The Abyss of Justice: Reflections on the Supreme Court's Dismissal of the Extraordinary Appeal in the Hsuch Tzu-chiang Death Penalty Case

Amidst the bustling political news and colorful social reports, the March 22, 2002 edition of the United Daily News quietly ran a piece reporting that the extraordinary appeal filed in the Hsuch Tzu-chiang kidnapping and extortion case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Although the placement was inconspicuous, it meant that Hsuch Tzu-chiang, currently detained, would immediately face the execution of the death penalty.

Perhaps too much time has passed since September 1, 1995—the day the incident occurred—leaving few who remember the ins and outs of the case. Only the eternal grief of the victim's family, alongside the profound despair of Hsuch Tzu-chiang trapped behind bars and his loved ones, will be reawakened to the deepest pain in their hearts by this report.

Did Hsuch Tzu-chiang actually participate in the kidnapping and extortion scheme? Before discussing this, two premises must first be established: First, Hsuch Tzu-chiang had a solid alibi for the time the victim was abducted and murdered. Second, Hsuch Tzu-chiang did not make any extortion calls to the victim Kuo's family; all extortion calls made by the perpetrators and recorded by the police were definitively proven not to have been made by Hsuch Tzu-chiang. The aforementioned premises have been verified as factual by courts at all levels.

What, then, was the basis for the courts to convict Hsuch Tzu-chiang of participating in the crime and even sentencing him to death? In fact, it rests solely on the confessions (statements admitting guilt) of two co-suspects apprehended in the same case. They repeatedly claimed that Hsuch Tzu-chiang participated in the conspiracy and planning of this case, and that Hsuch Tzu-chiang once helped other accomplices rent a car. This is the inescapable shackle that has led to Hsuch Tzu-chiang being repeatedly sentenced to death. However, is such evidence sufficient? Without investigating other evidence proving Hsuch Tzu-chiang's commission of the crime, can a court sentence Hsuch Tzu-chiang to death without the slightest doubt that other possibilities exist in this case?

Legally speaking, this is not the case. According to Article 156, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though an accused has confessed, necessary evidence must still be investigated to determine whether it matches the facts. Additionally, Supreme Court Precedent 31-Shang-2423 holds that while the statements of a co-defendant may be adopted as evidence of another co-defendant's crime, such incriminatory statements must still be investigated using other necessary evidence to ascertain whether they conform to the truth; convictions of other co-defendants' criminal facts cannot be based solely upon such statements. The purpose of this legislation is to use corroborating evidence other than the confession to guarantee the authenticity of the confession, limit the evidentiary value of confessions, and prevent courts from placing undue weight on confessions while neglecting to investigate other evidence, thereby running the risk of miscarriages of justice. Because an accused's confession may be flawed due to errors in memory or subjective perception, or because of personal biases, emotions, or other factors, there is even the danger of shifting the blame to others through false statements. Therefore, an accomplice's confession cannot serve as the sole evidence to convict another accomplice. Clearly, although the court harbored strong suspicions against Hsuch Tzu-chiang due to the statements of other accomplices, it sentenced Hsuch Tzu-chiang to death without any definitive corroborating evidence proving his crime—a clear violation of Article 156, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Logically speaking, the confessions of the other accomplices are not without contradictions that make it impossible for anyone to be completely convinced. A brief summary of the main points is as follows: First, the first defendant to be caught shifted all responsibility entirely onto other unapprehended individuals, falsely claiming that Hsuch Tzu-chiang participated in the entire kidnapping and extortion process and asserting that the victim was murdered by Hsuch Tzu-chiang. Once the second suspect was apprehended and Hsuch Tzu-chiang's family presented an alibi regarding the time of the victim's death, the narrative was changed to claim that Hsuch Tzu-chiang had gone back midway to wipe away fingerprints, and that the victim was not murdered by Hsuch Tzu-chiang. Second, the court once questioned why Hsuch Tzu-chiang never called the victim's family to extort them; the other accomplices explained that because the victim's family knew Hsuch Tzu-chiang, they were afraid his voice would be recognized and thus did not let him make the calls. However, when the victim's parents and spouse testified in court, they all unanimously stated that they did not know Hsuch Tzu-chiang at all. Third, prior to his apprehension, one of the accomplices had explained to Hsuch Tzu-chiang's family that Hsuch Tzu-chiang had not participated in the crime. Fourth, the other accomplices could never offer a self-consistent explanation as to why Hsuch Tzu-chiang allegedly wiped fingerprints out in the open on the street during working hours at 9:00 AM on the day of the incident, nor how he traveled from the crime scene in Shih-taih back to his residence in Kueishan, Taoyuan. Fifth, regarding the rental car, the other accomplices stole a car to commit the crime out of fear of exposing their identities, yet claimed they asked Hsuch Tzu-chiang to rent a car on their behalf. Hsuch Tzu-chiang is not foolish; had he participated in this criminal act, how could he have used his true identity to rent a car and expose himself? Furthermore, regarding the timing, process, tools, and vehicles of the crime, the other two accomplices were entirely inconsistent with each other, generating numerous contradictions. How could such a confession inspire absolute certainty and serve as the basis to sentence Hsuch Tzu-chiang—who has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence—to death?

During the proceedings, the court was not unaware of the aforementioned doubts. Therefore, upon the first appeal to the Supreme Court, the court previously instructed the High Court to ascertain whether there was corroborating evidence for the accomplices' allegations implicating Hsuch Tzu-chiang, and to investigate the numerous contradictions among the accomplices' accounts. Regrettably, after multiple remands for retrial by the courts, no other evidence implicating Hsuch Tzu-chiang in the crime was ever found. In the end, perhaps because the accusations made by the other accomplices were too vehement, or because the criminal act in this case was heinous, evidence such as Hsuch Tzu-chiang's alibi, the fact that he never made extortion calls, and his financial disputes with other accomplices failed to dispel the judges' inner doubts regarding him. Consequently, under the banner of justice, the legal provisions concerning corroborating evidence, the flaws in accomplices' confessions, and the remand instructions of the Supreme Court all became inconsequential. The Fifth Remanded Retrial still sentenced Hsuch Tzu-chiang to death, and under the exact same reasoning, the Supreme Court seemingly forgot the doubts it had previously identified, refusing to remand the case for retrial once more and rendering the death sentence final.

Right as Hsuch Tzu-chiang faced the death penalty, his family, the Judicial Reform Foundation, and other individuals concerned with the case continued to run about lobbying, drawing public attention. The Control Yuan intervened to investigate the case and discovered multiple flaws in the evidence collection. Prosecutor-General Lu Jen-fa of the Supreme Prosecutors Office also filed an extraordinary appeal on the grounds that the judgment violated the law, reigniting a glimmer of hope for justice in Hsuch Tzu-chiang. Yet, just as everyone expected the Supreme Court to remand the case for a retrial and allow for a thorough reinvestigation, the result was negative, plunging Hsuch Tzu-chiang once more into the abyss of the death penalty.

Some might believe that the punishment of criminals is the manifestation of justice and that cases should be finalized swiftly to comfort the souls of the victims in heaven. But is this truly the case? After thoroughly reviewing all case files and evidence, can anyone be 100% certain that Hsuch Tzu-chiang participated in the kidnapping and extortion scheme, daring to execute him without the slightest hesitation or doubt? I fear one cannot be so certain. It is entirely possible that after the death penalty is carried out, rather than practicing justice, Hsuch Tzu-chiang will instead become another victim of the judicial process. I believe the victim, resting in the netherworld, cannot find solace in Hsuch Tzu-chiang's wrongful grievance.

Furthermore, on June 24, 1996, even though Hsuch Tzu-chiang clearly knew that his co-accomplices had already been sentenced to death by the Shihlin District Court, he still willingly surrendered himself to authorities to clarify the facts of the case. At that time, the reasoning and courage that led him to believe the judicial system could restore his innocence are likely too painful to look back upon; all that remains is despair over the principles of justice and equity. However, knowing full well that a case involves doubts and carries the death penalty, if we simply execute it in such an obscure manner and sit idly by while the possibility of a miscarriage of justice exists, what is the meaning of the judiciary? Life, in particular, cannot be relived, replaced, or compensated; the judiciary should certainly not tolerate ambiguity. We must not let judicial negligence cause any individual harm. We earnestly petition the Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Prosecutors Office to file another extraordinary appeal, hoping that the court may be granted an opportunity to uncover the truth. At the same time, this is also an opportunity to truly manifest justice, allowing society to witness the progress and true essence of the judiciary.

※ Published in: The Liberty Times