Prosecutor, Are You Exhausted? ～ "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" Press Conference Series (III)

On November 29 and December 8, 2011, our Foundation successively held two press conferences in this series, releasing a total of six judicial cases related to the performance of duties by prosecutors, directly pointing out flaws associated with abusive indictments or hasty appeals by the handling prosecutors.

Although the Ministry of Justice issued press releases on the same days to make preliminary responses and guaranteed that it would thoroughly examine the six cases released by our Foundation, promising that: "If it is found that the handling prosecutors indeed committed negligence, they will be disciplined according to the circumstances pursuant to the provisions of the 'Standards for Awards and Penalties for Personnel of Prosecutorial Agencies' under the Ministry," several months have passed in a flash. The Ministry's solemn vows that it would never shield its own still linger in our ears, but the relevant processing results have yet to be publicized to this day. A concrete mechanism for general understanding and accountability regarding prosecutorial negligence in handling cases has yet to be established, let alone any control or review measures to strengthen meticulous case handling.

Today, our Foundation will continue to release three cases finalized with not-guilty verdicts, all of which point out specific flaws in the prosecutors' case handling for public reference, and we also hope that the Ministry of Justice can uphold the determination that one must first correct oneself before correcting others, facing prosecutorial errors and negligence seriously. The outlines of the cases are as follows:

1. Nothing Stolen, Yet Indicted for Theft!?

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Held Responsible?
   "Theft" Indicted by Tainan District Prosecutors Office (96-年度-偵-字第10219號, 96-年度-營偵-字第1052號) Tainan District Court: Prosecutor applied pressure, defendant confessed! (96-年度-訴-字第1136號) Appeal by Tainan District Prosecutors Office Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court: Not guilty! (98-年度-上訴-字第263號) Second appeal by Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Tainan Branch Supreme Court: Not guilty again! (98-年度-台上-字第4701號)	Indicted, prosecutor applied pressure, defendant confessed! Appealed, not guilty! Appealed again, not guilty again!	The prosecutor vividly described in the written indictment how the defendant committed the theft, only to find out after all that nothing was actually stolen? The entire indictment facts were written as if they really happened, but was it actually a farce all along? It turned out the police scripted it, coupled with pressure from the prosecution, forcing the defendant to confess? Has the entire prosecutorial system completely failed?	Tainan District Prosecutors Office? Indicting prosecutor? Tainan District Prosecutors Office? Appealing prosecutor? Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Tainan Branch? Appealing prosecutor?

2. Indicted for a Capital Offense Without Evidence, Yet Insisting on Appealing to the End!?

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Held Responsible?
   "Drugs" Indicted by Yilan District Prosecutors Office (97-年度-偵-字第544號) Yilan District Court: Not guilty! (97-年度-訴-字第367號) Appeal by Yilan District Prosecutors Office Taiwan High Court: Not guilty! (97-年度-上訴-字第5577號) Second appeal by Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Supreme Court: Not guilty again! (99-年度-台上-字第913號)	Indicted, not guilty! Appealed, not guilty! Appealed again, not guilty again!	Once again, with zero evidence whatsoever, relying solely on the messy "testimonies" of two "drug-addicted witnesses" that failed to match the physical evidence, the prosecutor still indicted the defendant for the crime of trafficking "Category 1" drugs (the statutory penalty for this crime is either the "death penalty" or "life imprisonment")! Even more absurdly, the witnesses did not even know the defendant? Such a careless standard for indicting a serious felony is unbelievable, and coupled with the prosecuting attorney at trial presenting no new evidence while blindly and desperately appealing, even the Supreme Court went crazy!?	Yilan District Prosecutors Office? Indicting prosecutor? Yilan District Prosecutors Office? Appealing prosecutor? Taiwan High Prosecutors Office? Appealing prosecutor?

3. Indicted Immediately Upon Failing to Report for Reserve Duty, Unaware That the Law Had Already Changed!?

   Cause of Action and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Held Responsible?
   "Violation of the Military Service Act" Indicted by Shihlin District Prosecutors Office (93-年度-偵-字第09號) Shihlin District Court: Public prosecution dismissed! (93-年度-易-字第174號)	Indicted, public prosecution dismissed!	Unaware that the Act Hampering Military Service has been amended? Summoning a citizen who fails to appear and directly indicting them without investigating the underlying causes or distinguishing right from wrong? Moreover, the judge could find the defendant, but the prosecutor could not? Is this a lack of diligence, or simply not caring?	Shihlin District Prosecutors Office? Indicting prosecutor?

We must still solemnly notify the Ministry of Justice:

1. Please tell the citizens nationwide: how does the Ministry of Justice conduct general understandings and accountability regarding cases of abuse of power or negligence by individual prosecutors in handling cases, and what are the specific methods?
2. What concrete practices does the Ministry of Justice have to strictly control the quality of indictments and appeals when prosecutors handle cases, so as to safeguard the rights and interests of litigants?

Attendees

Attorney Lin Feng-cheng, Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Attorney Ku Li-hsiung, Standing Board Director, Judicial Reform Foundation / Convener of the "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" Project
Attorney Yu Po-hsiang, Executive Member, Judicial Reform Foundation / Convener of the "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" Project