Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

Du Peiwu Murder Case (杜培武故意杀人案)

Chi Yin

May 26, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

Du Peiwu (杜培武), born in 1967; he was a police officer at the Kunming Public Security Bureau at the time of the incident.

Facts

On April 20, 1998, Du Peiwu’s wife and another police officer, Wang, were found shot dead in Wang’s vehicle. The investigating police suspected that Du’s wife and Wang were having an affair and that Du killed them for revenge.
On April 22, 1998, Du was detained and interrogated. He confessed after 70 days of interrogation.
In June 2000, after Du’s conviction, a group of gang members were arrested for a series of robberies. One of the gang members, Yang Tianyong (a police officer), confessed that he committed the crime in Du’s case. Following Yang’s instruction, the police found the handgun in the drawer of Yang’s apartment, which was linked to the shots that killed the two victims in Du’s case.
Both Du and Yang were police officers before they were convicted.
The handgun used to shoot the two victims was not found during Du’s investigation.

Procedural history

Du Peiwu was charged with intentional murder of his wife and another police officer.
On February 5, 1999, Du was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Kunming Intermediate Court in Yunnan Province.
On October 20, 1999, the Yunnan Provincial High Court confirmed the conviction but changed the sentence to death with two years suspension.
On July 6, 2000, Du was exonerated by the Yunnan Provincial High Court because the real perpetrator Yang Tianyong came forward and was convicted.

Date of the conviction

February 5, 1999

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 6, 2000

Days incarcerated

814

Why was the case reopened/reversed

On June 17, 2000, the police arrested a group of gang members who had committed serial armed robberies in Kunming City. Yang Tianyong, one of the gang members, confessed that this group also committed the crime in Du’s case and laughed at the police’s incompetence in Du’s case. Later, the police discovered the handgun which was used to shoot the two victims and a mini-recorder belonging to one of the victims was found in a drawer in Yang’s home.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

The police interrogated Du Peiwu for 70 days, including periods of 10 days consecutively and 20 days consecutively. Consistent with Chinese law, lawyers were not allowed to be present during the police interrogation.
Du was severely physically and mentally tortured by the police. Du was deprived of sleep, beaten by the police using their fists and electric rods. The police officers tied Du’s hands and hung Du against a door in the air. Du claims that he confessed to stop the torture.

Problematic forensic evidence

The mud found on Du’s shoes and pants did not match the mud on the brake plate and gas plate on the vehicle.
There were two contradicting reports based on a dog sniffing test concerning whether Du had been in the vehicle where the victims were found.
Du also underwent two polygraph tests. The results did not positively show that Du was lying on major issues, but it also did not show that Du was not lying at all. The polygraph expert failed to explain the possible error and inaccuracy in the polygraph tests.

Prosecutorial errors

The procuratorate suppressed evidence that proved Du was tortured.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

None. Du was represented by counsel and claimed his innocence.

Court's errors

Failed to credit the physical evidence (Du’s shirt which was torn during torture) Du presented at court, as well as Du’s in-court statement, that he was tortured. Refused to credit Du’s in-court exculpatory statements.
Failed to consider exculpatory witness identifications and testimonies: No eye witness identified Du as the perpetrator.

Other developments

Two police officers in Du’s case were convicted of extorting confession through torture after Du’s acquittal.
In October 2001, Du was rewarded RMB 91,141 State compensation by the Yunnan Provincial High Court.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

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

Facts

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

Procedural history

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

Date of the conviction

May 23, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 15, 2014

Days incarcerated

Executed.

Why was the case reopened/reversed

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

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

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

Flawed police investigation

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

Problematic forensic evidence

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

Prosecutorial errors

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

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

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

Court's errors

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

Other developments

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

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

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

Chi Yin

May 25, 2022

The defendant/exoneree

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

Facts

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

Procedural history

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

Date of the conviction

March 15, 1995

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

December 2, 2016

Days incarcerated

Executed

Why was the case reopened/reversed

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

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

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

Dubious witness identification/statements

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

Problematic forensic evidence

No sperm collected. No DNA test done.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

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

Court's errors

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

Other developments

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

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

Tian Weidong and Four Others, Robbery and Theft Case (田伟冬等五人抢劫、盗窃案)

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

The defendants/exonerees

Tian Weidong (田伟冬), born in 1974 (21 at time of arrest in 1995)
Chen Jianyang (陈建阳), born in 1975 (20 at time of arrest in 1995)
Wang Jianping (王建平), born in 1976 (19 at time of arrest in 1995)
Zhu Youping (朱又平), born in 1975 (20 at time of arrest in 1995)
Tian Xiaoping (田孝平), born in 1977 (18 at time of arrest in 1995)

Facts

On March 20, 1995, Xu Caihua (female), a cab driver, was robbed and killed at a farm in Xiaoshan District of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province. On August 12, 1995, another cab driver, Chen Jinjiang (male), was robbed and killed inside his cab in Xinjie Town of Xiaoshan District. The local police failed to make any progress investigating the two cases until November 15, 1995, when they were offered a lead by a woman who had been placed under the police compulsory measure called sheltering and investigation for alleged prostitution. The informant told the police that she heard from another woman named Zheng Caifang that three men from Xiaoshan District named Chen Jianyang, A Dong, and Jianping were hired to kill a male cab driver with knives. No record shows that the police interviewed Zheng Caifang to verify the source of the lead. Within two weeks, many young men in Xiaoshan District with “Jian,” “Ping” or “Dong” in their given names were taken to local police stations for investigation.
All five defendants were at that time considered problematic youths in their communities. One by one, the police placed them under sheltering and investigation. The first four defendants had known each other before the case, but none had met the fifth defendant until their trial.
Apart from the above two incidents, Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were charged with stealing RMB1,600 worth of valuables on September 2, 1995.
Also apart from the above incidents, on October 5, 1995, Tian Xiaoping was arrested on the scene of a robbery of two truck drivers and was charged with the robbery.
Other special facts about the case:
- In the middle of 1995, Xiaoshan City had a months-long Strike Hard campaign.
- In 1996, China conducted a nationwide Strike Hard campaign.
- On March 17, 1996, the system of sheltering and investigation was formally abolished.

Procedural history

On November 28, 1995, Wang Jianping was placed under custody by the police. Subsequently, the other defendants were placed under custody and all five defendants were placed under the compulsory measure of sheltering and investigation.
On September 28, 1996, the five defendants were formally arrested.
Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, Zhu Youping and Tian Xiaoping were charged with (aggravated) robbery with the severe consequence of causing the death of Xu Caihua.
Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, Wang Jianping and Tian Xiaoping were charged with (aggravated) robbery with the severe consequence of causing the death of Chen Jinjiang.
Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were charged with theft.
Tian Xiaoping was charged with the robbery that occurred on October 5, 1995.
On July 11, 1997, the Hangzhou Intermediate Court of Zhejiang Province convicted the defendants of the crimes charged and sentenced Chen Jianyang, Tian Weidong, and Wang Jianping to death; sentenced Zhu Youping to death with a two-year suspension; and sentenced Tian Xiaoping to life imprisonment. The first four defendants appealed to the Zhejiang Provincial High Court. The fifth defendant did not appeal.
On December 29, 1997, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court reduced the sentence of the first three defendants to death with two years’ suspension. It sustained the sentence of the fourth defendant.

Date of the convictions

July 11, 1997

Date the wrongful convictions were reversed

July 2, 2013

Days incarcerated

31,590 (total for five defendants)

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Tian Weidong and Wang Jianping protested their innocence throughout their trials and continued after their convictions. On July 27, 2011, during a campaign to crack down on murders in Zhejiang Province, the Hangzhou police discovered that fingerprints of Xiang Shengyuan, a person with criminal history of robbery and theft, matched a bloody fingerprint found at the crime scene of the March 20, 1995 robbery. Xiang was arrested on January 4, 2013, and was convicted of murder and sentenced to death with a two-year suspension by the Jiaxing Intermediate Court of Zhejiang Province on May 30, 2013. On January 4, 2013, Zhejiang Provincial High Court realized the error and started reviewing the case of the five other men. On May 21, 2013, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court decided to re-open the case. On July 2, 2013, the Zhejiang Provincial High Court announced that the five defendants were not guilty of robbery on March 20, 1995 and August 12, 1995. The retrial found that Chen Jianyang and Tian Weidong were guilty of theft, and that Tian Xiaoping was guilty of the robbery that occurred on October 5, 1995.

Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions

False confessions

The five defendants were sleep-deprived and physically tortured. They all suffered from broken fingers and other bones. Due to torture, Tian Weidong tried to kill himself by biting off part of his tongue. All five recanted their confessions many times. Many details in their confessions did not match the crime scenes.

Problematic forensic evidence

A bloody fingerprint found at the scene did not match any of the five defendants. The Hangzhou police could not find a match to any other suspects at that time, so they decided to pursue their investigation against the five. Fingerprints reportedly found on a stone, which allegedly had been used to kill a victim, were not collected. Other weapons, wires, and knives, which were allegedly used to kill the victims, were not found by the police.

Prosecutorial errors

The case files show that prosecutors had 34 witnesses, but none of them was called to testify in court.

Court's errors

The Zhejiang High Court had found the case unclear and the evidence insufficient, but none of the judges of the collegial panel decided the five defendants should be free until the new president of the Zhejiang High Court took his position.

Other developments

A judge from the Zhejiang High Court issued an apology for the court’s mistakes involving the case and for causing the defendants to lose 17 years of freedom.
The five defendants applied for state compensation in 2013. As of May 17, 2020, their compensation cases were still pending.

Information sources

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

Wang Benyu Rape and Murder Case (王本余故意杀人、奸淫幼女案)

Chi Yin

May 20, 2022

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.