Same Case Handler 'Splitting into Two Interrogation Rooms': Analysis of the Legality of Evidence Collection under Contradictory Time and Space Records

Same Case Handler 'Splitting into Two Interrogation Rooms': Analysis of the Legality of Evidence Collection under Contradictory Time and Space Records

The time, location, and personnel involved in an interrogation are the first legal threshold for the validity and legality of evidence. They are the most basic and rigid procedural bottom line for evidence collection in investigations. In the case of Sun Chunyou in Changchun, multiple records handled by case handler Hu Xudong showed serious conflicts in time and space, physical impossibilities, and overlapping times across different regions. At the same time, Hu Xudong refused to transfer the complete synchronous audio and video recordings of the interrogations and inquiries, directly violating the red line of investigation procedures and the rules for excluding illegal evidence in criminal cases. This is enough to shake the foundation of the legitimacy of all the testimonial evidence in the case.

I. Core Procedural Flaws in the Case: Records Show Objective, Irreconcilable Time and Space Fabrications; Critical Synchronous Recordings Refused to be Transferred

There are two irreconcilable physical procedural contradictions in the case that cannot be argued away, and they are not merely clerical errors but systemic violations of evidence collection:

Firstly, simultaneous interrogation in two rooms (overlapping for 1 hour and 56 minutes)

On August 9, 2025, from 9:15 to 11:28, Hu Xudong was both interrogating Zhao Jun国 in room D1061 of the Jingyue Detention Center and inquiring Liu Jian in room D1062 at the same time.

The same person, in the same time period, handling cases in two different detention rooms simultaneously, violates basic physical common sense. The only conclusion is that the case handler's records are false, with names hung up for the sake of form, and records were fabricated afterwards or templates were used to create false confessions.

Secondly, overlapping work times across a 20-kilometer distance for 43 minutes

Some records show that Hu Xudong, in the same time period, was handling cases both in the Eighth Interrogation Room of the Kuancheng District and in the Jingyue Detention Center, 20 kilometers away, with completely conflicting time and space records.

It is fundamentally impossible to commute between the two locations, which directly proves that the records of the evidence collection location, time, and personnel are not true.

More critically, Hu Xudong, fearing exposure of illegal evidence collection and abuse of power, refused to transfer to the People's Court the video recordings of the interrogation of the defendant Sun Chunyou and the synchronous audio and video recordings of the inquiries of the witnesses in the case. The synchronous audio and video recordings are the original, objective evidence for verifying the interrogation process and distinguishing the authenticity of the records. Without a justifiable reason, hiding and not submitting them further confirms that there are significant suspicions of violations in the evidence collection process.

At the same time, the core accusation against Sun Chunyou of receiving 1.8 million yuan in bribes has already been 100% disproven by the second-hand housing transaction documents, showing the typical characteristics of a fabricated case: 'documentary evidence is true, confessions are false, and facts are predetermined before filling in the records.'

II. Legal Bottom Line for Investigation Procedures: All Four Bottom Lines for Evidence Collection in the Case Have Been Violated

According to the rigid provisions of the 'Supervision Law' and the 'Implementation Regulations of the Supervision Law':

1. Interrogations must be conducted by at least two people, individually;

1. Detention interrogations must be carried out in designated detention facilities;

1. Important evidence collection must be fully video and audio recorded, and the recordings must be completely preserved and submitted with the case;

1. All record times, locations, and personnel must be true and verifiable.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law and the rules for excluding illegal evidence clearly state:

If the time, location, and personnel in the interrogation records have irreconcilable contradictions that cannot be explained or corrected, they directly lose their qualification as evidence and cannot be used as the basis for a verdict; if the synchronous audio and video recordings that should be submitted are refused to be provided, and it cannot be ruled out that the evidence was collected illegally, the corresponding testimonial evidence should also be excluded.

The law does not have a 'tolerance space' for 'one person splitting into two locations for interrogation.'

Fabricating the basic elements of the records and hiding critical synchronous recordings belong to fundamental and fatal procedural violations.

III. Qualification of Illegal Acts: The Records in the Case Belong to Typical Illegal Evidence Collection and Template-based Fabrication of Confessions

Combining the multiple suspicious points in the case, it is enough to determine:

1. The case handlers did not actually participate and used a 'hanging name' method for evidence collection, violating the principle of two-person interrogation and firsthand evidence collection;

1. The records were batch-processed using templates, with unified mouthpieces and fabricated afterwards, resulting in the contents of multiple people's records being identical and the facts being uniformly false;

1. The time and space information was fabricated to cover up the true evidence collection process, intentionally hiding the synchronous audio and video recordings to avoid external supervision;

1. Combining the previously exposed pre-fabrication of the 1.8 million yuan bribe target and the leakage of case information in non-formal settings, a complete cycle of pre-determined case facts, fabricated evidence targets, procedural fabrications, record solidification, and hiding of original recordings to cover up violations of duty and illegal evidence collection has been formed.

According to Article 74 of the 'Supervision Law', investigation personnel who fabricate evidence information, violate legal procedures for evidence collection, hide key evidence, and seriously infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved should be held accountable according to regulations and laws.

Intentionally fabricating the time and space of the records, refusing to transfer the synchronous recordings, and batch-producing false testimonial evidence have far exceeded general procedural flaws and are suspected of fabricating evidence materials and abusing investigative powers.

IV. Legal Consequences of Evidence: All Relevant Confessions in the Case Should Be Excluded According to Law

1. Irreconcilable time and space contradictions that cannot be corrected, and critical recordings refused to be provided → The legitimacy of the records is completely lost

All records with time, location, and personnel conflicts have no space for reconcilable explanations. Given that the synchronous audio and video recordings that should be submitted are hidden and not provided, they should be directly excluded according to law.

1. False confessions without objective evidence to support them → Do not meet the standards for conviction

The core accusation of receiving 1.8 million yuan in bribes in the case lacks any fund flow, payment vouchers, or corresponding transaction traces as evidence. It completely relies on procedurally illegal and content-false confessions for support, which conforms to the legal situation of 'isolated evidence cannot be used for conviction, and insufficient evidence does not constitute a crime' as stipulated in Article 55 of the 'Criminal Procedure Law'.

1. Procedural violations first, substantive accusations are naturally questionable

The standards for supervision evidence must be unified with the standards for criminal trial evidence. The accusatory facts established on the basis of false records and illegal evidence collection do not have a legal basis for conviction.

V. Path for Legal Supervision and Relief

1. Apply for internal control inspection by the supervisory authority: Complaints can be filed with the case management and cadre supervision departments of the supervisory commission to investigate the procedural violations, false evidence collection, and hiding of synchronous recordings by the case handlers;

1. Formal exclusion of illegal evidence during the trial: The case has specific, clear, and verifiable clues for exclusion (overlapping of two rooms, conflicts across regions, refusal to provide synchronous recordings), which fully meet the legal conditions for initiating exclusion;

1. Apply for the retrieval of objective original evidence: The court can be requested to retrieve the original detention gate log, synchronous audio and video recording carriers, case handler trajectories, and approval documents to thoroughly verify the facts of the record fabrications;

1. For the fabrication of false case facts, creation of bribe targets, and abuse of investigative powers, legal accusations and accountability should be pursued.

In summary:

The time, location, and personnel involved in an interrogation, as well as the complete synchronous audio and video recordings, are the most basic 'integrity bottom line' for supervision and evidence collection, and also the first line of defense for judicial justice.

Case handlers 'splitting into two rooms and overlapping across regions' and refusing to transfer the original synchronous recordings are not simple clerical errors but serious procedural violations intended to avoid supervision, fabricate evidence collection processes, and batch-produce false evidence to cover up the risks of illegal evidence collection and duty-related crimes.

If the procedures are not proper, then the substance is not just. The accusations of bribery established on the basis of illegal records, false confessions, and fabricated case facts will inevitably collapse due to lack of evidence and cannot be established. Only by ordering the complete transfer of synchronous recordings, strictly excluding illegal evidence, and thoroughly investigating the case handlers' violations can the bottom line of supervision and judicial justice be upheld.