zero confession

Bai Chunrong Theft Case (白春荣盗窃案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Bai Chunrong (白春荣), born on December 17, 1955.

Facts

  • On October 27, 1988, Bai Chunrong bought some fabric at a cloth market in Nanhai County, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, and stored her goods at Store No.1. The next day, Bai went back to the same market where she met a person from her hometown village offering to sell her some extra fabric at a good bargaining price. Bai bought the fabric and stored it at Store No. 1. When Bai went to buy more fabric, she heard shouting and saw lots of people enter Store No.1 to see what was going on. She followed the crowd into the store and was detained by the security guards.  The store owners reported that some of their fabric was stolen and Bai was arrested, tried and convicted of theft.

  • The store owners did not report the stolen fabric until they were notified by the police that some of their fabric was found in Store No.1.

  • Bai did not confess.

Procedural history 

  • Bai was detained by the police on October 28, 1988, under the rubric of “sheltering for investigation.” On May 4, 1989, she was formally arrested.

  • On July 28, 1989, Bai was convicted of theft for stealing fabric and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment by the Nanhai County District Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province. On March 28, 1990, the Foshan Intermediate Court affirmed the judgment upon Bai’s appeal.

  • On February 8, 1996, Bai was released after serving her full term in prison.

  • On March 20, 2014, Bai was exonerated by the Foshan Intermediate Court on the ground of insufficient evidence.    

Date of the conviction

July 28, 1989

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

March 20, 2014

Days incarcerated

2,659

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Bai had insisted on her innocence since the first day of her detention. She kept petitioning to re-open her case even after she finished her jail time.

  • In 2012, the Central Political-Legal Committee issued a guidance addressing wrongful conviction, which resulted in a nation-wide campaign to correct wrongful convictions.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

Flawed police investigation

  • The police required Bai to provide receipts for all the fabric she stored at the Store No.1 to prove her innocence. But Bai could only provide one receipt for one bag of fabric. Bai informed them of her sources for the bags of fabric, but the police failed to verify them.

Dubious witness identification/statements

  • There was no witness description of the lost fabric before the witnesses were shown the found fabric. Even when one of the witnesses was in the Store No.1 helping Bai organize the fabric, he did not notice or recognize that his lost fabric was actually right in front of him until the security guard informed him later.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. Bai was represented by counsel who defended her innocence.

Court's errors

  • Failed to insist the principle that when there is a doubt about a fact, the presumption should benefit the defendant.

Other developments

  • On September 4, 2014, Bai received RMB 650,000 of State compensation.

Information sources

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