Li Jin holds the retrial verdict
Poster News reporter Tian Yang reports
On December 29, the Sichuan Provincial High People's Court pronounced a verdict on the retrial of Li Jin for robbery, and Li Jin was acquitted. The Sichuan Provincial High People's Court held that the facts ascertained in the original judgment were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and that the defendant Li Jin of the original trial could not be found guilty, and ruled to revoke the criminal ruling of the Sichuan Provincial High People's Court (1999) Chuan Xing Zhong Zi No. 444 and the criminal judgment of the Chengdu Railway Transport Intermediate Court (1998) Cheng Tie Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 44, and that the defendant Li Jin of the original trial was not guilty.
After the verdict was announced, Li Jin told the poster news reporter: "It took 30 years to win this lawsuit, I don't know how to feel." Now such a verdict has come quite late. From being arrested at the age of 28 to being acquitted at the age of 56, Li Jin has spent most of his life in this lawsuit.
On December 28, Li Jin told a poster news reporter: "I believe that the Sichuan High Court will give me a fair verdict, and I believe that." He also said that if the verdict was changed to not guilty, he would first pursue accountability and then apply for state compensation. If the sentence is upheld, he will continue to appeal. As for the rest of my life, I haven't done much planning and thinking about it yet.
"Imprisoned" for 21 years, after being released from prison, he ran to redress his grievances
On April 25, 2023, the Sichuan Provincial High People's Court conducted a retrial of Li Jin's robbery and homicide case. During the trial, the prosecution still accused Li Jin of robbery and murder with others at the Yuanmou Railway Station guest house in 1994, which eventually led to the death of two people. Two of Li Jin's defenders pleaded not guilty.
The controversial case, which took place in 1994, was tried several times, in which two of the suspects were wrongfully convicted and then acquitted, and Lee Kim was sentenced to life in prison. On July 7, 2017, Li Jin was released after completing his sentence, and his sentence was commuted 8 times during his sentence, with a commutation of 8 years and 1 month, and the actual sentence was 14 years, 6 months and 12 days. According to previous media reports, Li Jin was taken into custody and examined by the railway police on September 27, 1995, and was "imprisoned" for 21 years, 9 months and 10 days.
After being released from prison, Li Jin began to run to redress his grievances, requesting a retrial of the murder case of the Yuanmou County Guest House to prove his innocence. According to China News Weekly, Li Jin said that at the time of the crime on October 13, 1994, he was not in Yuanmou County, but working in Yingjiang County, Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan Province, which is more than 700 kilometers apart. Because of this, the case is known as the "Mystery of Murder in the Air".
In May 2019, Li Jin filed an application for retrial with the Sichuan Provincial High People's Court, and on June 11, 2020, the Sichuan High Court issued a Retrial Decision, deciding to initiate retrial procedures for Li Jin's robbery and homicide case.
All three people involved in the case were sentenced in the first instance, and two were acquitted after the second trial
On October 14, 1994, a robbery and murder case known as the "1013 Case" occurred in Yuanmou County, Yunnan Province.
On September 27, 1995, Li Jin was arrested in connection with the case.
In April 1996, two brothers, Pu Fa Cheng and Pu Fa Neng, were also arrested for this case.
On 5 February 1997, the Chengdu Railway Transport Intermediate People's Court, by the (1997) Cheng Tie Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 16 first-instance judgment, found that Li Jin, Pu Fa Cheng and Pu Fa Neng had committed the crime of robbery, and sentenced Li Jin and Pu Fa to death and deprived them of their political rights for life, and sentenced them to death with a two-year reprieve, and deprived them of their political rights for life. Li Jin and the other three were not satisfied and appealed.
On March 18, 1998, the Sichuan Higher People's Court ruled in the second instance (1997) Chuan Fa Xing Yi Zhong Zi No. 389 that the facts of the original judgment were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and the original judgment was revoked and remanded for a new trial.
On April 30, 1999, after a retrial, the Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's Court found Li Jin guilty of robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment and deprivation of political rights for life.
On June 11, 1999, the Chengdu Railway Transport Branch of the Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate lodged a protest against the (1998) Cheng Tie Zhong Xing Chu Zi No. 44 first-instance judgment, arguing that the facts of Li Jin's crime were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the sentence was unusually light, and that the application of law in declaring Platts Brothers not guilty was wrong. At the same time, Li Jin himself also filed a protest after the verdict was announced.
On December 26, 2002, the Sichuan Higher People's Court rejected the prosecutor's protest against Li Jin and upheld the first-instance verdict of life imprisonment for Li Jin in the (1999) Chuan Xing Zhong Zi No. 444 Criminal Ruling.
On September 6, 2010, due to the withdrawal of the prosecutor's counter-appeal, the Sichuan High People's Court issued the (2010) Chuan Xing Zhong Zi No. 666 Criminal Ruling, and the first-instance judgment of Pu Fa Cheng and Pu Fa Neng became not guilty.
In 2011, Chengdu Railway Intermediate People's Court (2011) Cheng Tie Zhong Bao Zi No. 2 "Compensation Decision" compensated Pufa Cheng 202,398.53 yuan.
On 25 July 2003, while in prison, Li Jin submitted a Complaint to the procuratorate.
On November 4, 2004, the Sichuan Provincial Procuratorate issued the Notice of Review of Criminal Appeals [2004] No. 4 of the Sichuan Provincial Procuratorate, rejecting Li Jin's appeal.
On July 7, 2017, Li Jin was released from prison.
On May 27, 2019, Li Jin filed a complaint with the Sichuan High Court.
On June 11, 2022, the Sichuan High People's Court issued the (2019) Chuan Xing Shen No. 130 Retrial Decision, holding that Li Jin's appeal complied with the provisions of Article 253 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 254, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it decided to form a collegial panel for a new trial. On April 25, 2023, Li Jin's case was heard in open court at the Sichuan High Court.
On December 29, 2023, the retrial was announced.
There was no objective evidence at the scene pointing to Li Jin committing the crime, and the existing evidence could not meet the standard of proof in a criminal case
This reporter has learned that the focus of the retrial of this case is whether Li Jin has the time and conditions to commit the crime, and whether the evidence to determine Li Jin's guilt is credible and sufficient.
According to China News Weekly, Li Jin recounted that in the final judgment handed down by the Sichuan High Court, the only direct evidence for his conviction was his own confession of guilt, which was obtained by the investigating authorities through torture and other illegal means. Several verdicts mentioned that the investigators had taken sweat fingerprints, sports rubber shoe prints, and pedaling marks at the scene of the crime, but did not explicitly mention whether the investigation evidence was the imprints left by Li Jin, nor did it indicate whether the fingerprint identification results were Li Jin himself. In 1999, Pu Facheng's defense lawyer also mentioned that the evidence extracted by the public security organs was untrue, and the fingerprints taken at the scene were not left by the defendant.
After the retrial, Li Jin's defense lawyer, Yang Mingkuan, issued a document stating that Li Jin's conviction and sentencing simply did not meet the standard of proof of "clear facts, credible and sufficient evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt". The incriminating evidence on which the verdict was based on conviction and sentencing was illegal evidence obtained through extortion of confessions by torture and should be excluded in accordance with law;
The retrial verdict of the case pointed out that, with regard to the defense reasons put forward by the defendant Li Jin in the original trial that he had alibi evidence at the scene of the crime, upon investigation, the witnesses could not confirm that Li Jin was in Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province on the day of the crime. Li Jin's reason for being tortured is not supported by evidence. Li Jin's defender submitted that the objective evidence in this case was lacking, and the on-site inquest records took blood samples, hair, fingerprints, etc., but except for the fingerprint appraisal opinion attached to the case file, the appraisal opinion of the hair blood sample, footprints, etc., was not in the case, and after investigation it was found to be true, the opinion was adopted. The available evidence does not meet the standard of proof in criminal cases. The main basis for determining the facts of Li Jin's crime is Li Jin's confession of guilt, as well as the corroboration of the confession and identification records with the on-site investigation records. There are certain contradictions between Li Jin's confession of guilt and the objective evidence in the case, the veracity of Li Jin's confession of guilt is doubtful, and there is no objective evidence at the scene pointing to Li Jin's crime, the evidence of Li Jin's conspiratorial crime did not form a complete evidence system, did not meet the statutory standard of proof for evidence to be credible and sufficient, and the relevant justification reasons and defense opinions were established, and this court adopted them. The relevant opinions of the procurator appearing in court are not to be adopted. (Poster News)