufficient evidence and unclear facts in this case after retrial.
In August 2013, the Central Political Legal Committee (the CPLC) issued a guideline addressing the issue of wrongful convictions.
The Yu Yingsheng case was the first case where the defendant received the benefit of doubt in Anhui Province after the CPLC’s guideline.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Yu was interrogated for seven consecutive days and nights. He was sleep deprived. He was forced to “shower” for three hours in cold water outside of a building when it was snowing. Yu claimed that the police forced him to come up with a story for this case.

Problematic forensic evidence

On February 3, 1997, a DNA testing of the stain on the victim’s underpants found human semen specimen and it did not match Yu. However, the prosecutor’s theory was that Yu collected the semen from a discarded condom of another person to tamper the crime scene.
The police originally found two fingerprints on the dresser in Yu’s bedroom, which did not match Yu or his family members. However, this evidence was not disclosed to the defense during the trials. The fingerprint report provided by the prosecutor stated that there were no fingerprints from non-family members at the crime scene. In 2013 when the case was reviewed, a document in the police’s possession about two foreign fingerprints at the crime scene was discovered.
The police did not test the fingerprints on the propane tank.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. The defense lawyer pointed out that the DNA testing excluded Yu as the perpetrator and defended Yu’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

The prosecutor failed to provide the exculpatory evidence - the testing of the two fingerprints- to the defense.
The prosecutor failed to reasonably explain why the DNA testing is not a match.

Court's errors

Failed to admit exculpatory evidence.
Failed to uphold the presumption of innocence.

Other developments

After Yu was released, the Bengbu Police re-investigated this case and retested the DNA sample collected 17 years ago. The new DNA testing linked to Wu Qinyuan, a local police officer. On November 27, 2013, Wu was approached by the police and confessed that he was the real culprit in Yu’s case. According to Wu’s confession, he knew Yu’s wife Han through common friends and liked her. On the day of the crime, he went to Han’s apartment and raped her when he found that she was home alone. While committing rape, Wu accidentally suffocated Han, so Wu decided to tamper the crime scene by moving the propane tank and igniting the candle in order to blow up the crime scene.
Through the years, Wu had been a police officer in Benghu City.
On May 5, 2015, Wu was convicted of rape and was sentenced to death by the Wuhu Intermediate Court of Anhui Province.
Wu attempted to tamper with the murder site by trying to burn it down. A gas can and an igniter candle were found on the spot. There were no fingerprints taken from the gas can or igniter candle. It appears the only evidence linking Wu to the crime was the DNA sample.
In 2013, Yu received state compensation of over 1 million RMB.
Yu’s family and Han’s mother received apologies from the police.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Zhang Hui, Zhang Gaoping Rape Case (张辉、张高平强奸案)

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

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

Chi Yin

May 13, 2022

Wrongful Convictions Case

The defendant/exoneree

Zheng Yonglin (郑永林), born in 1968. He was 18 when he was detained.

Facts

About 4 p.m. on June 4, 1987, Zheng Yonglin was hanging out at his sister’s grocery store while his sister and her fiancé Wang (the co-owner of the store) were gone. The 12-year-old girl of the Wang family (the sibling of the fiancé) was alone in the store attending business. Zheng drank some water and turned on music for a few minutes at the store. When he was stepping out of the store to go home, he saw a man coming into the store for some soda. Zheng told the young girl to check out the soda and left the store. Around 5:20 p.m. that day, the mother of the young girl (Zheng’s sister’s mother-in-law) found that the store was locked from the inside. When she opened the door, she found her daughter dead and lying in a pool of blood. When the police arrived, neighbors and relatives had already contaminated the crime scene. On June 7, 1987, Zheng was detained and interrogated by the police. He was subsequently placed under sheltering for investigation till January 23, 1992 when he was arrested.
Other special facts about this case:
- Sheltering For Investigation was a police compulsory measure and was abolished on January 1, 1997.
- A witness testified that at 4:50 p.m. on the day of the crime, he noticed that the door of Wang’s grocery store was locked.
- Multiple witnesses testified to the police that Zheng left the grocery store around 4:20 p.m. and went home on the day of the crime. Multiple witnesses testified that after Zheng went home, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. that day, he went out to watch people fishing after fetching some vegetable from a farmer’s market for his mother.
- The victim’s family put a lot of pressure on this case. The fiancé of Zheng’s sister cut off his finger and threatened to kill everyone in the Zheng family if Zheng was found not guilty and released.
- The Political-Legal Committee of the Jinzhou City intervened in the case and created a solution plan – having the Beining District Court take the first instance trial and the Jinzhou Intermediate Court sustain the district court’s decision upon the defendant’s appeal. This way, the final decision of this case could be under control of the Jinzhou government. But according to the Criminal Procedure Law, a district court should not have jurisdiction over such a serious crime.

Procedural history

In 1993, Zheng was convicted of intentional murder and was sentenced to death with two years suspension by the Jinzhou Intermediate Court of Liaoning Province.
Upon Zheng’s appeal, in 1995, the Liaoning Provincial High Court remanded the case back to the Jinzhou Intermediate Court for retrial citing insufficient evidence and unclear facts.
On January 2, 1997, the Beining District Court tried this case, convicted Zheng of intentional murder and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. Zheng appealed.
On October 30, 1997, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court sustained the district court’s decision.

Date of the conviction

1993

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

January 29, 2014

Days incarcerated

5,114

Why was the case reopened/reversed

On June 6, 2001, Zheng was released after having served his time.
Zheng’s family and his lawyers, one of whom is a retired judge, former prosecutor and police officer, had been petitioning on Zheng’s behalf for over 20 years.
In May 2013, the influential newspaper “Southern Weekend” reported on the case and attracted nationwide attention.
Starting 2013, the Central Political-Legal Committee and the Supreme People’s Court began to stress the importance of prevention and redressing wrongful convictions. Soon after, the Chinese Communist Party’s Congress meetings also stressed the significance of “rule of law“ in China.
On November 26, 2013, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court decided to re-open this case.
On January 16, 2014, the Jinzhou Intermediate Court announced that Zheng Yonglin was not guilty.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

Zheng was interrogated for three consecutive days and nights. He had undergone electric shot and sleep deprivation. The police told Zheng that they knew he did it because there was a photo of the culprit in the victim’s eyes. Zheng finally confessed.

Problematic forensic evidence

No forensic samples were collected on the fingerprints, footprints and bloodstained clothes from the crime scene.
In his forced confession, Zheng said that he used a knife to kill the girl. But the knife was not found.
The blood trace found on Zheng’s bicycle handle was too little to test. It could not be verified as human blood or animal blood.
There was a glove found at the crime scene, but no forensic testing was done to find out whether it was used during the crime.

Flawed police investigation

The police did not pursue the man who was at the store when Zheng left despite Zheng’s testimony and other witnesses’ testimony.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. The defense lawyers defended Zheng’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

Failed to keep the threshold of indictment. The procuratorate refused the police’s application to arrest Zheng four times on the ground of insufficient evidence. But it compromised with the police and approved the arrest after the Jinzhou City Political-Legal Committee intervened.

Court's errors

The court realized that there was no direct evidence to prove that Zheng was guilty; however, it had already compromised and agreed with the Jinzhou City Political-Legal Committee to convict Zheng.

Other developments

No lawsuit has been filed for state compensation (last updated on June 22, 2022)