Linyi Second Su Case: The Last Warning of Procedural Justice

Linyi Second Su Case: The Last Warning of Procedural Justice

The defense lawyer for the Linyi Second Su case, Wang Wanqiong, publicly announced that he has lost confidence in the possibility of a fair trial at the Linyi Intermediate Court and has chosen to protest by exiting the courtroom. After a 32-day investigation into the exclusion of illegal evidence, the court ruled that all confessions, physical evidence, and witness testimony requested by the defense to be excluded would not be excluded, and no illegal evidence collection was recognized in the case.

The Linyi Second Su case, which has been remanded for retrial twice by the provincial high court, has reached a point where the defense lawyer has chosen to exit the courtroom in protest. What signal and impact will this event bring?

Over the past nine years, the Linyi Second Su case has undergone two original judgments being completely overturned by the Shandong High Court. The third trial of the case has spent dozens of days conducting an investigation into the exclusion of illegal evidence. However, the court ultimately ruled that all confessions, physical evidence, and witness testimony requested by the defense to be excluded would not be excluded, and no illegal evidence collection was recognized in the case.

This result has become the trigger that has crushed the confidence of the defense lawyer.

I. Why did the lawyer choose to exit the courtroom in protest?

According to the information disclosed, during the lengthy trial, the defense team's numerous procedural requests and applications for the exclusion of illegal evidence were almost all rejected.

The defense team submitted a large amount of evidence of coerced confessions, and the defendant stated that they had been subjected to cruel treatment such as being forced to sit on a "tiger chair," being deprived of sleep, and receiving death threats. The defense lawyer applied for a demonstration of the coercive methods used to extract the confession, but the court rejected it, citing that it "violated public order and morals."

Many legal rights granted to the defendant were denied: the application for the appearance of appraisal personnel and expert witnesses was not approved; the request to obtain the original materials of the autopsy and key synchronized audio and video recordings was mostly rejected, citing "no need"; and a large number of interrogation records with contradictions and missing synchronized audio and video recordings were not excluded as illegal evidence.

What made the defense lawyer feel even more helpless was the failure of multiple supervisory mechanisms. The defendant reported being coerced into confessing to the procuratorate officer stationed at the detention center, but the case-handling investigators were present at the same time; when the defendant met with the lawyer to report their grievances, the conversation content was soon known to the investigators; and during the arrest approval process, the actual handling procurator's identity could not be verified.

The defense team stated that many laws and regulations are written clearly, but when applied to this case, they become "flexible" and "dependent on the judge's conscience," with the judge having too much discretion and the system for excluding illegal evidence lacking rigid constraints. Although the defense lawyer has exhausted all means of cross-examination, application, and protest in court, many reasonable requests have not received a response from the court, and the space for defense has been continuously compressed.

It is based on the judgment that "it is difficult to obtain a fair trial at the Linyi Intermediate Court" that the choice of protesting by exiting the courtroom was made. The lawyer is not completely cutting off assistance to the defendant and will continue to provide legal opinions and cross-examination materials, which will be expressed by the defendant's family.

II. What impact will the lawyer's exit have?

The protest exit is not a matter of temperament but a desperate gesture of resistance by legal professionals, which also leaves many practical difficulties.

Firstly, for the two elderly defendants, losing the professional defense lawyer's on-site debate in court will greatly increase the risk of the trial, as their ability to cross-examine and debate is already weak. Although the lawyer will provide off-court support, they cannot respond to the prosecution's evidence and cross-examination in court, which will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the defense.

Secondly, it sends a sharp signal to the industry: when the right to defense is continuously restricted, when all applications, objections, and cross-examinations are difficult to be adopted, and after the legal aid lawyer has exhausted all means of relief in court, the only option left is to exit the courtroom to convey the case's procedural difficulties.

Thirdly, this incident has put the trial procedure of the Linyi Intermediate Court under societal scrutiny. The case has been remanded for retrial twice by the provincial high court due to "unclear facts and insufficient evidence," which itself indicates that the original trial had major defects. The retrial changed the collegiate panel but did not avoid the court's adjudication committee, resulting in a situation where "the collegiate panel is changed, but the adjudication committee is not," which easily leads to reasonable doubts from the parties and the defense.

III. Procedural Justice Cannot Be Reduced to Paper Documents

The problems exposed in this case are not just a conflict between the prosecution and the defense but are worth the deep reflection of the Linyi city and Shandong judicial system.

The system of remanding for retrial should be truly implemented. The case has been remanded for retrial three times, and the legislative intent is to change the trial force, break through existing prejudices, and conduct a new, neutral trial. However, the reality is that the collegiate panel is changed, but the case ultimately still needs to be submitted to the court's adjudication committee for discussion. If the adjudication committee personnel do not recuse themselves, it is difficult to truly achieve the institutional purpose of "starting anew." It is no wonder that the defense has repeatedly applied for jurisdiction in another location. For major, sensitive cases that have been overturned by the higher court three times, it is worth careful evaluation whether another court should be designated to handle the case.

The exclusion of illegal evidence cannot become a paper system. The case spent over 30 days conducting an investigation into the exclusion of illegal evidence, which is enough to show that the case has many leads on coerced confessions and doubtful evidence. However, a large number of interrogation records without synchronized audio and video recordings, as well as contradictions and the defendant's allegations of violent evidence collection, did not receive substantive review and exclusion. The purpose of setting up a system for excluding illegal evidence is to prevent coerced confessions and false confessions. If this system lacks rigid constraints, then even the most detailed court investigation will ultimately become a formality.

The right to defense should be fully respected. Defense is not "adding chaos" to the trial but is an indispensable part of criminal proceedings. The appearance of appraisal personnel, expert witnesses, the retrieval of key physical evidence, and the appearance of witnesses are all rights clearly granted to the defense by the Criminal Procedure Law. These cannot be simply rejected by the court on the grounds that "the court believes it is not necessary." Especially in major cases involving human life, the defense's applications should be fully reasoned and cannot be simply rejected.

The supervisory chain of investigation cannot fail. Stationed procurators, arrest approval, and the full-process audio and video recording of interrogations are all brakes that prevent illegal evidence collection. However, in this case, these supervisory links have exposed many loopholes. If the supervisory mechanism fails, relying solely on the court's trial to correct errors after the fact will result in enormous correction costs, and the road to redress for the wrongly accused will be extremely long.

The lawyer's protest exit from the courtroom is not a scene to be applauded but is a red alert that the judicial procedure needs to be vigilant about.

Justice not only needs to pursue substantive results but also needs to achieve visible procedural justice. A case that has been overturned by the higher court three times, and the defense lawyer has been forced to exit the courtroom in protest, is itself a warning that all judicial personnel should be alerted to.

We look forward to the Linyi Intermediate Court and the Shandong higher judicial authorities being able to face up to all the procedural controversies exposed in this case.

If the gate of procedure cannot be guarded, then substantive justice cannot be discussed.