Analysis of Criminal Judgment
Three large language models ( DeepSeek, Gemini, and Grok ）have been used to analyse the Xishan District Court’s first-instance judgment [Refer to: The First-Instance Judgment] in Chen Jingyuan case。
Here is a comparison of the similarities and differences among these analyses.
I. Similarities Across All Three Analyses (DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok):
The analyses from DeepSeek, Gemini, and Grok show substantial agreement in their critical evaluation of the judgment. Key common points include:
Identification of Legal Basis:
All correctly identify Article 293 of the PRC Criminal Law (“Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” - PXQT) and the relevant 2013 Judicial Interpretation (specifically Art. 5(2)) as the legal foundation invoked by the court.
Critique of Reasoning on “Knowledge” (Mens Rea):
All three strongly criticize the judgment’s finding that Chen Jingyuan acted “knowingly”. They point out that the court relied heavily on questionable inference – primarily derived from his high level of education (PhD) suggesting he “should have known” – rather than presenting direct evidence of his actual subjective state of mind. DeepSeek explicitly mentions violation of the presumption of innocence.
Flawed Determination of “False Information”:
Each analysis highlights the judgment’s failure to clearly define or rigorously prove that the retweeted content constituted “false information”. They commonly argue that the judgment conflates political criticism, opinion, or content deemed “insulting/attacking” the state/leaders with objective factual falsehood, without proper justification or analysis within the judgment text.
Lack of Evidence for “Serious Disruption”:
This is identified as a critical failure by all three models. They concur that the judgment asserts the occurrence of “serious disruption of public order” as a consequence of Chen’s actions but provides no specific evidence, factual details, or causal analysis to substantiate this claim. They critique the apparent presumption of disruption based merely on the perceived sensitivity of the content.
Procedural Concerns (Non-Public Trial):
All three analyses note the judgment’s statement that the trial was conducted via a “non-public hearing” and raise concerns about the lack of transparency and potential impact on procedural fairness, especially given the nature of the case (speech-related).
Criticism of Broad Application of PXQT:
They agree that the judgment exemplifies the controversial and overbroad application of the PXQT charge to regulate online speech, using a vague statute to penalize expression deemed politically undesirable.
Reliance on Conclusory Statements:
All observe that the judgment relies heavily on conclusory statements regarding the fulfillment of legal elements, rather than providing detailed reasoning or citing specific evidence linking the defendant’s actions directly to each required component of the crime.
Overall Conclusion on Judgment’s Flaws:
All three conclude that the first-instance judgment is legally questionable, flawed, or deficient due to weaknesses in reasoning, insufficient evidentiary basis for key findings (especially intent and consequence), procedural irregularities, and problematic application of the law.
II. Differences Between the Analyses:
While the core critiques align, some nuances exist:
Structure and Format:
DeepSeek: Presents a structured report format with distinct sections for legal basis, deficiencies, broader implications, and conclusion.
Gemini: Uses a narrative essay style, integrating procedural aspects, factual/legal reasoning, and evaluation.
Grok: Organizes its analysis (which covers both judgment and ruling in the provided document) using structured points and lists specific shortcomings identified in the court documents.
Specific Legal Concepts Emphasized:
DeepSeek: Explicitly raises the “violation of presumption of innocence” and the court’s “conflation of distinct offenses” (PXQT vs. defamation standards from the Interpretation).
Gemini: Emphasizes the potential failure to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard for criminal convictions.
Grok: Explicitly lists “Disproportionality” of the sentence as a shortcoming and implicitly evaluates against CPL requirements for reasoned judgments and clear facts.
Focus:
While all critique the lack of evidence, Gemini perhaps most strongly frames the “serious disruption” finding as an “entirely unproven” major gap.
DeepSeek places significant emphasis on the misapplication/misinterpretation of the law itself (PXQT scope, Interpretation use).
Grok focuses sharply on listing specific deficiencies against expected legal/procedural standards.
III. Overall Comparison:
DeepSeek, Gemini, and Grok provide remarkably consistent and critical assessments of the Xishan District Court’s first-instance judgment. They independently identify the same fundamental flaws: inadequate proof and flawed reasoning concerning subjective intent (“knowing”) and the consequence (“serious disruption”),the problematic handling of “false information,” and procedural transparency issues related to the non-public trial.
All agree that the judgment represents a legally weak application of the controversial “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” charge to online speech. The differences are primarily stylistic and relate to the specific legal concepts or angles emphasized (e.g., presumption of innocence vs. reasonable doubt standard vs. proportionality), rather than reflecting any substantive disagreement on the judgment’s core deficiencies.