A Cold-Eyed Perspective on the Courtroom Kaleidoscope: Court Observation Records of the Aimiyar Case

The Aimiyar case may not be a homicide case that garnered exceptional public attention in Taiwan. However, due to Aimiyar's unique status as a Southeast Asian migrant worker and the severity of the death penalty demanded by the prosecution, I was drawn to observe and understand this case. I wanted to see how the Taiwanese judiciary would handle the judicial process and deliver its verdict regarding a foreign national. Therefore, on August 18, 2008, the date of the court hearing, I headed south to Kaohsiung to enjoy the warmth of the harbor city while also conducting a thorough courtroom observation of the proceedings at the Kaohsiung District Court...

Aimiyar Case Part 1: A Prelude Before the Hearing

Just as I was leisurely taking out my notebook to get ready, a fierce wave of hostility suddenly came straight at me...

Court Bailiff: "What are you doing? Are you a reporter?" (Fierce)
Me: (Inner monologue: Should I tell him I'm here to do a courtroom observation?... Alright! I'll just go along and say 'yes' to avoid getting barred from taking notes later.) "Um... yeah!"
Court Bailiff: "Even if you're a reporter, you have to register with me. You can only take notes with my permission!" (Fierce)
Me: (Inner monologue: Such grandiose official authority!) "But the Courtroom Auditing Rules don't say you can't take notes..." Court Bailiff: "But you need my permission!" (Fierce)!
Judge: "What's going on? Is he a reporter?"
Me: "Yes." Judge: "You don't need to be so aggressive toward our court staff. This is a courtroom, and I can ask you to leave!

"Besides, the Courtroom Auditing Rules do stipulate that no transcription, video recording, or audio recording is allowed inside the courtroom. We are only letting you transcribe because you are a reporter, but even as a reporter, you must still comply with the court staff's rules."
Me: "Um! Okay, I understand, I'll pay attention." (Inner monologue: The auditing rules clearly only mention no audio or video recording, where on earth does it say no transcription? Whatever! Observation is more important, I better not talk back.)

The hearing was originally scheduled for 9:45 AM. Due to waiting for the interpreter, it actually started around 10:00 AM. Before the hearing even officially commenced, the aforementioned "unrelated to the case" true face of Taiwan's courtroom had already played out in reality. This probably still has quite a gap from President Lai In-jaw's desire to narrow the distance between the judiciary and the people, doesn't it?

Aimiyar Case Part 2: Observation Records

After the hearing began at 10:00 AM, the judge first informed the interpreter of the obligation to translate accurately, and then explained to the defendant that since one of the judges on the collegial panel had been replaced, all the content submitted during the preparatory proceedings needed to be reviewed again, asking whether the defendant consented. After the defendant expressed no objection, a lengthy "recap" process immediately unfolded, taking up more than an hour and a half until 11:40 AM. However, during this lengthy procedure, the performances of the various figures in the courtroom were what I cared about more.

First was the presiding judge. I thought the presiding judge demonstrated considerable patience, asking the defendant questions in a very gentle manner and waiting for the interpreter and Aimiyar to finish communicating before moving on to the next question. The defense counsel's opinions were also fully consulted, with the judge "frequently" asking the defendant's lawyer if they had any opinions to express. The other two judges on the collegial panel also appeared quite engaged, remaining focused on the presiding judge's questioning process from beginning to end without doing anything else or dozing off.

On the other hand, regarding the prosecutor, I personally felt it was somewhat exaggerated. When the judge asked the prosecutor if they had any opinions, the prosecutor merely said coolly, "None." At other times, the prosecutor could be seen closing their eyes to rest from time to time—one could imagine this prosecutor must have worked quite late last night, resulting in a lack of sleep! When the presiding judge finally asked the prosecutor to present their argument, the prosecutor read out the indictment—demanding the death penalty to comfort the deceased—with sleepy eyes. The closing argument was a "perfect" 3-minute speech.

As for the defense counsel, there were two lawyers, and they had done their homework thoroughly. Whether the judge was asking questions or demanding debate, they were able to fully reason and explain themselves, and they were articulate and well-organized. If I were the defendant, I would undoubtedly feel much more at ease having such defense attorneys.

In addition, the judge also gave the agent for the private prosecutor and the victim's family an opportunity to present arguments. The agent for the private prosecutor generally based their arguments on the content of the prosecutor's indictment while also raising several suspicious points, showing a high degree of familiarity with the case facts—giving the impression of a conscientious lawyer as well. Meanwhile, the victim's family had also drafted their own statement to assist in their argument. Emotionally, it was evident that the family's grief remained, but rationally, they attempted to present their arguments with a rational attitude in the courtroom, which was admirable. After all, having lost loved ones, what we frequently saw in court in the past were mostly the victim's family members losing control and hurling abuses. This time, the victim's family members managed to restrain their anger as much as possible during the hearing, which was no small feat.

As for other figures in the courtroom, much like the phenomena I often observed in courtrooms in the past, the clerk typed slowly. The court clerk/bailiff's assistant this time was replaced by a substitute service draftee, but basically, he couldn't play the role of an interpreter either, requiring someone else to be hired for translation duties. I saw this substitute service draftee either receiving and dispatching documents, zoning out, or reading his own book, even using a highlighter to mark notes in the book. It seemed he was working hard to prepare for exams; his career planning before discharge was certainly fulfilling.

This court hearing took nearly two and a half hours to conclude. Throughout this lengthy process, the entire experience can simply be described by the word "exhaustion." Yet, in a matter concerning a person's life such as the "death penalty," one would rather ensure the pursuit of truth and facts in the courtroom with absolute precision. In major criminal cases, avoiding the repeated occurrence of botched verdicts relies entirely on the dedicated efforts of everyone in the courtroom and the faithful implementation of procedural justice. Only then is it possible to achieve substantive justice.