Media Prejudging Before Trial

The duration of the retrial in the Su Chien-ho case far exceeds public imagination, nearly fading into oblivion. Because the retrial was reopened so many years after the truth, the time and difficulty involved can be easily imagined. Therefore, both defense counsel and the parties involved can only hold their breath and dare not rush. However, just as the court was waiting for the results of the forensic appraisal report, we witnessed a reckless media outlet that did not hesitate to trample upon judicial independence and the feelings of the defendants.

This major newspaper, claiming to have the highest circulation in the country, used a massive front-page headline to cover a topic "exclusively missed" by all other newspapers—that the Su case appraisal report had been released. Not only did it claim that the appraisal results confirmed more than one weapon caused the victims' deaths, but it also used a tone on page five that practically announced the case solved, extensively reporting how this appraisal report "let the evidence speak" and that the real killer was about to emerge. It asserted that Wang Wen-hsiao was indeed not the only one, that it was indeed Su Chien-ho and the other two, and that the appraisal results finally proved there was more than one perpetrator, and so on.

This sensationalized report not only led almost all readers to believe the case had been solved, but also drove the defense lawyers up the wall. When had the appraisal report been completed? When had the report stated there was more than one real killer? As a result, through various investigations, the answer was revealed the next day: the Forensic Science Center officially issued a press statement stating that the appraisal report had not even been completed yet, and neither any person nor any written document indicated that the report had reached a consensus. However, this statement did not receive favor from that newspaper and only appeared in a tiny corner of other newspapers.

Our question is: Does this "grand newspaper," which claims to have the largest readership, know what judicial independence is? Does it know the journalistic ethics that prohibit commentary during ongoing trials? Does it understand that judicial investigative documents that have not yet been published cannot and should not be arbitrarily disclosed or even distorted? And to take a step back, even if, as they claimed, such a report truly existed, it could only prove that "there was more than one weapon," not that "there was more than one real killer"? And even if there were indeed multiple real killers, it still failed to prove "who they were"? These most basic journalistic ethics and deductive logic were clearly ignored by this reporter. We only saw the newspaper "exclusively pronouncing judgment" on the "solved case result" of the Su case, and even the sentence of "life imprisonment" had already been pronounced. What kind of journalistic professionalism is this? We cannot help but suspect why this media outlet went to such lengths before the judgment to influence the judicial conviction of all readers (possibly including the judges).

As a frail civil society organization, we have always held a sense of awe toward the media. Yet, facing such an unprofessional media performance, can we implore them—we do not demand that the media must agree with our views, but preserving a space for rational discussion and retaining a shred of journalistic professional dignity so that our judiciary has room to render an independent and correct judgment should not be considered an extravagant demand from an audience toward the media?!

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily