Prosectors, Are You Exhausted?～ "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" Press Conference Series (Part 2)

On November 29, the Foundation held the first "Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors" press conference series, releasing three judicial cases related to the performance of prosecutors' duties, directly pointing out that the handling prosecutors disregarded the truth, lacked clear evidence, and even misprinted the defendants' names.

Late that night, the Ministry of Justice issued a press release making a preliminary response, promising to thoroughly examine the three cases released by the Foundation: "If it is found that the handling prosecutors indeed committed negligence, disciplinary actions will be taken depending on the circumstances in accordance with the provisions of the 'Directions for Rewards and Punishments of Personnel in Prosecutorial Agencies' under the Ministry."

The Foundation expresses its deep affirmation of the Ministry of Justice's willingness to accept corrections from all sectors of society and its determination not to shield wrongdoing within a very short time, and looks forward to seeing the processing results announced by the Ministry of Justice after a thorough understanding of the three cases as early as possible.

Today, the Foundation will continue to release three judicial cases, all pointing out specific flaws in prosecutors' handling of cases for public reference, and hopes that the Ministry of Justice can also uphold the determination that one must first correct oneself before correcting others, and seriously confront the errors and omissions in the prosecution's case handling. The main points of the cases are as follows:

1. Report to the Judge: Everything is as Stated in the Attachment!

   Cause and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Forgery of Instruments" Appeal by Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Prosecutor Supreme Court: Appeal Dismissed (99 Tai-Shang No. 3700)	Appeal, dismissed	The Supreme Court is a court of law review. An appeal brief must specifically point out how the original judgment violates the law; otherwise, it is a procedural error and must be dismissed according to law. Not only did the prosecutor fail to address legal application issues, but they also simply cited or attached the private prosecutor's brief to get by. Is being a prosecutor at the High Prosecutors Office really this easy?	Taiwan High Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor?

2. Picking Up Any Vegetable Basket Means It's Veggies? Putting Anything in the Bowl Means It's Edible?

   Cause and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Embezzlement of Mobile Phone"  Taipei District Prosecutors Office Prosecution (98 Year Chen-Chi No. 1465) Taipei District Court: Acquittal (98 Year Yi No. 2571)	Prosecuted, acquitted	Call records showed that the private prosecutor's mobile phone was misappropriated as early as 7:30 PM, with the call origination location far away in Penghu, yet the prosecutor concluded that a taxi driver in Taipei picked up the phone and embezzled it after picking up passengers at 9:00 PM. The physical evidence completely contradicted the prosecutor's accusations, yet the driver was still prosecuted. Is whether to prosecute or not really just up to the prosecutor's whim?	Taipei District Prosecutors Office? Prosecuting Prosecutor?

3. Indictment = Winner of a Storytelling Contest?

   Cause and Case Number	Judgment Result	Summary	Who Should Be Responsible?
   "Trafficking Category 1 Narcotics"  Tainan District Prosecutors Office Prosecution (96 Year Chen No. 17510)  Tainan District Court: Acquittal (96 Year Su No. 1805) Tainan District Prosecutors Office Appeal Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court: Acquittal (97 Year Shang-Su No. 433) Tainan Branch Prosecutors Office Further Appeal  Supreme Court: Acquittal Again! (99 Year Tai-Shang No. 3559)	Prosecuted, acquitted Appealed, acquitted Further appealed, acquitted again	Without any evidence, relying solely on chaotic "testimony" from two "drug-addict witnesses" that could not match the facts, the defendant was still prosecuted by the prosecutor for trafficking "Category 1" narcotics (the statutory penalty for this crime is either the "death penalty" or "life imprisonment"). Isn't such a reckless standard of prosecution for a serious crime alarming? Could it be that prosecutors want to say: "Inability to prove does not mean you didn't do it"? Furthermore, after the defendant was acquitted, repeated appeals were filed. Are prosecutors truly a "machine for manufacturing criminal miscarriages of justice"?	Tainan District Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor? Tainan District Prosecutors Office? Prosecuting Prosecutor? Tainan Branch Prosecutors Office? Appealing Prosecutor?

The motivation to present concrete flaws in prosecutors' case handling stems from the reality of victimized citizens having nowhere to turn for help, and the collaborative efforts of over 50 volunteer lawyers.

We must still solemnly notify the Ministry of Justice:

1. Please inform the public nationwide: How does the Ministry of Justice conduct general understandings and hold accountable individual prosecutors who abuse their power or make errors and omissions in case handling, and what are the specific methods?
2. What concrete measures does the Ministry of Justice have to strictly control the quality of indictments and appeals when prosecutors handle cases, so as to protect the rights and interests of litigants?

Attachment

Explanation of Three Judicial Cases

Attendees

Attorneys Ch'en Yung-sung, Director of the Judicial Reform Foundation and Convener of the Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors Project
Attorney Ku Li-hsiung, Standing Director of the Judicial Reform Foundation and Convener of the Hunting Down Bad Prosecutors Project
Attorney Lin Feng-cheng, CEO of the Judicial Reform Foundation

Press Contact

Attorney Lin Feng-cheng, CEO of the Judicial Reform Foundation 02-25231178