At 9:30am on February 2, the second trial of
"Lawyer Gate" (in which lawyer Li Zhuang was charged with fabricating evidence
and tampering with witnesses) began in the Number One Middle People's Court in
Chongqing city.
As soon as the court session began, the chief
judge Jiang Lin asked the defendant Li Zhuang for his reason of appealing the
verdict in the first trial. Li Zhuang said something surprising: "I
withdraw the former reasons for making the appeal. The former reasons
for making the appeal are null and void. I believe that the verdict in
the first trial was clear, the evidence was concrete, the law was properly
applied and the process was in accordance with the law."
Once he said that, everybody in the courtroom
was astonished. Li Zhuang's defense lawyer Chen Youxi asked: "Li Zhuang,
you should consider carefully. You should know the legal consequences of
saying so."
Li Zhuang replied: "I know the consequences."
[Important note not present in the CYD
article: Li Zhuang added: "But I will continue with my appeal."]
In court, Li Zhuang's first defense lawyer
Gao Zicheng asked the question about how Li Zhuang learned that his client
Gong Gangmo had been tortured. Li Zhuang replied: "I found out by asking
him."
Gao Zicheng asked: "Did you tell Wu Jiayou
said that you wanted him to find police officers who will testify that they
witnessed Gong Gangmo being tortured?"
Li Zhuang said: "I said it."
"Did you say that you would give money to Wu
Jiayou for this purpose?"
"I said 'at all costs' but we did not get
into the details about the money."
The prosecutor then asked Li Zhuang: "You
just said that you admitted to the crimes charged against you in the first
trial. So is it true that when you met with Gong Gangmo, you instructed
him to come up with the false testimony about being tortured?"
Li Zhuang said, "That's true."
The prosecutor asked: "How did you direct
him?"
Li Zhuang replied: "I went up close to the
iron-barred window and I whispered to him."
"You told Wu Jiayou to bribe policemen to
bear false witness. Is that true?"
"That's true."
"How did you tell Wu Jiayou?"
"It took place in the hotel lobby as I saw
him out. I said that he must get policemen to testify at all costs."
The prosecutor asked: "What kind of
testimony?"
Li Zhuang said: "False testimony about any
torture to extract confession."
During the questioning about Gong Gangmo's
wife Cheng Qi, Li Zhuang said in court: "I was in Cheng Qi's hospital room to
tell her about how to fabricate the extortions. But Cheng Qi said that
she was on intravenous feed fourteen hours a day and she needed to get the
doctor's permission. In the end, no decision was made."
Concerning the matter of Gong Gangmo's cousin
Gong Ganghua, the defense lawyer asked: "You spoke to Gong Ganghua about
shutting down the Baoli Night Club?"
Li Zhuang: "Here is what was said. I
asked Gong Ganghua: 'Is the Baoli Night Club still opened?' He said yes,
but it is losing money. I said, 'If it is losing money, why keep it
opened?'"
Li Zhuang admitted: "Gong Ganghua knew even
less about Gong Gangmo's business than I did. I told him: 'The actual
investor in Baoli Night Club is your cousin who put up 15 million yuan.'
I told him, 'You arrange someone to deny that your cousin is the investor'."
The prosecutor asked: "Why did you do that?"
Li Zhuang answered: "In order to fabricate
evidence. In order to achieve the goal by fabricating evidence."
"What was the purpose of fabricating
evidence?"
Li Zhuang replied: "In order to deceive the
prosecutors and the judges."
"What was the ultimate goal?"
"In order for Gong Gangmo to evade all
criminal liabilities." Li Zhuang replied.
As for "whether he read the notes by the
co-defendants to Gong Gangmo during their meeting," Li Zhuang said, "I
wouldn't say that I read it. I only told him, 'Fan Qihang's notes about
the murders did not name you'."
During the introduction of the evidence,
lawyer Gao Zicheng objected to the evidence presented during the first trial:
"The physical examination results at the Nanchuan Detention Centre between
June 19 and August 15, 2009 that indicated that he was healthy and uninjured
are false."
At that moment, Li Zhuang raised his hand and
said, "Let me remind the defense lawyer. I happen to think that the
physical examination report is real. Gong Gangmo told me himself that he
was not tortured during the time that he was at the Nanchuan Detention
Centre."
The defense lawyer also objected to the
physical examination results at the Jiangbei District Detention Centre by
pointing out that "Gong Gangmo had injuries on his hands."
At that moment, Li Zhuang also spoke up: "Let
me interject. Lawyer Gao Zicheng only saw signs of injury, but he does
not know how the injuries occurred. Therefore, I think that this
evidence is objective and true."
Gao Zicheng also thought that the testimony
of the witnesses Wu Jiayou and Ma Xiaojun were "untruthful and illegal."
Lawyer Chen Youxi objected to all 33 items of evidence accepted during the
first trial because some of them are unrelated to the case while the others
"proved precisely the innocence of Li Zhuang."
Six witnesses including Gong Gangmo testified
in person and answered questions from both sides.
Gao Zicheng asked Gong Gangmo: "Are you
testifying voluntarily today in this court? Did the court, the police or
the procuratorate talk to you before you came to court? Why were you not
present at the first trial?"
Gong Gangmo: "I am in this court voluntarily.
Before I came, the court contacted me. The police and the procuratorate
did not contact me. During the first trial, I did not come because I
thought that my statement had already explained everything clearly. I
did not want to appear in court."
Gao Zicheng asked: "When you were interviewed
by CCTV, you said that Li Zhuang blinked at you to make a hint. Is that
true?"
Gong Gangmo said; "That's true. Li
Zhuang blinked his eyes. He also made verbal hints. When he spoke,
he kept nodding his head."
Gao Zicheng asked: "You look at my eyes right
now. Am I hinting for you to overturn your testimony? You look at
my eyes?" Then he became silent and stared at Gong Gangmo.
On the key question as to "who mentioned
torture during the interrogation during the meeting," Gong Gangmo said in
court, "It was Li Zhuang."
Gong Gangmo recalled in court: "I was
relatively excited at the first meeting. I had never met a lawyer
before. I was standing up and quite close to Li Zhuang. I was very
nervous at the time. Li Zhuang said, 'You don't look like a gangster.'
He paced back and forth. When he got near the iron barrier, he
whispered, 'You must overturn your testmony. If you don't, you will die
for sure.'"
Gong Gangmo recalled that Li Zhuang mentioned
that Cheng Qi would tesify. "Li Zhuang said: 'I arranged for your wife
to testify for you.' I remembered asking him at the time, 'Can a wife
testify?' He said yes."
As to the matter of Li Zhuang instructing
Gong Gangmo to say 'that he was unwilling to lend money to Li Minghang and
that it was extortion," the lawyer asked: "Were you willing to lend money to
Li Minghang?"
Gong Gangmo replied, "Since I lent the money
to him, I was obviously willing."
The lawyer asked: "Did the police torture you
during interrogation?"
Gong Gangmo replied: "No."
Concerning the pigment scar on Gong Gangmo
that the legal doctor found on his left hand, the lawyer asked: "How did you
get this wound?"
Gong Gangmo said, "I did not notice. I
scratched it when I was playing in Nanyalong Bay, Hainan last April or May.
When I got back, I applied some iodine to it. I never sought treatment.
It was already there before I got to the Nanchuan Detention Centre. I
never felt that it was an injury. The doctor at the Detention Centre
asked me whether I had any injuries. I said no."
The defense lawyer asked about "whether any
judges or prosecutors spoke to you about the injuries" and Gong Gangmo
replied, "No."
When the defense lawyer Chen Youxi
cross-examined Gong Gangmo, the prosecutor objected many times because the
questions were either "leading" or "irrelevant."
Lawyer Chen Youxi loudly interrupted the
prosecutor many times, "Objection? What are you objecting to? Your
objective is invalid!"
The chief judge issued a formal warning to
lawyer Chen Youxi: "Lawyer Chen Youxi, this court has already warned both
sides about their lack of civility. When one side wants to object, that
side should be able to articulate its reason for objecting. This court
has re-iterated this point. Lawyer Chen, you should not be interrupting
the other side, and especially not interrupting when the court is speaking
This court is giving you a formal warning. Please express your opinions
calmly and follow the rules of the court."
After being questioned for 90 minutes, Gong
Gangmo stepped down. His final words: "This is the reason why I don't
want to appear in court. This questioning is making my head dizzy."
The court recessed for 40 minutes during the
middle of the day. At 1:40pm, the court resumed hearing. Gong
Ganghua was the second witness to testify.
"On November 24 last year, we were with Li
Zhuang in a teahouse. Li Zhuang asked me to tell a worker at the Baoli
Night Club not to say that Gong Gangmo is the boss. He told me to close
Baoli down and dismiss all the workers. Li Zhuang also told me that he
had met Gong Gangmo and told him to claim in court about being suspended and
beaten."
"Li Zhuang let Wu Jiayou spend money to bribe
some policemen to testify in court. Wu Jiayou said that it was illegal.
Li Zhuang told me that there is nothing that cannot be handled by spending
more money." Gong Ganghua said.
Gao Zicheng asked, "During the first trial, I
asked you to testify in court. Did the court notify you?"
Gong Ganghua said, "They notified me, but I
did not want to be present in court."
Chongqing lawyer Wu Jiayou who had
represented Gong Gangmo previously and discussed the case with Li Zhuang many
times was the third witness to appear in court.
"When Li Zhuang spoke to me about the case of
Gong Gangmo, he said that he had instructed Gong Gangmo to overturn his
testimony. Li Zhuang said that he hoped that I would go and find the
police officers or doctors who had interrogated Gong Gangmo or witnessed his
interrogation to say that Gong Gangmo had been tortured. I said that
this was impossible. Li Zhuang also suggested to look up the
industrial/commercial database. If the data says that Tang Xiao was the
boss but not Gong Gangmo, then Gong Gangmo does not own any shares in the
Baoli Night Club and does not support the growth of the crime gang."
Li Zhuang asked Wu Jiayou: "There are two
doctors in Tieshanping, one named Wang and the other named Tang. Did I
tell you that, or did Gong Gangma make it up, or did you say so?" Gao
Zicheng also asked a similar question.
Wu Jiayou answered: "I did not say that.
I only heard Li Zhuang related that and that is all I know. How would I
know who made it up? I don't know who specifically said that."
Afterwards, laywer Gao Zicheng asked why Wu
Jiayou did not testify during the first trial. "Article 47 of the
<Criminal Prosecution Law> states that the testimony of the witness should be
established and questioned by both side. Article 141 requires the
witness to be present in court unless there are special circumstances such as
illnesses etc, or unless the testimony is not key in the decision."
Wu Jiayou replied, "According to the
<Criminal Prosecution Law>, the witnesses should testify in court, but being
present in court is not the only way."
Gong Gangmo's cousin Gong Yunfei was the
fourth witness to testify in court. When the prosecutor asked, "Did you
wire money to the Kangda Lawyers Office in Beijing?" he replied, "I did.
I wired a total of 1.5 million yuan." He said that among the various
occasions when he wired money, the second and third times "were to pay for the
experts' meeting."
After Gong Yunfei finished his testimony and
got ready to leave, Li Zhuang suddenly yelled into the microphone: "I am angry
at the nonsense from the witness!" At the same time, he pounded on the
desk and stood up.
When reminded by the chief judge and the
defense lawyers "not to get excited," Li Zhuang sat down, raised his hand and
said: "I was upset. I apologize. I express my apology. I am
somewhere between a normal person and a mental patient. I admit my
crimes, but I disagree with what the witness said."
The chief judge then announced, "Since a
continuation of the court session may affect the legal rights of the appelant
Li Zhuang, this court shall take a 10 minute recess."
When the court reconvened, Chongqing city
Jiangbei District Detention Centre Number Three Prison's doctor Tong Yong was
the fifth witness. He stated that when Gong Gangmo was detained as of
August 2009 at the Number Three Prison, "he showed signs of high pressure.
While I was on duty, he was afflicted with heart palpitations one time.
But there were no instances when he showed signs of injury as a result of
interrogations."
The prosecutor asked: "How large and what
kind of scars have to be recorded during physical exams?"
Tang Yong replied, "Apart from the five
senses and physical shape, the important points to be noted are whether there
were any wounds, surgical scars, newly caused injuries or tatoos that can
cause physical disability."
Concerning "not discovering any wounds on the
hands of Gong Gangmo" and "the prison doctor did not ask to examine Gong's
body," Tang Yong replied: "As a doctor, my job was to patrol and inspect every
day. Gong Gangmo never mentioned that he had this injury and I did not
discover it. If he did not bring up his injury, we would act like any
ordinary hospital. We would not ask a patient to strip naked in order to
conduct a full body check."
The prosecutor asked: "Medically speaking, if
a person was tied or hung up for a long period of time, such as several hours
or several days, with his entire body weight on his wrists, what kind of
injuries would occur?"
Tang Yong said: "Let me objectively describe
some basic medical concepts, as opposed to giving my subjective opinions.
When we apply a tourniquet to stop bleeding, we must loosen it within one
hour. If it goes on for more than one hour, the blood circulation within
the body will be obstructed. Over a long period, this may result in the
tissues dying in the extremities. Being hung up by the wrists is the
same as applying a tourniquet."
"What if someone were suspended for several
days and nights?"
"If that is the case, the damage on the skin
tissue will be tremendous, even resulting in the paralysis of the arms.
This person's limbs would no longer be healthy or whole."
The prosecutor asked: "Would the effect of
several days and nights of being hung looks like a scratch wound?"
Tang Yong replied, "No."
Police officer Wu Peng who was responsible
for the Gong Gangmo case at the Jiangbei Distict Detention Centre was the last
to testify in court.
Wu Peng confirmed that he was responsible for
supervising Gong Gangmo from late September to mid-October in 2009.
"During the period when I supervised Gong Gangmo, he never said that he was
injured. We did not notice anything either."
For each interrogation, Wu Peng was
responsible for escorting Gong Gangmo between the interrogation room and the
prison cell. His impression was that the interrogations lasted as
"little as two to three hours and as long as four to five hours."
Gao Zicheng asked, "During the time when you
supervised him, were there any records of nighttime interrogations?"
"We work in shifts. During the time
that I was on duty, he was interrogated during daytime." Wu Peng
replied.
The interrogation of the five witnesses other
than Gong Gangma ended at 8pm after more than six hours.
Because some of the witnesses spoke the
Chongqing dialect, the court adjourned briefly at at the request of the
defense lawyer in order to bring in a putonghua interpreter.
During the court hearing in the evening,
lawyer Gao Zicheng requested two new witnesses to testify in court. One
of them is the lawyer Zhu Mingyong who represents Gong Gangmo's co-defendant
Fan Qihang. "Fan Qihang claimed to have been tortured during
interrogation in the same manner as Gong Gangmo. This will show that the
torture of Gong Gangmo is an ironclad fact." The other person is the
father-in-law of Li Zhuang's assistant Ma Xiaojun.
Both requests were denied by the chief judge.
The reasons were: Zhu Mingyong had never asked Gong Gangmo himself, so he
doesn't know about whether Gong Gangmo was tortured; when Li Zhuang met with
Gong Gangmo, lawyer Zhu was not present either. Gong Gangmo himself and
other witnesses have already testified that he was not tortured.
Therefore, there was no need for Zhu Mingyong to testify in court.
As for the reason why the court denied the
testimony of Ma Xiaojun's father-in-law, Ma Xiaojun has already said that his
testimony expressed his own will. There was no need for his
father-in-law to testify in court.
Lawyer Gao also offered: "I request the
surveillance information of the three meetings between Li Zhuang and Gong
Gangmo and the video recording of the third meeting." The chief judge
replied, "The second trial court has already requested the information from
the detention centre and received the answer: For the sake of security, the
detention centre conducts real-time monitoring. However, the system does
not have the capability to record. Therefore, there is no video
recording for the third meeting."
At that instant, Li Zhuang suddenly asked to
speak. He said: "I have four video clips that I secretly took during the
three meetings. These videos will show either I or others are guilty of
crimes. I will present these to the court at the appropriate time."
Li Zhuang mentioned repeatedly during the
hearing that he was "deceived into coming to Chongqing" by Gong Ganghua.
"At first, he did not tell me that Gong Gangmo was involved in organized
crime. Only after I arrived in Chongqing did I realize how serious his
crimes were. In order to make me stay to defend Gong Gangmo, Gong
Ganghua even knelt down in front of me in a coffee shop."
But Gong Ganghua denied Li Zhuang's story in
court.
Gao Zicheng also said during the trial today
that he wants the injuries on Gong Gangmo re-examined.
The court hearing went on until 23:30.
The chief judge then announced a recess. The court hearing will resume
tomorrow.
At 9:30am on February 3, the second trial of
"Lawyer Gate" (in which lawyer Li Zhuang was charged with fabricating evidence
and tampering with witnesses) continued in the Number One Middle People's Court in Chongqing city.
Yesterday, the six major witnesses in the Li
Zhuang case made their appearances in court. Their testimonies lasted
more than six hours.
This morning, the prosecutor and the defense
continued to provide their opinions on the evidence presented yesterday.
The disagreement between the evidence was the focus of the courtroom debate.
In court today, defense lawyer Gao Zicheng
said that Gong Gangmo testified yesterday that the wound on his left hand "was
a cut that occurred in Hainan last April or May" but there was no record of
the wound in the physical examination record made at the Nanchuan Detention
Centre as presented during the initial trial or the daily log of the doctor at
the Jiangbei District Detention Centre. "Therefore these pieces of
evidence as well as the testimony of the doctor Tang Yong are false."
Lawyer Chen Youxi said in court: "Gong Yunfei,
Wu Jiayou, the detention centre doctor Tong Yong and the policeman Wu Peng all
perjured themselves. They should be arrested for proving false
evidence."
The prosecutor that the physical examination
records showed that "the life signs are stable and well" as a summary of the
overall wellbeing of Gong Gangmo. "All the daily logs and the physical
examination upon entry to the detention centre cannot be completely negated on
account of the absence of the record of a small scar on the wrist."
At the same time, the prosecutor pointed out
that there was no way to jump to the conclusion that "Gong Gangmo had been
tortured during interrogation." "On the contrary, the doctor and the
policeman who testified in court were the people that Li Zhuang wanted Wu
Jiayou to find 'at all costs.' Now that their testimonies are in front
of your eyes, the possibility of torture during interrogation is eliminated."
The defense lawyer thought that at the first
trial, the matter of "Li Zhuang instructing the Chongqing lawyer Wu Jiayou to
bribe police officers" was based "solely" upon the testimony of Wu Jiayou.
Since the evidence is weak, the fact cannot be accepted as true.
The prosecutor pointed out that this matter
was not based upon an isolated piece of evidence. "The very clear fact
is that when Li Zhuang told Wu Jiayou to find police officers 'at all costs'
to provide false evidence, Gong Yunfei and Gong Gangmo were prsent. They
were present in court to testify to that effect."
The defense lawyers pointed out that Wu
Jiayou was inconsistent in his testimony which "showed that he lied."
The prosecutor said that "it is normal to be inconsistent, but he testified to
the same point. If a witness uses the identical words every time that he
testifies, I would have to wonder if it was faked."
The prosecutor said that the testimony during
the first trial had been debated by both sides already, and it corresponds to
the testimony during the second trial. The relevant law states that a
witness who was not present in court can have his testimony read out and
accepted into the record. "When the defense said that the testimony was
not credible, it is clearly inconsistent with the law."
Previously the defense lawyer wanted the
video of the CCTV interview with Gong Gangmo be introduced, but that was
rejected by the court. The defense lawyers repeated this request during
the debate stage in court.
Lawyer Gao Zicheng asked: "Audio-visual
information is one of the seven major types of evidence. Why can't it be
accepted into evidence?" Lawyer Chen Youxi said: "It is a legal fact
that the CCTV video was aired. I downloaded the video as evidence.
So why won't you let me present it?"
The prosecutor said that the defense lawyer
was not the person who prepared the video, but all he did was download it.
Even if the Gong Gangmo video is authentic, it is unknown whether the aired
CCTV video had been edited.
Lawyer Gao Zicheng condemned the various
witnesses "for having rehearsed to put on a performance in court." The
prosecutor said that this speculation is "a partial view which lacked any
objective basis."
During the three meetings between Li Zhuang
and Gong Gangma, Li's assistant lawyer Ma Xiaojun was present and made notes.
The defense lawyer requested these notes be admitted as new evidence.
"Gong Gangma has testified that he has not
seen the notes of Ma Xiaojun. 'He only saw Ma Xiaojun writing, but he
did not know what he was writing.' He did not sign either." The
prosecutor countered. "If this record was made by Ma Xiaojun, would they
record their directive to fabricate evidence? The notes clearly stated
'torture during interrogation' and this precisely proves that Gong Gangma was
already fabricating evidence as directed by Li Zhuang."
Lawyer Gao Zicheng said many times in court
that "it is an objective fact that Gong Gangmo was tortured during
interrogation." Lawyer Chen Youxi said: "The court cannot determine
whether Gong Gangmo had been tortured. We are all talking into the air
right now without any evidence. In the absence of evidence, Li Zhuang
should be found not guilty on the presumption of innocence first."
The defense lawyer brought up a doubt that
was present in public opinion: "Why did Gong Gangmo denounce his own lawyer Li
Zhuang? Was it for the sake of legal justice? Or because he could
gain credit and get his sentence reduced?"
But the prosecutor pointed out: "Whether the
denouncer receives credit has no bearing on whether a case exists. As
long as he objectively reports the truth, the case will be made."
The defense lawyer pointed out that when Li
Zhuang took over the case of Gong Gangmo, the process had entered the trial
phase. "The door on the evidence was already shut and the police will
not procure new evidence." Therefore Li Zhuang could not have
"instructed Gong Ganghua to dismiss the night club workers" and "find people
to give false testimony."
But the prosecutor pointed out that while the
case of Gong Gangmo had indeed entered the trial phase, the relevant laws
state that "it is possible to request the public security department to
collect additional evidence." The special case squad in charge of the
Gong Gangmo case already had the relevant documentary proof.
Next, the defense lawyer questioned whether
it was appropriate for the police to interrogate Gong Gangmo at 5am. The
prosecutor pointed out that it was the special case squad for the case of
Chongqing city former Legal Department chief Wen Qiang which interrogated Gong
Gangmo "because he is an important witness in that case." "For a major
case, it is essential and reasonable to hold an emergency or nighttime
interrogation when the need arises. An occasional nighttime
interrogation cannot directly or indirectly establish any connection to any
torture during interrogation."
The defense lawyer introduced the twelve sets
of interrogation notes provided by the Kangda Lawyers Office in Beijing.
Lawyer Chen Youxi said: "Li Zhuang obtained fifteen sets of interrogation
notes for the case of Gong Gangmo. These twelve sets were for nighttime
interrogations. This showed that the four policeman from the Jiangbei
Detention Centre were lying when they said that 'there was no nighttime
interrogation'."
With respect to this, the prosecutor pointed
out that apart from the two sets of notes for Gong Gangmo's interrogation, the
other ten were for people who are "not related to" the present case.
Therefore, the court was recommended not to accept it. Also, the
testimony of the police officer was clearly limited to the period "while he
was on duty." At the same time, the prosecutor said: "I called the
special case squad this morning and confirmed that there were more than 1,000
sets of interrogation notes taken during this anti-crime campaign. The
defense lawyer is providing twelve sets, which meant that only 1.2% of the
interrogations occurred at night."
The defense lawyer questioned the legality of
designating the Chongqing city Jiangbei Detention Centre as a temporary
detention centre. Lawyer Chen Youxi said: "The department issues its own
document. They can make up anything they want."
But the prosecutor said that the
procuratorate had already shown the photos and the approval of the relevant
government department for a temporary detention centre. "The facilities
were overcrowded during the anti-crime campaign, and additional space was
required" and therefore there should be no problem with the legality.
Li Zhuang raised his hand and asked to speak
after the defense and the prosecution made their statements. He spoke
slowly and steadily. "Today, all the media have reported that Li Zhuang
admits his guilt at the second trial. The hope of some people that I
would plead not guilty has been dashed. I admit to the charges that the
prosecutor makes at me. But I feel that some of the witnesses were
perfidious. I have some details to clarify which is not related to my
guilty plea."
Li Zhuang explained the reason why he lost
control of his emotions in court yesterday. "Most of the time, the
witnesses were correct in what they said. But I was angry about why they
did not dare to face a small number of details. For example, Gong Yunfei
came to meet me at the airport, we ate together, he got the files from my
assistant Ma Xiaojun, he knocked on my door in the middle of the night to
discuss ... but why did he say that he cannot remember? That was why I
exploded yesterday."
Li Zhuang said: "Once again, I admit that I
am guilty. I admit that I fabricated the torture of Gong Gangmo during
interrogation. But I only told Gong Yunfei and Gong Ganghua that I
'taught' Gong Gangmo. I did not use the word 'fabricate' in front of
them. I admit this to the prosecutor and the court."
During his speech that lasted for more than
ten minutes, Li Zhuang repeated the phrase "Once again I admit my guilt" five
times.
When it came for the defendant to make his
statement, Li Zhuang only said: "I only say: I plead guilty."
Lawyer Gao Zicheng said during the ensuing
court debate: "If Li Zhuang is pleading guilty in return for a suspended
sentence, then I think that it is a tragedy for people in the legal
profession. I am very shocked by Li Zhuang's guilty plea. Since Li
Zhuang said yesterday 'I am between a normal person and a mental patient,' I
may consider to have him undergo a psychiatric examination if necessary."
Li Zhuang interrupted him immediately while
waving his hand: "There is no need. There is no need. I am quite
normal."
During the one hour presentation during the
debate, Lawyer Gao Zicheng said: "I don't deny that Li Zhuang lacks the
political acumen that excellent lawyers should have, and he also lacks the
mind and will to oppose the trial or the supervisory department. But
these flaws do not form a crime. No matter whether Li Zhuang is pleading
guilty today in exchange for freedom, or to enable Gong Gangma to gain credit,
or for some other unknown reasons, the court cannot find Li Zhuang guilty."
Gao Zicheng said: "Ordinary folks have not
read the charges or the defense statements. They were influenced by the
powerful reporting on the outside and they have formed certain opinions about
the first trial. The skeptics come mainly from lawyers, legalists,
business people and intellectuals in journalism. Although they are small
in numbers compared to the ordinary folks, their social connections and grades
are higher than ordinary folks. If Li Zhuang is found guilty, those
people who inwardly believe that he is not guilty but for various reasons have
to say that he is guilty in public will be tormented or frustrated even longer
than the 30 months that was Li Zhuang's jail sentence."
Lawyer Chen Youxi said later: "It was an
astonishing move by Li Zhuang to plead guilty yesterday. We were very
surprised. But defense lawyers make their defenses independently, so we
decided to defend him on a non-guilty basis. But if the court still
wants to find him guilty, Li Zhuang's attitude should be taken into
consideration for a reduced sentence."
Gao Zicheng also said: "The prosecutor is
unable to produce any evidence fabricated by Li Zhuang. Therefore, what
Li Zhuang did was not a crime."
The prosecutor explained towards that end:
"Article 306 in the Criminal Laws is not about criminals who achieved results.
It also covers criminals who commit deeds. As long as Li Zhuang acted as
a defense lawyer to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses, he is guilty
even if the false evidence did not have any effect."
During the final stage of the court debate,
the prosecutor said: "I have many emotions today. It is the duty of the
legal professional to respect the law, obey the law and apply the law within
reasonable bounds, and the Law will protect him. If he ignores the law
and violate the law, the Law will punish him."
At 15:00, Li Zhuang took out his "confession"
and delivered his final statement.
In his statement, Li Zhuang mentioned: "The
first and second trials have given me a lot of thoughts. I recognized
the severity of my criminal acts. I have violated the sanctity of my
lawyer's profession. I have lost the basic professional ethics of a
professional lawyer. I was lost on issues of right versus wrong."
He said in the end: "My thinking changed
slowly. Although I will pay a heavy price for this, it has given me
abundant experience from which to learn. When I return to society, I
will be someone useful to society."
With respect to his confession, Li Zhuang
said: "Some public opinion think that I am pleading guilty today because of
the appearance of the witnesses in court. I want to explain that my
confession was submitted to the court on January 24. Before today's
court session, I also promised that I will not recant in the future."
At 15:15, the chief judge announced a recess.
The verdict will be rendered on a date to be scheduled.
THE arrest and kangaroo-court conviction of
another successful lawyer might hardly be worth mentioning in a nation where
deregistering, imprisoning or beating lawyers
for doing their jobs is becoming commonplace. But the case of Li Zhuang has
generated a 10-week Chinese media and internet firestorm, and not just
because of the way it was conducted.
It is the first time a lawyer has been
convicted of coaching his client to lie on the basis of testimony from an
accused mobster, according to another respected lawyer (who has himself been
beaten and deregistered for representing the wrong kind of clients).
And the 4000-word character assassination
planted in the China Youth Daily straight after Li's arrest was also
unusual.
But it is the hazy background to this case
that makes it so riveting for onlookers and disruptive for China's political
status quo.
The man who must have authorised Li's
arrest is Bo Xilai, the only politburo member who can comfortably wear
epithets such as "colourful", "mercurial" or "maverick". The Communist Party
boss of Chongqing has captivated the nation with a crazy-brave war against
the city's organised crime.
Bo got to where he is partly because he is
the son of Bo Yibo, one of China's "Eight Immortals" - the tag for an
exalted club of revolutionaries who lived long enough to stamp their marks
on China's reform-era history.
China Youth Daily
hinted at the equally impressive power behind the lawyer whom Bo Xilai
arrested: "As Li Zhuang arrived at Chongqing, he began to play the peacock,
saying many times, 'Do you know my background? Do you know who my boss is?"
What the censors won't let local media
spell out is that Li's law firm is headed by Fu Yang, who is the son of Peng
Zhen, who was also one of the Eight Immortals and more powerful than Bo Yibo.
Li's lawyer from the same Kangda law firm,
Gao Zicheng, said he could not talk about the background politics: "I can't
go there ¡K''
But the fathers Bo Yibo and Peng were once
factional allies. Their families lived close together and were closely
entwined, often entertaining guests at a Shanxi restaurant they both helped
to open, according to a Beijing political aficionado.
"Both Peng Zhen and Bo Yibo were loyalists
of [Chairman Mao's one-time chosen successor] Liu Shaoqi, yet the two were
rivals," says Huang Jing, a visiting professor at the National University of
Singapore. "This hate-love relationship is certainly inherited by their
children."
So it turns out that Bo Xilai has just
spectacularly arrested, convicted and rejected the appeal of a lawyer who
works for Bo's equally powerful childhood playmate, Fu Yang.
The Communist Party has enjoyed enormous
success in turning China into a powerful nation and lifting its citizens out
of poverty. But the party is also a club that allocates political, financial
and social privilege to its members.
It has its own internal system of hierarchy
and quasi-royalty, where revolutionary leaders bequeath their status to
their children and children's children.
Those descendants are called China's "princelings".
Mostly, the princelings get on with the job of expanding the national cake
and carving it up. It was Bo Xilai's father, Bo Yibo, who is said to have
helped institutionalise the princeling nexus of power and wealth in the
1990s by supporting a proposal that each powerful family have only one
princeling in politics, leaving other siblings to cash in their political
inheritances for financial ones.
But the case of lawyer Li Zhuang suggests
the country may not be big enough for all of them.
Political analysts say Bo Xilai is pursuing
an audacious but calculated political strategy. Most say he is appealing
directly to the people by implicitly attacking his peers, in the hope of
forcing his own promotion into the nine-member politburo standing committee
at the next leadership reshuffle in 2012.
"Bo Xilai is indeed challenging the
privilege of some princelings to boost his own popularity," says Bo Zhiyue,
an expert on China's princelings at the National University of Singapore.
It is not impossible for an outsider to
secure the right patrons and make it to the top, as did President Hu Jintao
(who was anointed by former party leaders Hu Yaobang and Deng Xiaoping).
Generally, however, modern China belongs to
the children of the revolution. All three officers appointed last year to
the rank of full general in the People's Liberation Army were children of
senior party leaders. Xi Jinping, who many expect to be the next president,
is the son of a revolutionary hero. Eight or nine of the 25-member politburo
are princelings (defined as having a parent or parent-in-law who held the
rank of vice-minister or above), according to Cheng Li, an expert on Chinese
elite politics at the Brookings Institution. In the previous politburo there
were only three.
The strategic heights of China's economy
are also in princeling hands.
The family of former president Jiang Zemin,
whose adoptive father was a revolutionary martyr, pulls strings in the
telecommunications, railways and postal systems. The family of former
premier Li Peng, who was adopted by former premier Zhou Enlai, has outsized
influence over electricity production, transmission and hydro-electric dam
building. His daughter Li Xiaolin, whose name appeared in the Australian
media this week thanks to her run-in with billionaire Clive Palmer over a
''$US60 billion'' ($A67.9 billion) contract, is at the helm of a major power
generating company. Her brother headed another large electricity company
before being transferred to help run the coal-powered province of Shanxi.
Family friend Liu Zhenya controls the electricity grid.
Distinctions between state and personal
enterprise are not always clear in China.
Some of the most eminent princeling
families discreetly control large companies that are listed on the Hong Kong
stock exchange, sometimes in concert with Hong Kong's mega-billionaire
families, and often through loyal personal secretaries or close relatives
who have changed their names.
Further in the background, Chinese
political analysts say the descendants of Marshal Ye Jianying, Deng
Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Wang Zhen, Peng Zhen and Bo Yibo are China's real
political and financial king makers.
Which brings us back to Bo Yibo and Peng's
Zhen's children, Bo Xilai and Fu Yang.
Overwhelmingly, China's intellectuals and
the legal professionals castigated Bo Xilai for his Chongqing crackdown,
although not by name, for cloaking himself as a modern day Maoist and making
a mockery of the rule of law.
The intellectual tide seemed to turn last
week when accused lawyer Li Zhuang shocked his own legal advisers with this
open-court confession at his appeal: "I fabricated evidence to deceive the
police, the procuratorate [prosecution], and the court to exculpate [gang
leader Gong Gangmo]."
While that confession was itself clouded in
controversy, liberal opinion leaders began to reframe the debate.
Li Zhuang and his law firm, Kangda, are
respected for being very good at what they do. But they are also welded into
the elite of a Communist Party judicial system that runs on kickbacks and
connections.
It is no stretch to say the fathers of
Kangda's three founding principals ran China's entire political-security and
judicial systems in the 1980s.
The law firm was itself spun out of the
legal department of an immensely profitable and unaccountable
corporate-charity empire called Kanghua, which was run by Deng Pufang, son
of Deng Xiaoping. Controversy about this type of cronyism was one ingredient
in the build-up of public unease leading up to the Tiananmen Square
demonstrations of 1989.
All that hazy background helps explain why
Li Zhuang was once again the big chat topic on leading blogging portals this
week, after a Chongqing court rejected his appeal but reduced his jail
sentence.
"Bo is the great savior of Chinese ordinary
people," said a netizen at the People's Daily website. "Strike hard
against gangsters and black lawyers ¡K Drag all their [mafia] uncles out!"
And Bo Xilai hasn't just locked up one
well-connected lawyer who may or may not have been doing his job. In China
it is impossible for the underworld to thrive without being joined at the
hip to the Communist Party, as the open trials of some of Bo's nearly 800
gangland prosecutions have shown.
Wen Qiang, Chongqing's former deputy police
chief and then justice bureau chief, was in court trying to explain more
than 16 million yuan ($A2.6 million) in suspected kickbacks and sheltering
mobsters such as his sister-in-law, "the godmother of Chongqing". It emerged
in court this week that the bulk of Wen's wealth was acquired from payments
received in return for handing out promotions.
"The trial of the underworld has become a
trial of corrupt officials,'' wrote Liang Jing, a pseudonymous political
columnist on overseas Chinese language websites.
Yang Hengjun, one of China's most
influential political commentators, had previously criticised Bo for his
Maoist rhetoric and politicisation of the legal process.
Last week he took a different course,
skating close to the limits of permissible speech, after his email inbox had
filled to overflowing with unhappy readers.
Yang wrote that the whole debate about
defending the ''rule of law" in Chongqing was premised on the assumption
that there was actually something already resembling "rule of law" anywhere
in China, which there patently is not.
"If you are serious about spreading the
'rule of law' in China I have a suggestion," he wrote. "All legal elites and
opinion leaders can join hundreds of thousands of netizens in demanding that
Chongqing's fight against gangsters be introduced across the whole nation so
that it can terminate unlawful 'rule of law' by corrupt officials."
In the end, writes Yang, debates about rule
of law will remain academic in China for as long as it is run by a one-party
state:
''Only a greater political system or
democracy can provide an answer.''
Privately, political observers in China say
that whatever you think of Bo Xilai or his personal motivations, he has
thrown a bomb inside Party Central. His public dissection of Chongqing's
power and protection rackets invites Chinese people to worry and talk more
openly about whether their country is evolving towards some kind of Soprano
state. Some liberal thinkers hope Bo is a catalyst for those in the system
who are not beholden to "princelings" - perhaps Vice-Premier Li Keqiang? -
to rise and challenge the party's privileges.
But the party's princeling bonds will be
hard to break. To the extent that they stick together, the princelings will
loosen their grip on power only when necessary to preserve it.
"Reporters have every reason to explore the
in-fighting among the princelings,'' writes Cheng Li, at the Brookings
Institution.
''But I believe that princelings' incentive
for co-operation and the need to share wealth and power are far more
important than their internal tensions and conflicts.''