By Jennifer Grace Smith
On January 8, 2010, Li Zhuang, a lawyer with the prominent Beijing Kangda Law Firm, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison in Chongqing for fabricating evidence that his client had been tortured into providing a confession of guilt. In the aftermath of Li’s sentencing, much as in the aftermath of his arrest on December 12, 2009, citizens have engaged in fierce debate, particularly online, over issues such as rule of law, the rights of lawyers, and the rights of the accused.
Li was detained after his client, alleged Chongqing crime boss Gong Gangmo, provided testimony that Li had helped Gong to fabricate evidence that he had been tortured while in detention. The Chongqing Public Security Bureau charged Li with four crimes: “Reading Gong’s accomplice’s transcripts to Gong,” “abetting Gong in retracting earlier testimony,” “abetting Gong in lying about being tortured,” and “abetting Gong to interfere with a court order.”
These charges are based on Article 306 of China’s Criminal Law, which stipulates that lawyers must not “destroy or forge evidence, help any parties destroy or forge evidence, or coerce or entice witnesses into changing their testimony in defiance of the facts or giving false testimony.” This vaguely-worded provision, according to the Global Times, “makes the Chinese mainland defense lawyer into something of an endangered species.”
Gong was arrested last year as part of Chongqing Committee Secretary Bo Xilai’s crackdown on organized crime. Gong went on trial on January 4, charged with murder, illegal trade and possession of firearms, drug trafficking and operating gambling dens.
The anti-corruption campaign has been hugely popular among Chongqing residents, who report years of terror living under the control of violent mob factions in collusion with police and local government officials. It is, therefore, unsurprising that many residents harbor no sympathy for a lawyer defending an individual who has harmed the public interest and view the lawyer’s own conviction as a sign of progress within the legal system.
However, many lawyers and legal scholars cite the Li Zhuang case as an example of the lack of protection afforded to legal representatives in recent years. Moreover, they argue that Li, one of the very few successful defense lawyers in China, who has successfully defended more than ten clients and helped to reduce the sentence of more than 100 in a country in which the conviction rate is 95%, is just one example among many. The Xi’an-based China Business View pointed to “hundreds” of lawyers being held on similar charges throughout China.
Public opinion on Li’s sentencing and its implications for rule of law in China has varied widely in a debate that is neatly summarized with two messages left on Kaidi Online Community’s popular message board, as reported by Zhu Huaxin of People’s Daily Online. One message said: “Li Zhuang’s sentence is progress for rule of law in China!” The other: “Li Zhuang has been sentenced, and the law is dead.” Initial media reporting on the case was critical of Li Zhuang and in favor of his arrest, leading lawyers groups to ask journalists to take a more balanced approach to the case. A lengthy article in China Youth Daily calling Li Zhuang a “liar” prompted especially harsh criticism from lawyers nationwide. In a December 16 letter to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 20 lawyers from 11 provinces and municipalities argued that Li Zhuang’s individual rights were violated by Chongqing authorities. The Beijing Lawyers Association sent a working group to the municipality on December 15 to conduct its own investigation into Li Zhuang’s arrest.
Li Zhuang’s arrest and sentence involve many worrisome implications for legal procedure and the protection of lawyers’ rights. Among the more troubling aspects are the extremely short period between his arrest and sentencing, the paucity of details of the trial, the lack of corroboration of Gong’s testimony, which Gong claims he made in exchange for a less severe sentence in his own case, and reports that no witnesses actually appeared in the trial, with witness testimony obtained by prosecutors merely read aloud into the court record in violation of China’s Criminal Procedure Law. However, the vehemence of the civil society response to the case, from both supporters and detractors of Li Zhuang, has surprised many. The public debate on rule of law and lawyers’ rights, as well as the increasing emphasis on the importance of separating the public’s emotional response to an individual case from analysis of legal procedure, has been especially promising, as it suggests an increasing public interest in defining what a society ruled by laws and legal procedure should look like.
Related Articles
- June 8, 2010 -- [Asia Times Online] China’s fearsome jiwei take on graft
- February 9, 2010 -- Lawyer in China mob trial gets 1 1/2 years on appeal
- February 3, 2010 -- High-profile corruption trial underway
- June 29, 2010 -- [Financial Times] FCPA violations seen as leading risk to China healthcare investment
- June 22, 2010 -- [CEG Translation] The Retreat in China’s Rule of Law Causes Concern in the Legal Community
- June 3, 2010 -- [CEG Translation] Yu Jianrong: Managing the petition crisis as a basis for legal reform
- May 27, 2010 -- [New York Times] Trampled in a Land Rush, Chinese Resist
- May 27, 2010 -- [Shanghai Daily] Ministry official jailed over bribes
- May 21, 2010 -- Justice Official Loses Death Sentence Appeal In Chongqing
- May 18, 2010 -- With Huang Guangyu sentence, China takes aim at corrupt business culture
Suzanne's hkfocus blog follows the developing story of Hong Kong's democracy movement as it struggles to maintain its coherence amid the growing pressures for full integration within the Chinese political system.
Archive for Selections from the Chinese Media »
[CEG Commentary] Sentencing of Defense Lawyer Sparks Debate
By Jennifer Grace Smith
On January 8, 2010, Li Zhuang, a lawyer with the prominent Beijing Kangda Law Firm, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison in Chongqing for fabricating evidence that his client had been tortured into providing a confession of guilt. In the aftermath of Li’s sentencing, much as in the aftermath of his arrest on December 12, 2009, citizens have engaged in fierce debate, particularly online, over issues such as rule of law, the rights of lawyers, and the rights of the accused.
Li was detained after his client, alleged Chongqing crime boss Gong Gangmo, provided testimony that Li had helped Gong to fabricate evidence that he had been tortured while in detention. The Chongqing Public Security Bureau charged Li with four crimes: “Reading Gong’s accomplice’s transcripts to Gong,” “abetting Gong in retracting earlier testimony,” “abetting Gong in lying about being tortured,” and “abetting Gong to interfere with a court order.”
These charges are based on Article 306 of China’s Criminal Law, which stipulates that lawyers must not “destroy or forge evidence, help any parties destroy or forge evidence, or coerce or entice witnesses into changing their testimony in defiance of the facts or giving false testimony.” This vaguely-worded provision, according to the Global Times, “makes the Chinese mainland defense lawyer into something of an endangered species.”
Gong was arrested last year as part of Chongqing Committee Secretary Bo Xilai’s crackdown on organized crime. Gong went on trial on January 4, charged with murder, illegal trade and possession of firearms, drug trafficking and operating gambling dens.
The anti-corruption campaign has been hugely popular among Chongqing residents, who report years of terror living under the control of violent mob factions in collusion with police and local government officials. It is, therefore, unsurprising that many residents harbor no sympathy for a lawyer defending an individual who has harmed the public interest and view the lawyer’s own conviction as a sign of progress within the legal system.
However, many lawyers and legal scholars cite the Li Zhuang case as an example of the lack of protection afforded to legal representatives in recent years. Moreover, they argue that Li, one of the very few successful defense lawyers in China, who has successfully defended more than ten clients and helped to reduce the sentence of more than 100 in a country in which the conviction rate is 95%, is just one example among many. The Xi’an-based China Business View pointed to “hundreds” of lawyers being held on similar charges throughout China.
Public opinion on Li’s sentencing and its implications for rule of law in China has varied widely in a debate that is neatly summarized with two messages left on Kaidi Online Community’s popular message board, as reported by Zhu Huaxin of People’s Daily Online. One message said: “Li Zhuang’s sentence is progress for rule of law in China!” The other: “Li Zhuang has been sentenced, and the law is dead.” Initial media reporting on the case was critical of Li Zhuang and in favor of his arrest, leading lawyers groups to ask journalists to take a more balanced approach to the case. A lengthy article in China Youth Daily calling Li Zhuang a “liar” prompted especially harsh criticism from lawyers nationwide. In a December 16 letter to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 20 lawyers from 11 provinces and municipalities argued that Li Zhuang’s individual rights were violated by Chongqing authorities. The Beijing Lawyers Association sent a working group to the municipality on December 15 to conduct its own investigation into Li Zhuang’s arrest.
Li Zhuang’s arrest and sentence involve many worrisome implications for legal procedure and the protection of lawyers’ rights. Among the more troubling aspects are the extremely short period between his arrest and sentencing, the paucity of details of the trial, the lack of corroboration of Gong’s testimony, which Gong claims he made in exchange for a less severe sentence in his own case, and reports that no witnesses actually appeared in the trial, with witness testimony obtained by prosecutors merely read aloud into the court record in violation of China’s Criminal Procedure Law. However, the vehemence of the civil society response to the case, from both supporters and detractors of Li Zhuang, has surprised many. The public debate on rule of law and lawyers’ rights, as well as the increasing emphasis on the importance of separating the public’s emotional response to an individual case from analysis of legal procedure, has been especially promising, as it suggests an increasing public interest in defining what a society ruled by laws and legal procedure should look like.
Related Articles