The defence argued that the defendant, Mr. Wang did not commit murder nor had any intent to kill the victims. Mainly, the defence further argued that the prosecution could not solely use the confession of the co-defendant, Mr. Chen, to convict the defendant. While Article 159-1 outlines the admissibility of hearsay evidence if the declarant is unavailable and credible, the defence argued Mr. Chen’s testimony contained significant inconsistencies regarding the defendant’s role and whereabouts during the crime.
The defence argued these contradicting statements demonstrate lack of credibility from the primary declarant and uncertainty of the defendant’s participation in the offense. Additionally, witness testimony used against the defendant was coerced and therefore inadmissible evidence. While the prosecution asserted that the defendant was pressuring the witnesses to change their statements in court, key witnesses in-court affirmed that the police engaged in coercion and even torture during their interrogations. Most notably, Mr. Wu, firmly attested in court that he was tortured during his police investigation and his statements were coerced.
Moreover, the defence argued that Mr. Chen had motive to kill as he was new to gang life and needed to kill to rise in the ranks. Similarly, the defence believed Mr. Li Qing-lin, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time of the crime, had a grudge against the victims from an altercation years prior in relation to gambling arrests.
The defence also argued that the prosecution lacked legitimate forensic evidence. After the prosecution’s office conducted a forensic inspection, they found the murder weapon did not have any of the defendant’s fingerprints on it. Although the murder weapon was not immediately inspected after the incident in 1990 (conducted years later), the defence argued that the case must be judged on fact rather than speculation of tampering during the years the murder weapon was not examined.
Furthermore, the defence affirmed that Taiwan’s CPC states it is the job of the prosecutor’s office to present evidence against the defendant. Thus, the defence argued that the failure of the prosecutor’s office to order an expert examination immediately after the incident placed an undue burden on the defendant to prove his innocence and prevented the usage of potential corroborating evidence.