The defendant/exoneree
Tan Xinshan (谭新善), born in 1969.
Facts
On December 4, 2004, a burned body was found at a burner of the No. 3 heating plant of the heat supply company of Shanshan County in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. A forensic report disclosed that the victim was Jin Bo (“Jin”). Tan Xinshan (“Tan”), then head of the plant, became the suspect because among the plant’s seven employees, he was the only one who could not verify all of his activities on the night of the crime.
Procedural history
On December 6, 2004, Tan was brought to the local police station for interrogation and was not allowed to leave.
The local police officially detained Tan on December 10, 2004.
On May 15, 2005, Tan was charged by the Turpan prosecutors’ office with murder.
On September 7, 2005, Turpan Intermediate People’s Court convicted Tan of murder and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve.
Upon Tan’s appeal, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region High Court (“the High Court”) remanded the case back to the same intermediate court for retrial.
On February 15, 2007, the Turpan Intermediate Court again convicted Tan and handed down the same sentence. Tan appealed again.
In response to the second appeal, the High Court handed down a final decision and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on December 3, 2007.
Tan’s petition to reopen the case for retrial was rejected by the High Court on August 25, 2009. While Tan was serving his time in prison, Tan’s father continued petitioning on his behalf to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (“the SPP”).
On October 19, 2015, the SPP appealed to the Supreme People’s Court (“the SPC”) to reopen and retry the case.
On June 3, 2016, the SPC decided to reopen the case and ordered the High Court to retry the case.
On August 15, 2016, the High Court acquitted Tan on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient the facts were not clear. Tan was released after 4,271 days of incarceration.
Date of the conviction
September 7, 2005
Date the wrongful conviction was reversed
August 15, 2016
Days incarcerated
4,271
Why was the case reopened/reversed
Tan petitioned several times during his imprisonment.
After close examination, the SPP decided to file an appeal to the SPC.
Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction
False confession
Tan was tortured by the police to confess. However, his confession contained details that did not comport with the crime scene or common sense. For example, the victim was an acquaintance of Tan, but Tan failed to recognize him under sufficient lighting while allegedly committing the crime; Tan stated that he hit the victim with a spade and that the victim’s head was bleeding when he was dragged to the boiler, but there was no evidence to confirm that the victim was hit by a spade, nor was there any evidence of blood or of a body having been dragged at the crime scene.
Investigators tunnel vision
Police overlooked evidence pointing to suspects other than Tan. For example, witnesses testified that on the night of the crime, multiple people exited the heating plant without locking the gate; the crime scene investigation found a new mark suggesting that someone had broken the lock to the gate.
Police were influenced by confirmation bias when interpreting Tan’s “abnormal behavior” after crime. According to his confession, after the crime, Tan attempted to fight with someone else, and after that, he talked on the phone for forty-five minutes about work-related issues. These actions are not typical behaviors of a person who just killed someone.
Other developments
On September 7, 2016, Tan was rewarded 1,397,065 RMB by the High Court as state compensation.