Post-Event Press Release | How Can We Prevent Wrongful Convictions? Building Systems for Evidence Custody and Forensic Science

To press the government to implement the resolutions of the National Conference on Judicial Reform, the Civil Society Alliance for Monitoring Implementation of the Conference Resolutions has organized a series of follow-up press conferences and forums. The first event addressed the prevention of wrongful convictions, a central issue of the Conference's First Subcommittee, and focused on systemic miscarriages of justice caused by failures in evidence custody, chain-of-custody procedures, and the evaluation of forensic-science evidence. The online forum, "How Can We Prevent Wrongful Convictions? Building Systems for Evidence Custody and Forensic Science," was held yesterday, August 26. Professor Li Chun-I of National Taiwan University's Department and Graduate Institute of Forensic Medicine was the speaker, with Lo Shih-Hsiang, Executive Director of the Taiwan Association for Innocence, and JRF Chairperson Lin Yung-Sung as discussants.

I. Causes of the Current Problems and Directions for Reform

Professor Li Chun-I first explained how evidence is lost, how weaknesses in custody procedures contribute to wrongful convictions, and proposed eight areas for reform.

Professor Li identified recurring forms of evidence loss: physical evidence never placed in the case file; missing audio or video files; improper storage; destruction after a judgment becomes final or after a retention period expires; samples consumed during forensic testing; police misappropriation of property held in custody; investigators stealing or substituting seized items; and losses for unknown reasons. Underlying causes include unclear transportation and handover procedures, substitution or disappearance of items, unsuitable storage facilities or conditions, loss while in custody, inaccurate seizure records, and unclear definitions of what counts as evidence or part of the case file. These failures have occurred in actual criminal cases:

	Case	Evidence Issue	Disputed Issue	Filing for Relief	Result
1	Chiang Kuo-Ching Case (1996)	Wooden block missing	Whose bloody palmprint was on the block	Prosecutors sought retrial after matching the palmprint to another person and considering other evidence	Exonerated
2	Hsu Tzu-Chiang Case (1995)	Call-detail records held by the Criminal Investigation Bureau were destroyed with the case files during Typhoon Nari	Whether he was an accomplice	Yes	Exonerated (2016)
3	Cheng Hsing-Tse Case (2002)	Crime-scene inspection video not included in the case file (police)	Doubts about the crime-scene reconstruction	The prosecution filed for a retrial based on other evidence	Exonerated (2017)
4	Hsieh Chih-Hung Case (2000)	Whereabouts statement not included in the case file; audio/video files of the police-interrogation record missing (police)	Alibi; admissibility of the police-interrogation record	Prosecutors located the whereabouts statement and sought retrial together with other evidence	Exonerated (2020)
5	Hsu Jung-Chou Case (2011)	Wooden block missing	Whether the mark was a bloody palmprint	Yes	Exonerated (2012)
6	Liu OO Case (2004)	Convenience-store receipt not included in the case file (police)	Alibi	Yes	Exonerated (2018)
7	Chan OO Case (2014)	Firearm and ammunition destroyed	Unable to determine whether the firearm and ammunition in the present case came from the same manufacturer as the destroyed items	Yes	Exonerated (2015)
8	Chiu Ho-Shun Case (1988)	Extortion-demand audio recording missing	Probative-value issue	Requested retesting	Dismissed (2017)
9	Lu Chin-Kai Case (1993)	DNA sample exhausted during forensic testing	DNA profile excluded Lu Chin-Kai; DNA from another person was found on other evidence in the case, leaving the question of an accomplice for further testing	Requested retesting	Dismissed (2021)
10	Chang OO Sexual Assault Case (2012)	DNA sample exhausted during forensic testing	Discriminatory power of the DNA profile	Requested retesting	Dismissed
11	Chen Lung-Chi Case (2010)	DNA sample exhausted during forensic testing	Discriminatory power of the DNA profile	Requested retesting	Exonerated (2014)
12	Shen Hung-Lin Case (1989)	Fingerprint film destroyed together with the case file (police)	Probative-value issue	Yes	Dismissed (2014)
13	Chu Ching-En Prosecution Case (1999)	Case file destroyed (district prosecutors office)	Failure to consider evidence favorable to the defendant	Prosecutors sought retrial	Dismissed (2021)
14	Yang OO Case	Steel evidence missing (police)	Requested return after acquittal became final	Filed a state-compensation claim	Compensated

In August 2017, the National Conference on Judicial Reform resolved that the Executive Yuan, together with the Judicial Yuan, should study and establish a system governing evidence custody and retention after final judgment, including custody methods, retention periods, and clear legal consequences for violations. Yet at an April 22, 2019 Ministry of Justice meeting on continuity of evidence custody, most participating agencies took the position that existing evidence-management and supervision mechanisms presented no operational difficulty and that uniform rules would be harder to establish. Because of the Ministry's opposition, the Conference resolution had made no meaningful progress.

Professor Li urged the Ministry of Justice to move beyond repeating the same objections, seriously consider how to implement the Conference resolution, and improve Taiwan's evidence-custody system. He proposed reforms in eight areas:

1. Create a Unified National Platform for Rapid Tracking and Integration
   • Establish a single nationwide information platform for evidence management.
   • Assign each item of evidence a unique identifier so that, from seizure through destruction, the responsible personnel, agency, and storage location can be tracked quickly.
   • Make every item of evidence in a case searchable and capable of statistical analysis by responsible agency, case type, evidence type, responsible personnel, and other fields.
2. Adopt a Two-Stage Custody Model with Clear Responsibility to Reduce the Risk of Evidence Loss
   • Use separate pre-indictment and post-indictment custody stages to avoid repeated transfers and verification and to reduce unnecessary resource use.
   • Before indictment, investigation may involve repeated scene examinations, forensic testing, and evidence collection, so custody by a dedicated unit within the investigative agency may be most practical.
   • After indictment, investigative agencies should no longer retain the evidence. To avoid conflicts of interest or suspicion, all evidence should be transferred to the judicial authority handling the case for centralized custody.
3. Improve Storage Facilities to Preserve Evidence
   • Provide classified storage spaces that satisfy appropriate safety and preservation requirements.
   • Store evidence according to differing needs arising from size, value, fragility, perishability, hazardous substances, controlled drugs, biological traces, and similar characteristics, with video surveillance.
4. Establish Rules That Protect the Chain of Custody
   • Require video recording of searches, seizures, scene examinations, evidence collection, and handovers, and standardize chain-of-custody procedures to protect the identity and continuity of evidence.
5. Establish Rules That Protect the Authenticity of Evidence
   • Use measures such as encryption, internal standards, and consecutively numbered scans of case files to protect evidence against alteration and help establish authenticity.
6. Define the Scope of Evidence and Rules for Preservation
   • Ensure preservation of all items or information that may later become evidence.
   • Define what must be treated as evidence. All information collected in an investigation should be brought within the official custody system rather than kept privately, and rules should govern whether physical evidence is stored with or separately from the case file and how it is identified.
7. Establish Rules for Testing and Retention of Evidence
   • Protect the legal ability to conduct later retesting.
8. Define Custody Duties and the Legal Consequences of Violations
   • Consider the Code of Criminal Procedure amendments proposed by civil society so that evidence-custody duties and the legal consequences of noncompliance are expressly regulated.

II. Evidence Authentication and Custody Need Clear Legal Rules and Consequences

Attorney Lo Shih-Hsiang responded from the perspective of wrongful-conviction cases he has handled and proposed three directions for reform.

Lo noted that, during the First Subcommittee meetings of the National Conference on Judicial Reform, participants proposed that:

1. A chain-of-custody system should be established and the legal consequences of violations should be expressly defined.
2. The retention period and methods for preserving evidence after a judgment becomes final should be regulated.

The Taiwan Association for Innocence has since developed three proposed directions for amendment:

1. Evidence authentication: the party offering physical evidence should make a prima facie showing that the item is authentic.
2. Custody duties and legal consequences: public officials should have an express duty to preserve evidence, and the law should specify how courts are to respond when that duty is breached.
3. Post-final-judgment preservation: where the correctness of a final conviction remains in doubt, the convicted person should have a right to request continued preservation of relevant evidence.

III. Evidence Favorable to the Defendant Must Also Be Preserved

JRF Chairperson Lin Yung-Sung drew on cases in which he had served as defense counsel and emphasized that evidence favorable to the defendant also needs a reliable preservation mechanism. The system should not allow police and prosecutors to seize a large body of material and then decide unilaterally which items will be treated as evidence and presented in court.

In practice, investigators may seize many items, submit those regarded as incriminating, and omit material that could favor the defendant. Taiwan currently lacks a comprehensive, traceable system governing custody both before and after a judgment becomes final, and that gap has contributed to wrongful convictions. Lin argued that the relevant duties and procedures should be expressly set out in law.

During the general discussion, former Grand Justice Hsu Yu-Hsiu, initiator of the Simulated Constitutional Court and Simulated Asian Human Rights Court, likewise argued for centralized evidence-storage locations and clear rules governing access. The Civil Society Alliance for Monitoring Implementation of the National Conference on Judicial Reform Resolutions called on the government to study institutional reforms promptly and implement the Conference resolutions on evidence custody so that systemic failures do not continue to produce wrongful convictions. The Alliance also invited the public to participate in its upcoming forums on other unresolved Conference issues.

Press Contacts

Chen Yang, Legislative Researcher, Judicial Reform Foundation
Phone: 02-2523-1178#21; 0906-796-327
Email: sandy@jrf.org.tw