What Does It Take for a Judge to Believe Me?

After 20 years, the retrial (the 9th remand) of the Hsu Tzu-chiang case entered the "evidence investigation" phase of the trial yesterday (June 24). This court session drew significant attention, partly due to concerns that the presiding judge's upcoming promotion to the Supreme Court in September might disrupt the proceedings.

When judges change, if no successor takes over, a judge under time pressure rushing to conclude the case easily invites criticism of perfunctoriness. If a new judge does take over, they must understand the case from scratch, and the defendants and lawyers must adapt to the new judge's legal interpretations and procedural management. When a case is complex, these problems become even more prominent. The defense lawyers in this case have applied for the investigation of multiple pieces of evidence favorable to Hsu Tzu-chiang, which the panel of judges has yet to respond to. Such personnel changes leave everyone feeling anxious and conflicted.

Huang Chun-chi Refuses to Testify: Police Interrogation Records Resurrected?

In addition, whether Huang Chun-chi, the witness (co-defendant) who has tightly implicated Hsu Tzu-chiang in the crime, would ultimately be willing to take an oath, testify, and be cross-examined at this hearing also drew attention to the session. In accordance with Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 582 and Article 158-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness must appear in court, take an oath, make a statement, and be subject to cross-examination by the defendant. Only by fulfilling this statutory procedure can Huang Chun-chi's statements potentially be used as evidence.

Huang Chun-chi is the death row inmate who has been "imprisoned the longest" in Taiwan. Whether he implicates Hsu Tzu-chiang or confesses to his innocence—thus determining whether Hsu Tzu-chiang is guilty or innocent—Huang faces execution by firing squad. At this juncture of life and death, the uncertainties of this case are what keep Huang alive, and it is entirely expected that he would remain silent to protect his own interests. Expecting Huang to take an oath, testify, and undergo cross-examination is unrealistic.

As expected, at this court session, Huang Chun-chi still refused to take an oath or answer any questions, using the excuse: "Why is it that only the defendant can question me, but I cannot question the defendant? Judicial injustice!" So what happens to Huang's previous unfavorable statements against Hsu Tzu-chiang? Can they still be used as evidence?

What Happened to Interpretation No. 582?

The Grand Justices in 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 a universal fundamental human right. However, the judges of the 8th remand trial stated that Huang Chun-chi's refusal to make a statement precisely met the conditions of Article 159-3, Paragraph 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding "refusing to make a statement without justifiable reason." The effect is that Huang's statements, made without undergoing cross-examination, can be used as evidence. This easily hollows out Interpretation No. 582!

The interpretation by the 8th remand court, which surpassed that of the Grand Justices, led to the absurd result that an accomplice could first falsely implicate others in a crime during police investigations, and subsequently refuse to testify during court trial proceedings, thereby endowing police interrogation records with evidentiary capability and convicting an innocent person.

In response, defense lawyers strongly argued today that, under constitutional interpretation, Huang Chun-chi's refusal to testify does not apply to the provisions of Article 159-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the fundamental problem is that Article 159-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violates the parties' right to cross-examination guaranteed by the Constitution, and they petitioned the court to suspend the trial and apply for a constitutional interpretation.

Presenting Records Page by Page: Making Judicial Proceedings More Transparent

Despite the aforementioned concerns, yesterday's hearing still had "highlights." Over the past 20 years, Hsu Tzu-chiang has consistently maintained that the confessions of co-defendants Huang Chun-chi and Chen I-lung were false and untrustworthy. Huang stated that he was severely mistreated by the police, while Chen claimed he was coerced by them. Their statements during prosecutors' interrogations and throughout successive trials have continuously been impeached for truthfulness by defense lawyers.

At the request of the defense lawyers and pursuant to Article 288, Paragraph 2 and Article 288-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the panel of judges today presented Huang Chun-chi's police interrogation, prosecutor interrogation, and trial proceedings records regarding the witness (co-defendant) Huang Chun-chi "one by one, page by page" in chronological order of the interrogation dates. The defense lawyers were thus able to directly express their opinions on the evidentiary capability and probative force of the presented records.

The collegial panel in this case has digitized all case files and evidence. In an e-court setting, presenting the records one by one allowed the defense lawyers to express their opinions smoothly. Through a total of four 100-inch projections, members of the public observing the trial could clearly see the content of the records currently focused on by the judge, prosecutor, and defense, making the proceedings even more transparent.

Through this, the defense lawyers clearly and methodically exposed the contradictions in Huang Chun-chi's statements. For example, on the day of the kidnapping and extortion on September 1, 1995, regarding how many vehicles were used in the crime, Huang claimed there was only "one" vehicle. He stated that after Hsu Tzu-chiang participated in the kidnapping, Huang drove, Huang Ming-ch'üan sat in the front passenger seat, Chen I-lung sat in the right rear seat, Hsu Tzu-chiang sat in the left rear seat, and the victim sat in the middle.

However, after Chen I-lung was captured, he told the police that after Hsu Tzu-chiang participated in the kidnapping, he first returned to the crime scene to wipe away fingerprints. Therefore, four people—including the victim, Chen I-lung, Huang Chun-chi, and Huang Ming-ch'üan—split into "two cars" to head to the mountainous area of Hsichih: Huang Chun-chi drove the stolen getaway car, while Chen I-lung drove a rented car. Discrepancies on such a simple yet important issue deepen doubts about the truthfulness of the co-defendants' statements.

What Burden of Proof Did the Prosecutor Bear?

While the defense actively pointed out the contradictions and untrustworthiness in the co-defendants' statements, the "prosecution"—which bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt to the extent of leaving no reasonable doubt—changed its personnel for the 4th time, maintaining its unchanging stance of "no opinion." Even more disqualifying, the prosecutor attending the court session ignored the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and requested to present the disputed witness statements of the defendant in a bundled manner, which was rejected by the judge.

Facing the trial, the defendant Hsu Tzu-chiang helplessly said, "For 20 years, I have been doing the exact same thing: continuously proving my own innocence." At yesterday's hearing, the defense lawyers questioned the prosecutor: "While we are constantly proving our own innocence, what on earth has the prosecutor done to fulfill the burden of proof?"

20 years of litigation, 16 years of imprisonment, 15 years of rescue—the significance of these numbers is suffering, and the end of suffering is expectation and hope. We hope that the presiding judges will uphold the most important belief of legal professionals: the presumption of innocence, and stop letting wronged people suffer!