Ren Yanhong （任艳红）

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Nationalities

Chinese

Case Title: Retrial Appeal of Ren Yanhong's Hazardous Substances case

Age at Offence: 41

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Female

Religious Group at Offence: Unknown

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 35.8617

Longitude: 104.1954

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): China

Contributing TRP Partner

The Rights Practice (United Kingdom)
The Rights Practice Partner (China)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2013

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right against self incrimination
Torture: Torture/Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CIDT)

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Chemistry/Toxicology/Drug analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint
Forensic/Medical evidence: Lie detection/brain mapping/narco analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Trace evidence (hair, fibers, paint, glass etc)

Case Background (300 words max): On the evening of July 5, 2011, in a village in Shandong Province, Li and his family of three fell ill after dinner and then died despite emergency treatment. The diagnosis indicated rat poison poisoning. Previously, the Li family had experienced multiple poisoning incidents, and Li’s son had also died from rat poison poisoning earlier.
On July 20, Ren Yanhong was subjected to a polygraph test by local police. Failing in the polygraph test, she was subsequently interrogated the same evening. Her illiteracy might potentially influence her interrogation and confession. On June 4, 2013, the Linyi Intermediate People's Court delivered a first-instance verdict, finding Ren guilty of poisoning Li on five occasions to escape his harassment. The poisonings resulted in four deaths. Ren was sentenced to death sentence with a two-year suspended execution. The defence lawyer in the first trial had already raised concerns about flaws in the evidence. Regarding the fifth poisoning incident, the court determined that Ren had purchased rat poison from a stall in the town. However, the stall owner denied this, claiming they did not know Ren and had never sold rat poison to her, casting doubt on the source of the poison. During the trial, Ren recanted her confession, stating that she had been coerced through torture. She subsequently appealed. On October 27, 2015, the Shandong High Court overturned the original verdict, citing "unclear facts and insufficient evidence," and remanded the case for retrial.
In July 2017, at the first retrial, Ren was again sentenced to suspended death penalty and appealed once more. On December 26, 2018, the Shandong High Court concluded that "the original trial court had failed to examine critical contested evidence presented during the trial, violating legal procedures in a way that could affect a fair trial." The court overturned the first retrial verdict and ordered a retrial once again. On July 30, 2019, the Linyi People's Procuratorate issued a decision not to prosecute, citing "unclear facts and insufficient evidence." On August 1, 2019, after being detained for 2,932 days, Ren was released without charges. She filed a claim for state compensation, and in October 2020, the court awarded her 1.78 million yuan in compensation.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Based on the investigation, the defence lawyer identified numerous doubts surrounding the case, including:

Alibi Evidence:
- Among the five poisoning incidents attributed to Ren Yanhong, she either had an alibi or no opportunity to commit the crime in two instances. Specifically, Ren had no opportunity to commit the first poisoning, and she had a confirmed alibi for the fourth poisoning.
Incomplete Forensic Evidence:
- No fingerprints, footprints, hair, or other trace evidence were collected at the crime scene.
- The autopsy report for the family of four lacked detailed photographs of the forensic examination process and attachments verifying forensic accreditation.
- Additionally, the most critical evidence for determining the type and quantity of the toxin—the mass spectrometry data—was not provided by the police.
Insufficient Objective Evidence:
- The origin and packaging of the rat poison, allegedly used as the weapon, were not traced.
- The prosecution presented statements from 41 witnesses, which only confirmed that the family fell ill but failed to establish a direct link between the poisoning and Ren Yanhong. The defence argued that Ren Yanhong, accused of poisoning four people and sentenced twice to a suspended death penalty, was a victim of a typical " verdict rendered with room for doubt due to unresolved uncertainties "

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The judgement is not publicly available. However, the case was widely reported by mainstream media and cited in the SPC's annual work report as a key achievement in preventing miscarriage of justice.

On June 3, 2019, the Linyi People’s Procuratorate withdrew the indictment, citing "changes in evidence." On June 28, 2019, the Linyi Intermediate People’s Court approved the withdrawal of the case and dismissed the plaintiff’s attached civil suit. On July 30, 2019, the Linyi People’s Procuratorate issued a decision not to prosecute, stating that the "facts of the case were unclear and the evidence insufficient." On August 1, 2019, after being detained for eight years, Ren Yanhong was released without charges and regained her freedom. Subsequently, Ren filed a claim for state compensation of over 6.75 million yuan and requested a public apology from the relevant authorities to restore her reputation and mitigate the impact of the case. In October 2020, she received a state compensation decision awarding her 1.78 million yuan, including 1.016 million yuan for personal freedom compensation and 764,000 yuan for emotional distress. After negotiations, Ren waived her claims for additional expenses, such as medical treatment and legal costs. On the day the compensation agreement was signed, a representative from the Linyi Intermediate People’s Court apologized to Ren in person. In return, Ren dropped her demands for a public apology, impact mitigation, and reputation restoration.

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Article 115 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (1997 Edition)-Arson, flooding, explosion, poisoning, or other dangerous methods resulting in serious injury or death.