Hsiao Ming-yueh Case

Hsiao Ming-yueh was accused by other defendants of being the leader of an international drug-trafficking ring, who allegedly instructed group member Sung Yun-hsien to fly to Cambodia to discuss a heroin transaction with a mysterious figure known as "Brother Ku," and then mail the heroin concealed inside books to convenience stores in Taiwan for pickup. Group members Sung Yun-hua and Lu Chang-chun in Taiwan allegedly collected the packages from the convenience stores, and subsequently pressed and packaged the heroin. Meanwhile, Liang Chia-lin claimed that he was entrusted by Hsiao Ming-yueh to manage the work allocation for the entire syndicate.

But is the truth really like this? In this case, there is no direct evidence pointing to Hsiao Ming-yueh's involvement. The judge's sole basis relies on the testimonies of other co-defendants, all of whom later retracted their statements during trial proceedings. Despite this, Hsiao Ming-yueh has been sentenced to life imprisonment across successive trials. Riddled with doubts, this case is currently receiving full rescue efforts from the Judicial Reform Foundation.

Key Evidence Unrelated to Hsiao Ming-yueh

1. Fingerprints on the package: Only the "left index finger" print of Sung Yun-hsien was found on the outer plastic packaging and children's books; it had nothing to do with Hsiao Ming-yueh.
2. Wiretap recording identification: The wiretapped audio CD of conversations with the postal worker and convenience store clerk showed a voice feature similarity rate of about 78.56% with Liang Chia-lin's voiceprint, and had nothing to do with Hsiao Ming-yueh.
3. Remittance slips, outward remittance, and transfer application forms: The fact that Sung Yun-hua obtained money from Kuo Che-wei and was responsible for finding someone to remit money to Sung Yun-hsien is evidenced by the foreign exchange transaction memo and copies of the outward remittance application form with Sung Yun-hsien as the payee, which had nothing to do with Hsiao Ming-yueh.

Serious Identification Error during Police Interrogation

During police interrogation, Lu Chang-chun identified Hsiao Ming-yueh's residence, but made a mistaken identification. Yet this residence was determined by the court of first instance to be a key location for discussing the disposal of illicit gains (Hsiao lived in "Yafeng Village," but they identified "Dayafeng Village").

Crime Established Solely on Statements

This case established Hsiao Ming-yueh's participation in the entire crime and his status as the "leader" based solely on the statements of co-defendants, without any other strong corroborating evidence.

Inconsistent Key Testimonies and Subsequent Retractions by Accomplices

1. On September 17, 2012, after Hsiao Ming-yueh was sentenced to life imprisonment by the first instance court, Kuo Che-wei submitted a written criminal confession statement to the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court

   "Your Honor, actually Hsiao Ming-yueh never participated in the smuggling at all. It was Liang Chia-lin... who told me to pin it on Hsiao Ming-yueh. They told me that doing so would allow me to get a sentence reduction (and they also promised to let me get a sentence reduction, which is why I framed Hsiao Ming-yueh together with the others). Your Honor, I really had no choice; I was just running errands for Liang Chia-lin, but because Ah-lin was caught first, he pushed all the blame onto me, causing me to be sentenced to life... I had no choice but to listen to them and frame Ah-yueh together to strive for a sentence reduction. I hope Your Honor can understand my predicament and forgive my selfishness."

2. Sung Yun-hsien retracted his testimony at the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Court on August 30, 2012

   "(To your knowledge, who participated in this act?) My younger brother Sung Yun-hua, Lu Chang-chun, Liang Chia-lin." "(Did Hsiao Ming-yueh participate?) No. Not at that time. He was not in it from the beginning."
   "(Throughout the entire case, including your first trip to Cambodia to do a test run, returning, and going back to Cambodia to mail the heroin, during this process, did Hsiao Ming-yueh ever discuss this with you?) No."
   "(Why did you mention that Hsiao Ming-yueh participated in this case after the ban was lifted? Why did you say that at the time?) At the time, because of Liang Chia-lin, I mean, I don't know how to put it. He was the boss, why should we be sentenced more severely than the boss?"

3. Sung Yun-hua retracted his testimony at the Taichung District Court on August 23, 2011

   "(You just said that what you stated during the investigation about the drug trafficking situation was misled by Liang Chia-lin, which is why you said that. How did Liang Chia-lin mislead you?) Near the end of the investigation, it was originally agreed that the facts of the case would stop at Liang Chia-lin, and what I said at the district court was also that I was acting under Liang Chia-lin's instructions. At that time, Liang Chia-lin told me that if I bit Hsiao Ming-yueh, I could strive for a sentence reduction."
   "(During the process of your detention, did the defendant Hsiao Ming-yueh come to see you?) Yes."
   "(When the defendant came to see you, did he mention that Liang Chia-lin had someone give you 300,000 NTD?) Yes."
   "(Why did Liang Chia-lin want to give you 300,000 NTD?) Because I got into trouble at the time, and Liang Chia-lin said he wanted to give money to my family."
   "(What was the purpose of this 300,000 NTD?) It wasn't given in the end. The 300,000 NTD he originally said he wanted to give me was to hire a lawyer to fight the lawsuit."
   "(Let me ask you what your relationship with Liang Chia-lin is, why did he spend money to help you hire a lawyer?) Because during the drug smuggling and trafficking process, I followed Liang Chia-lin's instructions."

Improper Interrogation and Inducement by Prosecutor during Investigation

The testimony given on June 8, 2011, was suspected to have been obtained by the prosecutor through improper means, instigation, and other methods violating legal procedures.

Prosecutor:
"What we are talking about now concerns whether your future appeal to the second instance will be commuted to a lighter sentence. If you talk nonsense, you will get an additional charge of perjury, because you have already signed this witness oath, do you understand what I mean? Perjury carries a fixed-term imprisonment of less than seven years, which might result in a heavier sentence. You need to figure out getting an extra charge."
"Think about it, it's fine, bring a chair for him to sit down, think it through carefully, this makes a difference for your sentence, otherwise you will be given the heaviest sentence, you need to think carefully."
"If you are like this, it might not make much difference to your sentence, then I won't ask anymore either."
"It's fine, this is your own choice, then I won't bring you up anymore in the future, let the High Court make the judgment, alright?"
"Kuo Che-wei, the prosecutor is telling you, this is your last chance, if you protect him again, it will be of no use to you."
Such statements induced and coerced Kuo Che-wei, alongside phrases like "Just say that he (referring to Hsiao Ming-yueh) came to look for you, right?" and "Because Hsiao Ming-yueh is an accomplice, isn't he?"

This directly demanded Kuo Che-wei to claim that the defendant Hsiao Ming-yueh was an accomplice, showing that Kuo Che-wei's statements made to the prosecutor during this investigation evidently lacked credibility and should be deemed inadmissible as evidence.

Learn More

1. In-Depth News / Implicated in Drug Smuggling Case, He Was Unjustly Accused as Mastermind and Imprisoned for Life
2. Framed at 27 and Sentenced to Life Imprisonment, Both Daughters Under 5 Years Old... How the Judiciary So Cruelly Ravages an Innocent Family