67-Year-Old Mother Loses Appeal of Wrongful Conviction, Daughters File Complaint Against Appeals Judges
(Minghui.org) The Shenyang City Intermediate Court in Liaoning Province ruled to uphold the original one-year prison sentence of a 67-year-old woman on October 10, 2024. Her two daughters filed a complaint against both appeals judges that same day.
Ms. He Mingying of Faku County (which is under the administration of Shenyang City) was arrested in November 2023 for practicing Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that has been persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since July 1999. She was sentenced to one year and fined 2,000 yuan by the Hunnan District Court in Shenyang City on June 6, 2024. She filed an appeal on June 14, which was denied on October 10.
Ms. He Mingying
Eight "Evidence" DVDs Attest to Illegal Police Actions
Ms. He’s two daughters served as her non-lawyer defenders in her appeals case. The sisters were shocked to discover that the eight DVDs mentioned during their mother’s trial were missing from her appeals case file. The trial judge cited the DVDs, which contained police-supplied evidence against Ms. He, in her sentencing. Her daughters and lawyer, however, were barred from reviewing the DVDs before the trial and none of them were played during the trial.
The sisters inquired with Wen Xiaoxia, the presiding judge in charge of the appeals case, who claimed that the file forwarded to the intermediate court had no DVDs. The sisters then submitted a handwritten request on July 31, 2024, requesting that Wen review the video of the trial (as proof that no DVDs were played in the court hearing) and order either the trial judge or the police to submit the DVDs. That same day, they also submitted a request for an open hearing of the appeals case along with some other documents. On August 8, they resubmitted the open hearing request via EMS.
Through mail tracking, the sisters noted all the documents were received and signed by the intermediate court. Wen only responded to the concern about the missing DVDs. She notified the sisters around August 10 that the DVDs were found. She said they could bring their own laptop to review the DVD content at the intermediate court but they were not allowed to make any copies. Usually, for electronic evidence like DVDs, the court supplies necessary equipment. The sisters suspected that Wen was trying to make reviewing the DVD content harder for them.
The sisters managed to find a laptop to review the DVDs and noted the disks contained audio, video, and written forms of “evidence” against their mother. The information, however, was compelling evidence against the police for violating legal procedures in arresting and framing Ms. He.
The DVDs showed that the police arrested and raided the home of Ms. He without showing any IDs or search warrant. They interrogated her with torture to extract confessions. The Hunnan District Procuratorate initially decided to not issue an arrest warrant. But instead of dropping the case, the police deceived a family member of Ms. He’s into providing evidence against her. This “witness account” should have been deemed inadmissible, but the police used it to persuade the procuratorate to indict Ms. He.
Recusal Request and Open Hearing Request Both Denied
In response to the sisters’ request to have an open hearing, judge Wen claimed that appeals cases are usually ruled without open hearings and that requests for opening hearings need special approval. By law, however, requests for open hearings should always be honored.
Wen also repeatedly demanded that the sisters submit their written defense statement so she could rule without holding a hearing. When they refused, she accused them of trying to blackmail her into having an open hearing. She threatened to use the sister’s defense statement included in the trial case as the basis for her ruling if they failed to submit their defense by October 10.
Given Wen’s violation of legal procedures, the sisters drafted a request on August 28 to have her recused from the appeals case. They mailed it to her supervisor Ren Yanzhong, president of the intermediate court, the next day, and it was received and signed on August 30. Ren hasn’t responded by the time of writing.
The sisters received a call on September 2, asking them to report to the intermediate court at 10 a.m. the next day to discuss the appeals procedure in person. They said they already mailed in a request to have judge Wen recused. The caller insisted that they come in for an in-person conversation. They demanded a written response to their recusal request and the caller relented and said the court would mail the relevant materials to them. The sisters gave the caller a mailing address as he requested but they haven’t received anything from the court so far. They mailed the recusal request to Ren again on September 11 and confirmed its receipt the next day. Ren again ignored them.
Mother’s Appeal Rejected
The sisters called judge Wen on October 8 but did not receive a reply. They then called her assistant, judge Xu Mingxuan, who returned the call 20 minutes later saying that Wen asked him to pass three messages. First, their recusal request was denied; second, there would not be an open hearing; third, they must submit their written defense statement by October 10.
The sisters refused to send in their written defense and insisted on having an open hearing with a different judge in charge. Wen ruled against their mother on October 10 and the sisters filed a criminal complaint against Wen and her supervisor Ren on the same day.
The sisters received an official copy of the appeals verdict on October 13. They noted the ruling bore the signatures of judges Wen, Kong Xianglai and Yu Xiaowei, assistant to judges Jin Liang and clerk Fu Di.
The sisters vowed to keep fighting for their mother’s justice.
Both Sisters Interrogated and Intimidated
After Ms. He’s wrongful conviction on June 6, her daughters filed complaints in July 2024 against all the police officers, prosecutors, and trial judges involved in her arrest, indictment, and sentencing.
The sisters were met with harassment and intimidation. The police who arrested Ms. He checked with their counterparts in the two sisters’ household registration places to see if they also practiced Falun Gong. The Hunnan District Procuratorate also twice called the older sister, Ms. Guan Yinghua, on August 21 and 22, and ordered her to report to them to explain her complaint against them. She couldn’t take time off work and did not go. The police then came at her the next day.
Ms. Guan was at work around 9 a.m. on August 23, 2024 when a tall man around 30 years old suddenly showed up. He told her supervisor that he needed her to go with him to the local Daoyi Police Station. When she refused to comply he threatened her and said, “I came here in plainclothes to show my respect for you. If I came in a uniform to arrest you, wouldn’t that embarrass you?” After a few minutes of standoff, Ms. Guan relented and went with him to the police station.
The officer asked Ms. Guan numerous questions during the two-hour interrogation and became visibly angry whenever she refused to answer certain questions. However, she did provide some details of how she and her sister fought for their mother.
She said that she and her sister consulted a lawyer and wrote the complaints against the police, the prosecutors, and the trial judges themselves. They then bought stamps and envelopes and dropped off the complaint letters at a post office. She refused to reveal the source of the supplemental materials included in the complaint regarding how Falun Gong practitioners in other parts of the country were released instead of being issued arrest warrants.
The officer then asked who else the complaint was mailed to, besides the police. Ms. Guan said the complaint clearly indicated who else was copied on the document.
The next question was how many times the complaint was mailed to Gu Junying, secretary of the Shenyang City Political and Legal Affairs Committee, an extra-judicial agency tasked with overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong. Ms. Guan said that she didn’t really remember, but the police could count the complaint letters themselves.
Because Ms. Guan and her sister also collected signatures from local residents while seeking their mother’s release, the officer asked if all the supporters practiced Falun Gong. She said they did not. He then asked if everyone gathered at the same place to sign the petitions and she said they did.
She added that she hand-wrote the complaint as she did not have a computer or printer at home. She then went to a printing shop to have it typed and printed.
The officer alleged that the complaint contained a lot of illegal content and that he could detain her if she also practiced Falun Gong. She said that no law criminalizes Falun Gong or labels it as a cult. He warned her not to yell “Falun Dafa is good” when she left the police station.
The same officer interrogated Ms. Guan’s younger sister, Ms. Guan Yunhua, hours later and asked the same questions.
The younger Ms. Guan demanded to know his identity. He said he was from the Shenyang City Police Department (but told the older Ms. Guan that he was from the Political and Legal Affairs Committee). He flashed his ID to the younger sister and covered the words with his hand.
Instead of answering the officer, the younger Ms. Guan always asked if the question had anything to do with her mother’s case. Like her sister, she also refused to sign the interrogation records.