Lawyer Wrongly Imprisoned for 1.5 Years Acquitted, Joint Case Handling by Police, Procuratorate and Court Blamed
On September 16, 2010, Liu Shaobin, a lawyer from Shangtong Law Firm in Kunming, Yunnan Province, was arrested on suspicion of "obstruction of testimony" while representing a client in a civil case in Yiliang County, Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province. The arrest and investigation were carried out by a "joint investigation team" coordinated by the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Yiliang County.
On July 29, 2011, the Yiliang County People's Court of Yunnan Province issued a first-instance judgment, convicting Liu Shaobin of the crime of obstructing testimony and sentencing him to one year and six months of fixed-term imprisonment. Liu Shaobin subsequently appealed to the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court. On October 31, 2011, the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
On February 11, 2012, after his release from prison, Liu Shaobin began petitioning various parties: “I sent materials to the Supreme Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the National People's Congress, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, and the Ministry of Public Security.” In July 2013, Liu Shaobin received a decision from the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court, which stated that because he had petitioned the Yunnan Provincial People's Congress and the Political and Legal Affairs Commission, his case would be retried.
The case was ultimately remanded for retrial by the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court on November 15, 2013. On April 28, 2014, the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court issued a designation of jurisdiction decision, assigning the case to the Yanjin County People's Court of Yunnan Province for trial.
On January 14, 2015, the Yanjin County People's Court held a retrial of the case; on March 17, the Yanjin County People's Court acquitted Liu Shaobin on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.
I'm ready to help translate your Chinese legal content into professional English for the Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm website. Please provide the Chinese text you'd like me to translate.Origin: A Civil Case
This all began with a civil lawsuit. On November 11, 2007, Liu Shaobin’s five-year-old nephew Taotao (a pseudonym) accompanied his grandfather Liu Yuqing to a processing plant in Wujiawan, Mi’er Village, Qiaoshan Township, Yiliang County, to process rice, where he was injured by a high-voltage electric shock from a transformer.
Forensic examination by the Yunnan Provincial Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center showed that the injuries to Taotao’s hands were caused by high-voltage electrical burns. The only transformer near the scene was the one at the Wujiawan processing plant; all other transformers were located at a considerable distance from the plant and separated from it by a river. A subsequent forensic appraisal determined that Taotao’s hands were assessed as a Class 5 disability.
At that time, Liu Shaobin had just passed the judicial examination. Upon learning of the incident, he immediately rushed back to Yiliang County. That very night, Taotao's mother approached Wu Chaobin and others who had invested in contracting the Wujiawan processing plant, and they made a temporary payment of 1,000 yuan for medical expenses.
According to Liu Shaobin's account to the reporter, after being hospitalized in the county hospital for 17 days, Taotao was transferred to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical College for further treatment, where he underwent amputation and skin grafting surgeries. The total medical expenses amounted to 12 yuan.
On October 27, 2008, as the two parties failed to reach an agreement on compensation, Liu Shaobin, representing Taotao, filed a lawsuit against the 14 villagers who had invested in the processing factory.
During the trial, Liu Shaobin learned that the transformer involved had been installed by Yiliang County Mi'er River Power Generation Co., Ltd., and therefore, acting on Taotao's behalf, added the power supplier Mi'er River Power Generation Company as a co-defendant. The judgment documents Liu Shaobin provided to reporters show that four villagers—Zhao Weiguo, Fang Shibing, Liu Yunzhong, and Yang Bigao—accepted the court's investigation, confirming that on Liu Yuqing's way to the health center with Taotao on her back, the four had encountered the grandparent and grandchild at different points and heard Liu Yuqing recount how Taotao had been injured by electric shock at the processing plant.
Because there were no direct eyewitnesses when Taotao was electrocuted, the indirect evidence provided by the four villagers, along with the forensic appraisal, became key evidence during the trial.
On November 3, 2009, the Yiliang County People's Court issued a first-instance judgment, ruling in favor of Taotao and ordering all defendants to jointly and severally compensate Taotao 274,156.65 yuan for personal injury and to bear the case acceptance fee of 15,022.8 yuan.
After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, the defendants refused to accept it and appealed to the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court. After trial, the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court issued a second-instance judgment on May 19, 2010, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
Sudden Turn: Political and Legal Affairs Committee Intervenes, Lawyer Sentenced
A seemingly straightforward civil lawsuit appeared to have concluded, but the situation took a sharp turn.
After the second-instance judgment took effect, the defendants petitioned for review. A petition reception record provided by Liu Shaobin to a reporter from China Economic Weekly shows that on June 12, 2010, Peng Zegao, then Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Yiliang County, received petitioner Wu Chaobin, a shareholder of the Wujiawan Processing Plant, and others. Peng Zegao instructed on the spot, “Form an investigation team in accordance with relevant procedures, led by Zhang Renyun, Deputy Director of the (Yiliang County Court). If the investigation conclusion is consistent with the judgment, handle the matter according to the judgment; if the investigation result shows that the case handlers were derelict in their duties and the investigation was not factual, the responsibility of the case handlers must be seriously pursued and dealt with severely. At the same time, please ask Deputy Chief Procurator Tong of the (then Yiliang County Court) to assist and cooperate. The petitioners are all present. Please, Deputy Director Zhang, form the investigation team today to conduct the investigation and evidence collection.”
The petition reception record indicated that the Yiliang County Political and Legal Affairs Committee subsequently notified the local court and procuratorate to coordinate the formation of the investigation team.
Li Kun (pseudonym), then Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Yiliang County Court, revealed in a media interview that he attended this meeting held in Peng Zegao's office.
He recalled that the meeting lasted about 10 minutes. “Secretary Peng requested that personnel be selected to form a joint investigation team. A few people were to be drawn from the public security and procuratorial organs respectively. Later, the chief procurator arranged for people to go; I did not participate. The selected personnel were all placed under the unified command of Zhang Renyun, the deputy director of the court.” Liu Shaobin revealed to reporters that Li Kun had told him that the reason he did not participate was that he believed the investigation team was unlawful, so he refused to take part, and afterward the chief procurator arranged for another deputy chief procurator surnamed Liu to participate in his place.
In fact, China’s Criminal Procedure Law provides clear division of responsibilities and defines the duties of the three organs—public security organs, procuratorates, and courts. Article 3 stipulates: “Investigation, detention, execution of arrests, and preliminary examination of criminal cases shall be conducted by public security organs. Procuratorial work, approval of arrests, investigation of cases directly accepted by procuratorial organs, and initiation of public prosecution shall be conducted by the people’s courts…… In conducting criminal proceedings, the people’s courts and public security organs must strictly comply with the relevant provisions of this Law and other laws.” In addition, Article 18 stipulates: “Investigation of criminal cases shall be conducted by public security organs, except as otherwise provided by law.”
According to another media report, on July 13, 2010, Li Zixian from the Legal and Political Section of Yiliang County Court took away the case file of Taotao from the court. On July 14, the joint investigation team notified Yiliang County Court, requesting a retrial.
The case files provided by Liu Shaobin to the reporter of China Economic Weekly show that on July 16, 2010, three witnesses who had testified in the civil case, Fang Shibing, Liu Yunzhong, and Yang Bigao, were summoned for criminal detention. Two days later, on July 18, the three were placed under criminal detention. On August 12 of the same year, Zhao Weiguo and Liu Shaobin were placed under criminal detention in Kunming. On September 16, Liu Shaobin was formally arrested.
On December 28, 2010, the Yiliang County Court filed a public prosecution, alleging that in Taotao’s lawsuit, Liu Shaobin instructed Zhao Weiguo, Fang Shibing, Yang Bigao, and Liu Yunzhong to commit perjury.
The judgment shows that the public prosecution authority alleged: "In order to achieve the goal of having Mier River Power Generation Co., Ltd. and the 14 rural households that held shares in Wujiawan Processing Factory compensate Taotao for economic losses, Liu Shaobin instructed Zhao Weiguo, Fang Shibing, Yang Bigao, Liu Yunzhong, and others to give false testimony during the trial of the case at Yiliang County People's Court, resulting in the court's judgment ordering the defendants to compensate Taotao 274,156.65 yuan for economic losses and bear 15,022.8 yuan in case acceptance fees."
The judgment also shows that four witnesses who had previously testified in favor of the plaintiff Taotao in the aforementioned civil lawsuit were criminally detained by the investigation team on charges of “assisting in the fabrication of evidence.” After interrogation, they recanted their previous testimony, stating that all the testimony they had given in Taotao’s civil case had been coached by Liu Shaobin.
The investigation team's interview transcripts with four individuals were all presented as evidence during the trial of the Liu Shaobin case.
The case file of Liu Shaobin shows that among the multiple pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution against Liu Shaobin, some interrogation records and witness inquiry records were produced in the name of the “Joint Investigation Team of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Yiliang County or the Yiliang County People’s Court,” and some of these were even interrogations conducted personally by procuratorial personnel, who signed the records. The case file also shows that after the joint investigation team was established, court personnel directly participated in the arrest work.
On July 29, 2011, the Yiliang County People's Court issued a judgment: Liu Shaobin was convicted of the crime of obstructing testimony and sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months.
On October 31, 2011, the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment on appeal. During this period, Tao Tao's civil case was remanded for retrial and was reversed from a final victory to a defeat.
Retrial: All evidence collected by the joint investigation team was deemed illegal evidence.
Liu Shaobin was released from prison on February 11, 2012, and immediately began to appeal his case. "I've been to the petition office, the people's congress, the courts, the courts... in Beijing," Liu Shaobin told a China Economic Weekly reporter. He has kept a thick stack of train tickets, bus tickets, and registered mail receipts from these years, along with a cabinet full of appeal materials.
In November 2013, Liu Shaobin received a ruling from the Zhaotong Intermediate People's Court: "The original trial deprived or restricted the parties' statutory litigation rights, which may have affected the fair adjudication of the case. The guilty verdict against Liu Shaobin is hereby revoked in accordance with the law, and the case is remanded for retrial."
On January 14, 2015, the retrial of the case involving Liu Shaobin, who was suspected of the crime of obstructing testimony, was held at the Yunjin County People's Court.
Liu Shaobin revealed to reporters that before the trial, the Yanjin County Court organized a pre-trial meeting with prosecutors, the defendant, and defense attorneys to exchange evidence. Both sides reached a consensus at this stage: all witness statements directly obtained under the name of the joint investigation team in this case would be excluded as illegal evidence.
At the same time, the reception record with instructions from Political and Legal Affairs Committee Secretary Peng Zegao was also submitted to the court.
According to media reports, Liu Shaobin's defense lawyer Li Chunguang argued that the evidence proves the fact that the procuratorial authorities cooperated with the public security authorities in handling the case and that the court established a joint investigation team with the court, and also confirms the fact that the political and legal affairs commission intervened in the civil dispute case. On this basis, Li Chunguang argued in defense that "the procuratorial personnel in the original trial joined the investigation team during the investigative stage to exercise investigative powers, which rendered the investigation, prosecution, and trial in the original trial of this case non-compliant with legal provisions."
The retrial judgment shows that the evidence for the original first and second instance rulings that Liu Shaobin constituted the crime of obstructing testimony mainly consisted of testimonies from witnesses Zhao Weiguo, Fang Shibing, Liu Yunzhong, and Yang Bigao. During this trial, Liu Yunzhong again testified in court. He confirmed that Liu Shaobin did not instruct him to give false testimony, and that he only told the public security authorities that Liu Shaobin had taught him to give false testimony out of fear of being detained.
The prosecutors present in court expressed no objections to the appeal points raised by Liu Shaobin and his defense counsel, nor to all the evidence presented in court. During the evidence presentation phase, the prosecutors stated that after Liu Shaobin's case was remanded for retrial, the investigative authorities re-investigated. Zhao Weiguo and Fang Shibing, who had previously admitted to giving false testimony, both changed their statements, and some evidence was excluded as illegal evidence. Based on this, the prosecutors believed that since the key evidence in this case had undergone significant changes, they recommended that the collegial panel comprehensively consider the matter and render a fair judgment in accordance with the law.
On March 17, 2015, the Yanjin County People's Court, after trial, pronounced Liu Shaobin not guilty.
The court held: "The facts found in the original judgment that the defendant Liu Shaobin instigated others to commit perjury were based on the testimony of Zhao Weiguo, Fang Shibing, and Liu Yunzhong, whose statements have changed. Through the trial, the existing evidence is insufficient to fully prove that in the Taotao case, the defendant Liu Shaobin committed the act of instigating others to commit perjury. The finding that Liu Shaobin committed the crime of obstructing testimony lacks sufficient evidentiary support. The charge that the defendant Liu Shaobin committed the crime of obstructing testimony is based on unclear facts and insufficient evidence, and he should be acquitted."
In an interview with the media, Li Chunguang stated that the biggest problem exposed by Liu Shaobin’s case is that the local Political and Legal Affairs Commission, public security organs, and procuratorial organs handled the case unlawfully. “If similar cases occur, I hope power will no longer be exercised arbitrarily, and any case should be handled within the framework of the rule of law.” Li Chunguang believes that Liu Shaobin’s case has exemplary significance regarding the issue of “local Political and Legal Affairs Commissions leading judicial work,” and that “the results of excluding local Political and Legal Affairs Commissions from interfering in individual cases are being confirmed.”
Follow-up: The issues behind the wrongful case are being investigated.
According to media reports, the Yunnan Provincial Court has launched an investigation into potential dereliction of duty in the Liu Shaobin case. Liu Shaobin told China Economic Weekly that the Yunnan Provincial People's Congress Legal Affairs Committee and the Provincial Political and Legal Affairs Committee had noticed possible issues behind the case, subsequently transferring it to the Yunnan Provincial Court. It is currently under investigation by the Kunming City Court, with the results still unknown.
In recent years, behind the wrongful convictions and misjudged cases that have drawn public attention, one can often discern the shadow of joint case handling by the public security, procuratorate, and court organs under the leadership of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission. After the wrongful conviction of Zhao Zuohai was overturned, Zhao Qizhong, deputy director of the Shangqiu Municipal Court, once stated: “The public security, the procuratorate, and the court all made mistakes. If any one link had been properly controlled, the wrongful conviction would not have occurred.” Tian Wenchang, a lawyer at Beijing Jingdu Law Firm and known as “China’s No. 1 criminal defense lawyer,” analyzed to a reporter from China Economic Weekly that when the Political and Legal Affairs Commission intervenes in individual cases and the public security, procuratorate, and court handle cases jointly, the checks and balances among them are lacking, and thus their respective independence is lost, making it easy for wrongful convictions and misjudged cases to occur.
From 2007 to 2015, these years of experience, in Liu Shaobin’s words, meant that “after enduring all these years, I won justice but lost time.” His lawyer’s practice license was also revoked because the court convicted him of the crime of obstructing testimony.
Liu Shaobin, who is currently unemployed at home, told China Economic Weekly that he plans to apply to the bar association to restore his lawyer's practice license soon, "just to prove a point." As for whether he will continue to practice law in the future, Liu said he needs some time to adjust and will give it careful consideration.
However, Liu Shaobin said that even if he no longer works as a lawyer, he will never forget that he was once a legal professional. He will continue to follow the progress of the rule of law and look forward to judicial advancements.
After being acquitted in the retrial, Liu Shaobin posted on his Weibo: "I hope my case can prevent more people from suffering persecution."
(China Economic Weekly)
