(Minghui.org) On May 3, the Lufeng County Court in Yunnan Province hastily conducted a trial of Falun Gong practitioners Liu Cuixian, Peng Xueping, Ran Xiaoman and Liu Xiaoping. The four lawyers hired by the defendant's families submitted a written document protesting the fact that they were barred from being able to legally meet their clients and copy case documents before the trial. In an act of solidarity they then walked out of the courtroom. According to the rule of the Supreme Court, after the defendants retire from the courtroom, adjournment should be announced. But Judge Li Liangsheng forcibly conducted the trial before an empty courtroom. When the four lawyers initially left the courtroom, five to six bailiffs violently ushered them out of the building.
The lawyers then filed a grievance against the police, Procuratorate and Lufeng County Court for their neglect of duty and abuse of authority. With pressure mounting, the Lufeng County Court had to declare that the May 3rd trial was invalid. Another trial date was pending.
After many setbacks, the lawyers were eventually allowed to meet one of the litigants, Ms. Ran Xiaoman and gain access to the majority of her case documents. Ms. Ran told her lawyer about the positive physical and mental changes she experienced after starting to practice Falun Gong. Other lawyers hired by the defendants' families were then allowed to meet their clients and copy relevant documents before the court's announcement of a re-trial.
Case Background
The four Falun Gong practitioners from Kunming City--Liu Cuixian, Peng Xueping, Ran Xiaoman and Liu Xiaoping--were illegally arrested on December 20, 2012 by the Lufeng County Domestic Security Division. They had been handing out Shen Yun Performing Arts DVDs to villagers in Tuoan Town, Lufeng County. The Lufeng County Domestic Security Division also ransacked their homes and filed erroneous charges against them. Their families subsequently hired defense lawyers.
When the four lawyers attempted to practice under their legal privileges according to the law, the Lufeng Police Department suddenly issued a written notification ordering a temporary suspension on the implementation of Criminal Procedure Law and repeatedly denied the lawyers' request to meet their clients. Meanwhile, the Procuratorate and court forbade the lawyers from reading and copying the litigants' documents. The lawyers then filed a grievance charging neglect of duty and abuse of power with higher levels of the Procuratorate, Lufeng Court, the Discipline Inspection Commission, the Party Commission, and the People's Congress, requesting that they guarantee the lawyers' lawful participation throughout the litigation process.
Nevertheless, the Lufeng County Court continued to breach the law and hastily convened a court session on May 3 and, unprecedentedly, stationed dozens of armed police in front of the court building. The bailiffs breached the rule issued by the Supreme Court that lawyers and prosecutors be exempted from a security check and forcibly searched the four lawyers. In the lobby of the court building, some people with unknown identification were witnessed threatening and video recording the defendants' lawyers and family members.
Only one attendance permit was issued to the family members of each defendant; this was only granted after their attorneys submitted a strongly worded request. The 31 seats in all four rows for attendees were mostly taken by people from Lufeng County Domestic Security Division, Lufeng Court personnel, the Procuratorate and the 610 Office, which had breached the legal regulation allowing family members to sit in as a priority.
Obstruction of Justice
1. Lawyers deprived of their right to meet clients
The four lawyers--Dong Qianyong, Cheng Hai, Wang Quanzhang and Li Xiongbing-- worked as the defense attorneys respectively for Liu Xiaoping, Liu Cuixian, Peng Xueping and Ran Xiaoman. On January 4, 2013, Dong Qianyong visited his client Liu Xiaoping at the Lufeng County Detention Center. During the meeting, Domestic Security Division head Huang refused to answer the lawyer's queries. Furthermore, he told the lawyer in front of Liu Xiaoping's family members, "We Party organizations also participate in litigation; we are all supported by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Now, you must realize that power controls laws! We can forbid lawyers from meeting with clients at any time!"
On January 13, 2013, lawyer Li Xiongbing went to the Lufeng County Detention Center and requested to visit Ran Xiaoman, but he was told he should apply for permission from the Domestic Security Division. However, Huang Shaorong, head of the Domestic Security Division, told him that the lawyers were not allowed to visit their clients, and that the police department had issued a notification that the implementation of Criminal Procedure Law had been put on hold.
On April 11, 2013, lawyer Wang Quanzhang went to meet Peng Xueping, and on April 12, lawyer Li Xiongbing went to meet Ran Xiaoman again. They were both turned down with the prior excuse. On the afternoon of April 7, 2013, and the morning and afternoon of April 8, lawyer Dong Qianyong went to meet Liu Xiaoping three times and submitted a Letter of Authorization to the Detention Center. The officers at the detention center rejected the meeting requests with the excuse that their superiors would not accept it.
Dong Qianyong attempted to negotiate with head Wang Ming and political head Luo Kaiping, but got no results. He then appealed to the Divisions of Legalization, Discipline Inspection, the Politics Commission, as well as the deputy head and head of the Lufeng County Police Department. But all efforts failed. Mr. Dong then submitted his appeal to the Lufeng County Procuratorate, Inspection Bureau, and Procuratorate, but was denied at every turn.
On the morning of April 18, 2013, the four lawyers went to the Lufeng Detention Center together to request to meet their clients and submitted Letters of Authorization to officers Li Xuexiang and Mu Shunqing, but were still rejected on the grounds that the superiors involved did not allow it. That afternoon, the lawyers went to the Lufeng County Procuratorate and Judiciary and Political Commission to appeal. Head of the Procuratorate, Li Yun, called the head of the police department, Hu Xiaodong, in an attempt to arrange a meeting of the lawyers with their clients according to the law, but he was rejected as well.
On May 2, the four lawyers went again to the Detention Center to request a meeting with their clients, but were turned down again. Director Wang Ming said he knew nothing about the law and could only follow his superiors. The lawyers then returned to the Procuratorate to appeal, but were told by the Discipline Inspection Commission that the Procuratorate had issued an Action Rectification Notice to the Police Department on April 19, and they still could not allow the meeting.
During its process of case transference to litigation, the Lufeng County Police Department never lawfully notified the lawyers and failed to record information about the lawyers in the Written Opinion Recommending Prosecution.
2. Lawyers Deprived of Their Right to Read Case Documents
On the afternoon of April 7, lawyer Dong Qianyong submitted a legal document, through Procurator Liu, to the Lufeng County Procuratorate requesting to read the case documents of his client. Procurator Liu rejected the request with the excuse that the person in charge of the case had gone to Beijing to attend training. She also refused to hand in the Written Opinion Recommending Prosecution and withheld the name and phone number of the judge assigned to the case.
Dong Qianyong went to complain to Chief Procurator Li Yun and requested that the Deputy Chief Procurator, Deng Min, arrange staffers to accompany the lawyers for meetings with their clients and reading case files. His complaint, however, fell on deaf ears. Before that, Mr. Dong repeatedly attempted to locate Procurator Wan, the "resident procurator" assigned in the Detention Center, but never found him.
3. Litigants Deprived of Their Rights to Read and Copy Case Documents
On April 18, 2013, the four lawyers went to the Lufeng County Court together to inquire with the Registration Division to find out which judge in the Criminal Division had been assigned to the case. Judge Wang Tianyong told them that the case had not been assigned to anyone yet, but he accepted the Lawyer Authorization Statement. After consulting with the Vice President of Court, Wang Jianrong, and the Vice Chief Justice Yang, he responded that the lawyers could only read two files among the five and were not allowed to make copies. The lawyers were not able to access the other three files, according to Wang Tianyong, because they concerned "national secrets.”
The lawyers told Wang Tianyong, that the Criminal Procedure Law and Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers stipulated that lawyers were authorized to refer to all files and documents including the ones that may concern state secrets, but had the obligation to keep such secrets confidential. However, Wang Tianyong refused to consider the lawyers' rebuttal.
On April 19, when lawyer Cheng Hai requested to read the files, Wang Tianyong still insisted that the lawyers could only read two. Mr. Cheng negotiated with Wang Jianrong at the Registration Division and Director Lu at the Court Office, as well as the President of the Law Court, but the Chief Justice of the Court, Li Liangsheng, still refused to overturn the prior ruling.
4. Lawyers Deprived of Their Right to Defend
On the day of the trail, the four lawyers requested the withdrawals of the Public Prosecutor, Chief Prosecutor, Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Deng Min, the President of Law Court, Gan Zhaolin, Vice President of Law Court, Yang, and the Chief Justice, Li Liangsheng. The complaint detailed that these officials had deprived the lawyers of their rights to read the documents and make copies and, therefore, had neglected their duty as impartial parties; and accordingly, based on the regulations of the Criminal Procedure Law, they should withdraw from the trial. The Chief Justice Li Liangsheng then organized a Collegial Panel, and after a brief discussion, denied the lawyers' request and would not allow reconsideration on this issue.
