Course Reflection on Legal Services Special Project "Dummy Account Cases": Wu Yün-ju

Course Reflection

Starting from the winter break, I took this course on the Legal Services Special Project, and I have gained countless insights over this semester. The reason I chose to take this course is because my original intention in choosing to study law was to help those in need. I once discussed this with a senior student who felt that we should wait until we actually pass the bar exam to become attorneys or judicial officers before thinking about (cultivating) helping others, otherwise it is just empty talk. I asked him which person has a higher probability of actually helping others: someone who harbors the idea of helping others from the very beginning when becoming a lawyer or judge, or someone who considers helping others only after becoming one? I think it is the former. Moreover, people who generally hold the idea of helping others from the start have already seized opportunities in their daily lives to help others in various ways. Of course, there are also many who start helping others shortly after or long after becoming lawyers or judges. I am not saying it is absolute, but this kind of thing is like a seed; it needs to sprout and take root. The later it is planted, the slower the action, and the more people in need of help will be unable to receive it.

Therefore, I am very glad to have been able to take this course this time, and I have truly benefited immensely. Interacting with lawyers, judges, prosecutors, clients, and scholars has provided a completely new experience, bringing new knowledge and diverse perspectives from all sides. I learned how to conduct interviews, organize case files, go through the case-review process for the first time, organize seminars, and learned so much more. In fact, during the process, I felt bewildered, angry, dissatisfied, futile, and experienced a lot of powerlessness. I thought of many, many plans and put forward numerous opinions, yet failed to find an answer and method, which was truly frustrating. Sometimes I would pessimistically say that there is really no way, that this matter is just like this, that there will always be dummy accounts, and that people will always be convicted of aiding fraud because of this, making it fundamentally impossible to change. But then I thought that if we do not act, then this matter will truly never see a day of change. Therefore, I suppose that perhaps what we did was not perfect, but we did it.

Although Mr. Teng's case was still judged guilty, and although we do not yet know whether Ms. Chao's and Mr. K'ung's cases will have the opportunity to secure a retrial, it is just like knocking on a door—perhaps once, twice, and if twice is not enough, trying once more—will this door eventually be knocked open by us one day? Yet, inevitably, sometimes there is fear: did we give our clients a glimmer of hope, only to let the judiciary brutally humiliate them once again and plunge them back into despair and distrust toward the judiciary? The emotions are complicated, a mixture of hope and despair just like our clients. However, I am deeply grateful for this learning opportunity. There are so many people to thank: thank you to the professor for being willing to offer this course, constantly carving out time from a busy schedule to discuss things with us and give us immense support. Thank you to the clients for being willing to give us a chance to try again; I sincerely hope that regardless of the outcome, they will never give up hope. Thank you to everyone who has assisted us.

Reflection on Interviewing a Prosecutor

Because of this Legal Services Special Project course, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to interview a very fresh (newly appointed) prosecutor who is currently serving as an alternative military serviceman. The prosecutor was very nice, extremely cordial, and answered every question asked. Through the interview, I learned about some issues within the judicial system, procedural aspects, and practical operations—long-standing old problems, judges' past rulings and subjective convictions, and certain performance evaluation issues within investigative agencies, all of which repeatedly affect whether prosecutors decide to prosecute. Often, it seems to stem from helplessness, or possessing too little information, leaving one powerless to overturn that towering wall.

Indeed, prosecutors are inevitably influenced by past precedents where individuals who were actually guilty successfully deceived prosecutors into believing they were innocent, thereby causing errors in judgment. For certain cases with precedents, it becomes harder to trust the clients, and stereotypes resulting from previous cases inevitably linger. Sometimes, the evidence presented by the clients is too scarce or lacks verifiability. Under conditions of insufficient information and materials, it is also difficult for prosecutors to do much for the clients. I am very grateful for the efforts prosecutors make for their clients, but I also hope prosecutors can invest even greater effort into being neutral and objective, speaking only on the basis of available evidence. Because all of us must work together to change the current status quo.