Tan Xinshan Murder Case（谭新善故意杀人案）

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 

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.

Information sources

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

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

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

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.

Information sources

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

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

Yang Botao Murder Case (杨波涛故意杀人案)

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

Yang Ming Murder Case 杨明故意杀人案

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Yang Ming (杨明) was born on August 15, 1965; he was thirty years old when arrested and fifty years old when acquitted.

Facts

  • On February 18, 1995, a decomposed female body was found in a catch basin at Tianzhu County in Guizhou province. The body was identified as Wang Jiafeng (Wang) by her family members.

  • Yang Ming (Yang) and Wang had an affair in Tianzhu County in 1993. Then Wang left for work in Guangdong Province. In November 1994, Wang came back to Tianzhu County. Yang began to date and live with another woman named Yang Xuemei (YXM) in January 1995.

Procedural history

  • On March 20, 1995, Yang was criminally detained.

  • On April 12, 1995, Yang was held in a form of custody called “sheltering for investigation” (收容审查).

  • On August 28, 1995, Yang was formally arrested.

  • On September 13, 1996, he was indicted on the charge of murder.

  • On November 1, 1996, after a trial at the Qiandongnan Intermediate People’s Court (Intermediate Court) and deliberation by the court’s adjudication committee, the Intermediate Court sent the case back to the Qiandongnan City People’s Procuratorate (City Procuratorate) for supplementary investigation.

  • On December 13, 1996, the City Procuratorate indicted Yang again without new evidence.

  • On December 26, 1996, Yang was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty with a two-year reprieve.

  • On January 6, 1997, Yang appealed to the Guizhou Provincial High Court (High Court).

  • On March 4, 1998, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentencing. Yang was sent to prison to serve his time.

  • In October 2014, the Guizhou Provincial People’s Procuratorate (Provincial Procuratorate) began a post-conviction review of Yang’s case upon numerous petitions from Yang and his family.

  • On April 1, 2015, the Provincial Procuratorate issued a prosecutorial recommendation to the High Court for a new trial on the basis of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

  • The High Court decided to reopen the case on April 21, 2015, and acquitted Yang on August 11, 2015, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

Date of the wrongful conviction

  • December 26, 1996

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

  • August 11, 2015

Days incarcerated

  • 7,449

Why was the case reopened/reversed

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

  • False witness testimony

  • Investigators’ tunnel vision

    • One witness had testified that she saw the victim quarreling with a man on the night the crime occurred. The witness claimed that the man was slim (Yang was heavy-built). Based on the police dossiers, two people alleged that the victim was in a poor relationship with Luo Laoliu, who had made an explicit statement that he wanted to kill the victim. However, police failed to pursue the two leads about other possible suspects.

  • Problematic forensic evidence

  • Errors on the prosecutor’s side

    • The prosecution had been pushing for the conviction without sufficient evidence. Despite the court’s requests for more evidence, the prosecution did not present any.

  • Errors on the court’s side

    • The court sent the case back to the prosecution for lacking sufficient evidence but convicted Yang after the second indictment without any additional evidence. 

    • Yang contested YXM’s inculpatory statements and requested that YXM “be cross-examined in court. However, YXM did not testify in the courtroom, and her statements were accepted.

Other developments

Information sources

Yang Dewu Murder Case (杨德武故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Yang Dewu (杨德武), born on January 24, 1969. He was about thirty-one years old when he was first detained and arrested. He was about forty-seven years old when eventually acquitted.

Facts

  • Yang Dewu (“Yang”) was a worker at a kiln factory in Nanling County, Anhui Province. He and his daughter lived with Lv Guihua (“Lv”), his mother-in-law, while his wife left them to work in other places. On the morning of July 14, 2000, Yang, returned home after a late night work shift and found the door was locked from the inside. He broke the door and called for Lv but did not hear any response. With a neighbor, he went into Lv’s room and found Lv was dead in bed with a pillow and a bag of quilts on her head. Yang reported her death to the police.

    • At the crime scene, a window sash was found removed and a hole halfway through the wall next to the window.

    • Yang’s daughter was eight-years old at the time.

    • Yang had gotten along with Lv.

    • Other Special Facts about this Case:

      • The verdict in the first trial believed that on July 12, Yang intended to give his wife’s skirt to his adulteress. The following day, Yang found the skirt missing. Suspecting that his mother-in-law hid the skirt, Yang murdered her out of anger. The second trial on November 14, however, deleted this motive and changed the wording to “murdering her out of detest and anger about trivial matters in life.”

Procedural history 

  • Yang was detained on July 16, 2000 and arrested on July 24, 2000.

  • On November 14, 2000, the Wuhu Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province convicted Yang of intentional murder and sentenced him to the death penalty with two years reprieve.

  • Upon Yang’s appeal, the Anhui High People’s Court (“the High Court”) upheld the judgment on February 7, 2001.

  • On April 20, 2015, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (“the SPP”) handed Yang’s petition to the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate after reviewing the case.

  • On June 30, 2015, the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate issued a prosecutorial suggestion to the High Court for reopen the case.

  • On November 3, 2016, the High Court acquitted Yang after retrial. Yang was released on November 11, 2016.

Date of the conviction

November 14, 2000

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

November 3, 2016

Days incarcerated

5,963

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • After the conviction, Yang had sent out 5,000 petition letters to the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate and other government agencies for his innocence, claiming that he did not have the motive to commit the crime, as well as his alibi and forced confession.

  • The Anhui Provincial Procuratorate had submitted three official recommendations to the High Court three times to retry the case over the years but the High Court had decided not to reopen the case after review.

  • Yang had petitioned to the SPP. The SPP found there may have been issues in the case, such as a false confession and the lack of corroborating evidence, and required the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate to conduct a comprehensive review and report back the SPP. During the review process, the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate again received a request from the SPP for expediting the process.  

  • On August 8, 2016, the High Court eventually decided to reopen the case for retrial and subsequently acquitted Yang of his murder charge due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

  • False confession

  • Flawed police investigation

    • The alleged grey skirt was not found in this case.

    • The police failed to verify Yang’s alibi. The forensic report indicated the victim was murdered about 2 hours after her final meal. But Yang claimed that he was working in the kiln factory at the time of the crime.

  • Defense lawyer’s errors/absence

    • None. Yang was represented by a lawyer.

  • Court’s errors

    • The unexplainable doubts in the case was ignored. For example, the judgment of the first trial stated that Yang intended to give his wife’s skirt to his adulteress, and murdered his mother-in-law because he suspected she hid the skirt. While no such skirt was collected in this case, the appellate court failed to recognize Yang’s lack of motivation to commit the crime. Instead, in its judgment, it changed Yang’s motivation to “murdering [Lv] out of detest and anger about trivial matters in life.”

Information sources

Yu Yingsheng Murder Case (余英生故意杀人案)

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

Zeng Aiyun Murder Case (曾爱云故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zeng Aiyun (曾爱云), born on January 1, 1977. He was twenty-seven years old when detained and thirty-eight years old when acquitted.

Facts

  • On October 27, 2003, Zhou Yuheng (“Zhou”), a graduate student of mechanical engineering at Xiangtan University in Hunan Province, was found strangled to death outside the south tower of the university’s School of Engineering. Zeng Aiyun (“Zeng”) and Chen Huazhang (“Chen”), who went to the same school as Zhou, were investigated by the police for suspicion of murder.

  • Chen and Zhou had the same advisory professor and was jealous of Zhou academically. From October 22, 2003 to October 27, 2003, Chen had gone to four different hospitals under a false name and obtained prescriptions for forty-eight tablets of diazepam, which was found in the victim’s stomach. At Chen’s place, the police found a cord, a plastic cup containing diazepam, some unfinished diazepam bottles, prescriptions for diazepam and the victim’s cellphone.

  • Zeng was affectionate toward Zhou’s then girlfriend Li Xia (“Li”). On the day of Zhou’s death, Zeng had met with Li and Zhou and told them he would stop pursuing Li. Zeng collapsed to the ground when he learned the victim was Zhou.

Procedural history 

  • Zeng and Chen were placed under criminal detention on October 29, 2003 and were formally arrested on November 11, 2003.  

  • On June 15, 2004, Zeng and Chen were indicted for intentional murder by the Xiangtan People’s Procuratorate (“Xiangtan Procuratorate”).

  • On September 10, 2004, Zeng and Chen were convicted by the Xiangtan Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”) and were sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively.

  • Upon both defendants’ appeal, on August 1, 2005, the Hunan Provincial High People’s Court (“High Court”) vacated the conviction on the grounds of unclear facts and further investigation required, and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

  • On December 2, 2005, the Intermediate Court again convicted the defendants and upheld the original sentencing.

  • Upon both defendants’ second appeal, the High Court sustained the conviction on May 28, 2008 and sent the case to the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) for death penalty review.  

  • On September 25, 2008, the SPC disapproved Zeng’s death sentence and remanded the case to the High Court for retrial.

  • On March 30, 2009, the High Court vacated Zeng’s conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial.

  • On June 25, 2010, the Intermediate Court, for the third time, convicted both defendants and sentenced Zeng to death, and Chen to life imprisonment.

  • Upon the two defendants’ appeal, on August 23, 2011, the High Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the Intermediate Court for retrial on the grounds that “the trial violated the procedure law for the evidence used to convict the defendants was not present and examined in the trial court.”

  • On July 20, 2015, the Intermediate Court acquitted Zeng on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence, and convicted Chen and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Zeng was released on July 21, 2015.

  • The two defendants appealed again to the High Court, where Zeng requested the court to recognize his factual innocence.

  • On October 30, 2015, the High Court rejected the appeal and sustained Intermediate Court’s ruling.

Date of the conviction

September 10, 2004

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

July 20, 2015

Days incarcerated

4,284

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

Information sources

Zeng Fannian Extortion Case (曾凡年敲诈勒索案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zeng Fannian (曾凡年), was about 42 years old when arrested, and 48 when eventually acquitted.

Facts

  • Zeng Fannian (“Zeng”) was an accounting manager for a company based in Guangdong Province before his arrest. On February 11, 2011, someone registered a cell phone number in the name of Zeng in Enping City of Guangdong Province, by using a faxed copy of a photocopy of Zeng’s first-generation ID card. At that time Zeng had been instead using a second-generation ID card for three years. By using this cell phone number, this person blackmailed Tang, representative of the company for which Zeng had previously worked in Hengyang City of Hunan Province, for 3 million RMB, threatening that he would otherwise publicize some accounting issues of Tang’s company. On February 18, 2011, Zeng’s personal bank account received 300,000 RMB wired from Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province. Zeng received a text alert and reported to the Shenzhen police and left with them a copy of his bank account. On March 30, 2011, unbeknownst to Zeng, two transactions, respectively 60,000 RMB and 20,000 RMB, were wired from Hengyang City of Hunan Province into his personal account. Zeng’s cell phone (different from the number registered in Enping City) did not send him a text alert about these two transactions. On March 31, 2011, Tang reported to a local police station in Hengyang City of Hunan Province about being extorted by Zeng. On April 8, 2011, Zeng was apprehended in Dongguan City of Guangdong Province by police officers from Hunan Province.

Procedural history 

  • In July 2012, the Yanfeng District People’s Court of Hengyang City convicted Zeng of extortion and sentenced him to 4 years of imprisonment. Zeng appealed, but the Hengyang Intermediate People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment.

Date of the conviction

July, 2012

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

May 15, 2017 (Zeng was released on April 8, 2015 after serving his time.)

Days incarcerated

1,460

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Among many of the statements Zeng made during the criminal investigation, he confessed in only one statement, which was recorded in the police office. This recording is a violation of the criminal procedural law. According to the law, police interrogation should take place in the detention center where the suspect is held. This violation often indicates the suspect may have been tortured or coerced to confess.

Flawed police investigation

  • Police failed to check the mobile positioning data to verify where the phone was located when the extortion messages were sent to Tang. In preparing to reopen the case, prosecutorial investigation found Zeng’s alibi. When the extortion messages were sent from Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province, Zeng was on a business trip in Yongzhou City of Hunan Province.

  • Zeng reported to the police about his reception of 300,000 RMB, an indication of no intention to extortion. But the police failed to consider this fact when investigating the other two transactions.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • No forensic testing on the handwriting where the cell phone number was registered in Enping City of Guangdong Province. Subsequent prosecutorial investigation found that the signature wet signed in Enping was not Zeng’s handwriting. 

Information sources

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

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

Zhang Xinliang Murder Case (张新亮故意杀人案)

The defendant/exoneree 

  • Zhang Xinliang (张新亮), born in 1967.

Facts

  • Zhang’s wife Han Shujuan usually worked at home to attend to the couple’s automobile parts business. On October 15, 1999, Zhang came back to their house, and couldn’t find Han. Zhang’s two children were at home but did not know their mother’s whereabouts. Zhang tried to call his uncles for help but found that the telephone line was cut off and the locks on their closet drawers were broken. After Zhang took his children to his relatives and came back with the adult relatives for help, they found that Han had died in the corner of a room at Zhang’s house. There was blood on the victim’s neck and eyes. According to the police, Zhang was suspected to be the offender for five reasons: 1) he did not appear to be very sad and was too scared to move the body when requested by the police; 2) he accurately stated the time he left home and came back on the day of the crime; 3) he originally claimed that some cash and receipts were missing but the police found these in their house; 4) he was not the person who first reported the murder to the police; and 5) he was the one who first found one of the broken locks under a wooden case. Zhang was detained by the police on October 20, 1999.

  • Other special facts about this case:

    • Zhang asked one of his uncles to report to the police after they found Han’s body.

    • Zhang and his relatives were at the crime scene helping with the police investigation and assisting the medical examiner during the autopsy examination.

    • Zhang’s relatives testified that after the crime, Zhang had not changed his outfit for about 5 days. There was no bloodstain on his clothes or shoes.

    • Zhang’s two children were then 13- and 10-years old. The older child testified that before she and her brother left for school, a bulky red-face man came on a red motorcycle. She also told the police that this person often came to their store to buy things, and that he was then inside of their house and talking to her mother. But no investigation was conducted on the reported man.

Procedural history 

  • On November 8, 2000, Zhang was charged with the crime of intentional murder of his wife.

  • On March 27, 2001, Zhang was convicted and sentenced to death by the Xingtai Intermediate Court of Hebei Province. Zhang appealed.

  • On July 4, 2001, Zhang’s case was remanded for retrial by the Hebei Provincial High Court on the ground of insufficient evidence.

  • On July 2, 2002, the Xingtai Intermediate Court again convicted Zhang and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Zhang appealed again.

  • On August 21, 2002, the Hebei Provincial High Court again remanded this case for retrial.

  • On July 28, 2003, Zhang was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Xingtai Intermediate Court.

  • On April 27, 2005, Hebei Provincial High Court tried Zhang’s case upon his appeal.

  • On August 8, 2005, Zhang was acquitted by the Hebei Provincial High Court and was released from the prison on December 2, 2005.

Date of the conviction

March 27, 2001

Date the wrongful conviction was reversed

August 8, 2005

Days incarcerated

2,236

Why was the case reopened/reversed 

  • Zhang’s lawyers kept presenting evidence about Zhang’s innocence through and after the trials.

  • The victim’s family did not press the police to punish Zhang.

  • Zhang’s family insisted on hiring the best lawyer they could afford. Professor Gu Yongzhong, a prominent law professor and lawyer in China, was retained by Zhang for his third appeal.

  • In 2005, Hebei Province launched a “promotion for rule of law” campaign. The Zhang Xinliang case is one of the top ten cases that were highly publicized during that campaign.

Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction

False confession

  • Zhang was severely tortured by the police. He had undergone physical assault, sleep deprivation and starvation. Zhang was also deceived and beaten and was forced to write a confession. This confession was admitted in the third remanded trial at the Xingtai Intermediate Court.

Problematic forensic evidence

  • The forensic report showed that the victim had “jet-like” bleeding when she was killed and the victim had blood-type A. Zhang had not changed his jacket for five days after the murder. But no blood stain was found on Zhang’s clothes.

Flawed police investigation

  • Police did not investigate information provided by the victim’s older child and Zhang’s neighbor about a strange big man with a red motorcycle.

Defense lawyer's errors/absence

  • None. The defense lawyers pointed out the problems in this case and defended Zhang’s innocence.

Prosecutorial errors

  • Failed to keep the threshold of indictment.

  • When the appellate court remanded the case for retrial for the second time, it provided a written documents with issues of reasonable doubts in this case. Instead of conducting further investigation, the prosecutor’s office responded in paper to these issues and pointed out that the court’s doubts were not supported by evidence.

Court's errors

  • Failed to exclude illegally obtained confession. Zhang recanted at trial, but the court did not admit his recantation.

  • The appellate court could have directly corrected the mistakes it found in this case.

  • A neighbor of Zhang provided a statement to Zhang’s lawyer that he saw a man on red motorcycle stopped in front of Zhang’s house and heard the motorcycle engine was turned on a few minutes later. Zhang’s lawyer provided this written statement to the court, it was missing from the court’s case dossier.

Other developments

  • On November 16, 2007, Zhang was rewarded state compensation of 18,700 RMB by the Hebei Provincial High Court. However, Zhang has not received the compensation (last updated on June 20, 2022).

Information sources

Zhao Zuohai Murder Case (赵作海故意杀人案)

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.

Information sources



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

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)

Information sources