Twenty Years of Presumption of "Guilt"

The High Court, in the ninth remand retrial, acquitted Hsu Tzu-chiang, with the sole rationale being the "presumption of innocence." Those four powerful words in the press release struck a chord deep within, evoking immense emotion. After twenty years, the "Hsu Tzu-chiang Case" reached a climax in the High Court's First Criminal Special Division courtroom, where a packed crowd of citizens held their breath awaiting the verdict. When Presiding Judge Hsieh Ching-heng announced, "The original judgment is revoked, Hsu Tzu-chiang is acquitted," the solemn courtroom instantly erupted in irrepressible cheers.

The Hsu Tzu-chiang case took place on the morning of September 1, 1995. The victim was kidnapped in Neihu by Huang Ming-chuan, Chen I-lung, and Huang Ch'un-ch'i, and was immediately taken to the mountainous area of Hsichih and murdered. Chen I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i took turns extorting ransom from the victim's family. Later, the two were successively arrested and persistently claimed that Hsu Tzu-chiang participated in the crime. Huang Ming-chuan died in Thailand the following year.

Judges all understand the principle of the presumption of innocence, but in this case, there were only unfavorable statements from two co-defendants, with no other corroborating evidence. Furthermore, pro bono defense attorneys noted that materials held by the police task force which could have proven Hsu Tzu-chiang did not participate in the crime mysteriously vanished, with police claiming they were destroyed by flooding from Typhoon Nari. On the contrary, Hsu Tzu-chiang was able to present various alibis, yet prior to the ninth remand retrial, the courts turned a blind eye to them. Hsu Tzu-chiang helplessly stated that what he has been doing over the past twenty years is simply trying to prove his own innocence.

In 1997, during an era when the judiciary was still authoritarian and human rights were a luxury, Hsu Tzu-chiang was denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the two co-defendants, leading to successive death sentences. In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's fifth remand retrial judgment, finalizing Hsu Tzu-chiang's death sentence and leaving him at risk of execution at any time. The Judicial Reform Foundation urgently launched rescue efforts, hoping to stay the execution.

Throughout the 15 years of rescue efforts, this "guilty" verdict—which could not withstand scrutiny—was successively subjected to five extraordinary appeals filed by the Prosecutor-General, setting a judicial record. In 2001, an investigation by the Control Yuan explicitly pointed out that the judgment was unlawful. In 2002, Professor Ho Lai-chieh of National Chengchi University, Professor Huang Chao-yi of Soochow University, and Professor Li Mao-sheng of National Taiwan University jointly published a judgment evaluation, arguing that the verdict was hasty and relied solely on mutual corroboration between the confessions of two co-defendants, lacking other evidence. It was not until 2004, with the promulgation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 582, that a glimmer of hope finally emerged for the Hsu Tzu-chiang case, temporarily sparing him from execution.

Faced with the requirements of Interpretation No. 582, how should judges render their verdict? Interpretation No. 582 stated that a defendant's "right to cross-examine" witnesses is a "right to a fair trial" guaranteed by the Constitution and is a universal fundamental human right. Pursuant to the requirements of Interpretation No. 582 and Article 158-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a co-defendant is a witness and must appear in court to take an oath, make a statement, and be subject to cross-examination by the defendant. Only after this statutory procedure is fulfilled can a co-defendant's statement be used as evidence.

We thought Interpretation No. 582 would save Hsu Tzu-chiang. However, the unfavorable statements made by the two co-defendants before the police and prosecutors acted like poisoned honey, tempting the judges of the sixth, seventh, and eighth remand retrials to continue relying upon them. As a result, Interpretation No. 582 was repeatedly hollowed out. Finally, the judges of the ninth remand retrial returned to Interpretation No. 582, ruling that Huang Ch'un-ch'i's testimony lacked probative force, and Chen I-lung's statements were deemed inadmissible due to major flaws contrary to common sense, allowing Hsu Tzu-chiang to be acquitted.

The ninth remand retrial verdict for Hsu Tzu-chiang is merely the first step toward justice. Other wrongful conviction cases, including those of Cheng Hsing-tse and Chiou Ho-shun, are still languishing on death row awaiting a stroke of fortune. We can only use this to remind judges to strictly uphold the presumption of innocence and adjudicate according to the law. When the judiciary humbles itself to recognize that it too can make mistakes and shows a willingness to change, that is the best way to defend judicial dignity!