Judicial corruption in the case
Below is a professional legal analysis and evaluation of the judicial corruption alleged by Dr. Chen Jingyuan in his Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison. The analysis is grounded in the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Criminal Procedure Law, and relevant regulations on judicial conduct, such as the Judges Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Prosecutors Law of the People’s Republic of China. It evaluates the legal implications of the alleged judicial corruption, the actions of the law enforcement personnel, and the broader impact on the judicial system.
Overview of Chen Jingyuan’s Allegation of Judicial Corruption
Dr. Chen Jingyuan alleges that the Kunming law enforcement personnel engaged in judicial corruption in his case, specifically:
Disregard for Facts and Law: Chen claims that the authorities convicted him of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” despite the lack of evidence to support the charge, which he describes as an “insulting crime” that cannot withstand scrutiny.
Prosecutor’s Confession: Chen cites a prosecutor who allegedly confessed to his lawyer that the evidence was insufficient to establish illegality, let alone a criminal offense, but “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” demanded that the case be made an “ironclad case” and that Chen be “put to death” (interpreted as a metaphor for severe punishment or imprisonment).
Judicial Corruption: Chen asserts that the prosecutor’s confession reveals judicial corruption involving both the prosecutor and “higher-level leaders,” who acted against their conscience to secure his conviction, and that the prosecutor was “complacent and proud” of this misconduct.
Legal Analysis and Evaluation
1. Disregard for Facts and Law
Chen’s Allegation:
Chen claims that the authorities convicted him of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under Article 293 of the Criminal Law, despite a lack of evidence to support the charge. He describes the crime as “insulting” and unable to withstand scrutiny.
Legal Context:
Article 293 of the Criminal Law: The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires specific elements, including “serious disruption to public order” and, in the case of online dissemination, “fabricated information” as per the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Crimes Committed via Information Networks (hereinafter Two Highs Interpretation, Article 5). The Two Highs Interpretation sets quantitative thresholds (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) to establish “serious disruption.”
Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Prosecutors must prove subjective intent (e.g., “knowing” the information is false) with evidence, not presumption.
Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Convictions must be based on “clear facts and sufficient evidence.” If the evidence is insufficient, the defendant must be acquitted.
Evaluation:
Lack of Evidence: Chen’s retweets (fewer than 100, with fewer than 100 followers) did not meet the Two Highs Interpretation’s thresholds for “serious disruption.” The prosecution also failed to prove the “falsity” of the retweeted content (e.g., art pieces, news reports, Trump’s speech), as required by Article 5. Additionally, there is no evidence that Chen “knew” the content was false, violating Article 55’s requirement for proof of subjective intent.
Disregard for Law: The prosecutor’s alleged confession that Chen’s actions were “not even illegal, let alone a criminal offense” directly contradicts the legal requirements for conviction under Article 293. Convicting Chen despite this lack of evidence violates Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which mandates acquittal in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Judicial Corruption Implication: The disregard for facts and law suggests that the conviction was not based on legal merits but on external pressures, pointing to potential corruption or interference in the judicial process.
2. Prosecutor’s Confession and “Special Instructions”
Chen’s Allegation:
Chen cites a prosecutor who allegedly confessed to his lawyer that the evidence was insufficient, but “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” demanded that the case be made an “ironclad case” and that Chen be “put to death” (interpreted as severe punishment or imprisonment). The prosecutor claimed to act against his conscience due to these instructions.
Legal Context:
Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Law: Courts, procuratorates, and public security organs must exercise their powers independently in accordance with the law, free from interference by administrative organs, social organizations, or individuals.
Article 9 of the Prosecutors Law of the People’s Republic of China: Procuratorates must exercise their powers independently and not be subject to interference from administrative organs, social organizations, or individuals.
Article 8 of the Judges Law of the People’s Republic of China: Judges must adjudicate cases independently, subject only to the law, and free from interference by administrative organs, social organizations, or individuals.
Article 135 of the Criminal Law: The crime of “perverting the law for personal gain” applies to judicial personnel who knowingly convict an innocent person, with penalties including imprisonment.
Evaluation:
Judicial Independence Violation: The prosecutor’s confession that “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” dictated the case outcome directly violates Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 9 of the Prosecutors Law, and Article 8 of the Judges Law. These provisions mandate that judicial proceedings be free from external interference, including from higher-level authorities within the Party or government. The “higher-level leaders” (likely referring to Party or government officials) exerting influence over the case constitutes unlawful interference.
Judicial Corruption: The prosecutor’s admission that he acted against his conscience to secure a conviction, despite knowing the evidence was insufficient, suggests corruption. This behavior aligns with the crime of “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 135 of the Criminal Law, as it involves knowingly convicting an innocent person (Chen) due to external pressures. The prosecutor’s willingness to follow these instructions, rather than uphold the law, indicates a failure of professional ethics and integrity.
“Ironclad Case” Directive: The directive to make the case an “ironclad case” and “put him to death” (interpreted as a metaphor for severe punishment) suggests a predetermined outcome, undermining the principle of fair trial guaranteed by Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This also reflects a political motive, possibly linked to the sensitive nature of Chen’s retweets (e.g., Xu Zhangrun’s dismissal, Trump’s speech), which may have prompted higher-level intervention to suppress dissent.
3. Prosecutor’s Complacency and Pride
Chen’s Allegation:
Chen claims that the prosecutor was “complacent and proud” of the judicial corruption, revealing it without being asked, which Chen finds “unbelievable.”
Legal Context:
Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law: Prosecutors must uphold professional ethics, including integrity, impartiality, and adherence to the law.
Article 399 of the Criminal Law: Judicial personnel who engage in corrupt practices, such as perverting the law, face criminal liability, with penalties including imprisonment for up to 10 years or more in serious cases.
Article 405 of the Criminal Law: Judicial personnel who engage in “wandering from the course of justice” for personal gain (e.g., fabricating evidence) can be punished with imprisonment.
Evaluation:
Breach of Professional Ethics: The prosecutor’s alleged complacency and pride in admitting to judicial corruption violate Article 14 of the Prosecutors Law, which requires prosecutors to maintain integrity and impartiality. Such an attitude reflects a lack of remorse and a normalization of corrupt practices, further eroding the integrity of the judicial system.
Criminal Liability: The prosecutor’s actions—knowingly pursuing a baseless conviction due to external instructions—may constitute “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399 or “wandering from the course of justice” under Article 405 of the Criminal Law. His admission to Chen’s lawyer, if true, could serve as evidence of his culpability in a potential criminal investigation.
Systemic Implications: The prosecutor’s pride in his misconduct suggests a broader culture of impunity within the judicial system, where such behavior is not only tolerated but celebrated. This points to systemic corruption, as the prosecutor felt confident enough to disclose the interference without fear of repercussions.
4. Broader Evaluation of Judicial Corruption
Systemic Issues:
Lack of Judicial Independence: The interference by “higher-level leaders” aligns with documented issues in China’s judicial system, as noted in web result [web:3] (Judicial Independence in the PRC). Local governments and Party officials often exert influence over judicial decisions, undermining the autonomy of courts and procuratorates. The practice of judges seeking opinions from higher courts (also noted in [web:3]) further erodes the right to appeal, as decisions are predetermined.
Abuse of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”: As highlighted in [web:2] (Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble), this charge is frequently used to suppress dissent, often targeting activists and scholars (e.g., Huang Xueqin, Yang Maodong). Chen’s case fits this pattern, with the charge applied despite insufficient evidence, suggesting a politically motivated prosecution.
Impact on Public Trust: The prosecutor’s confession and the authorities’ actions erode public trust in the judicial system. Web result [web:0] notes that fiscal pressure and external interventions undermine judicial fairness, a problem exacerbated in Chen’s case by direct interference from “higher-level leaders.”
Procedural Violations:
Non-Public Trial: Chen’s trial was non-public, violating Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires public trials unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., state secrets). No such exception appears applicable here, given the nature of the charge.
Restricted Defense Rights: Chen reports being told to “shut up” in court, violating Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which guarantees the right to a defense.
Fabrication of Evidence: The prosecutor’s admission that the case was made an “ironclad case” despite insufficient evidence suggests potential fabrication or manipulation of evidence, which could violate Article 405 of the Criminal Law.
5. Broader Implications
Rule of Law: The alleged judicial corruption undermines China’s stated commitment to the “comprehensive rule of law,” a key policy under Xi Jinping. Web result [web:3] notes that while reforms have been discussed (e.g., centralizing court finances, establishing national judicial circuits), local protectionism and interference remain significant challenges.
Human Rights Concerns: The use of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” to target Chen, a scholar, mirrors cases like those of Cao Shunli and Huang Xueqin (web result [web:2]), raising concerns about freedom of expression and the misuse of vague laws to suppress dissent.
Diplomatic Risks: Chen’s retweets included content from U.S. officials (e.g., Trump’s speech), and the prosecution’s actions (e.g., labeling such content as “rumors”) could strain diplomatic relations, especially if perceived as an attack on foreign leaders.
Conclusion
Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s allegation of judicial corruption in his case is substantiated by legal and procedural evidence. The prosecutor’s confession reveals a clear violation of judicial independence, as “special instructions” from “higher-level leaders” dictated the case outcome, contravening Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 9 of the Prosecutors Law, and Article 8 of the Judges Law. The lack of evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”—confirmed by the prosecutor’s admission—violates Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law, rendering the conviction baseless. The prosecutor’s actions may constitute “perverting the law for personal gain” under Article 399 of the Criminal Law, and his complacency suggests a culture of impunity within the judicial system.
The case reflects systemic issues in China’s judicial system, including lack of independence, local interference, and the misuse of vague laws to suppress dissent. It undermines the rule of law, erodes public trust, and raises human rights concerns, potentially impacting China’s domestic governance and international reputation. If
[Chinese]