Complaint Alleging Abuse of Power and Deliberate Miscarriage of Justice by Judges Lu Xiaojuan and Fan Zhiqiang of the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court in the Trial of Cases (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong Nos. 130, 130-1, and 132

 

Liao Xiangyang, Supervision Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court:

Complainant: Wang Yingqiang, male, ID number: 610404194105176010, telephone: 18064379278, address: Family Compound of Northwest Electric Power Construction Fourth Company, No. 66 Jinxu Road, Qinhan New City, Xixian New Area, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province;

    Authorized representative: Wang Xiaoqin (the complainant’s daughter), ID number: 61040419810522602, telephone: 18064379278, address: Family Compound of Northwest Electric Power Construction Fourth Company, No. 66 Jinxu Road, Qinhan New City, Xixian New Area, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.

Persons complained against: Lu Xiaojuan, presiding judge of Criminal Division II of the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court and presiding judge of the second-instance collegial panel in cases (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong Nos. 130, 130-1, and 132;

Person complained against: Fan Zhiqiang, judge of Criminal Division II of the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court;

Case document numbers handled by the judges in the above second-instance cases: (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong No. 130, (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong No. 130-1, and (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong No. 132.

Requests:

1. Investigate indications that Lu Xiaojuan and Fan Zhiqiang committed disciplinary or legal violations during the second-instance proceedings in the “9·28 intentional injury case,” and impose sanctions in accordance with the relevant rules and discipline for any substantiated disciplinary violations; if there are indications of the crimes of deliberate miscarriage of justice, abuse of power, or dereliction of duty, transfer the criminal leads to the supervisory and procuratorial authorities for investigation.

2. Initiate judicial supervision proceedings in this case, set aside the above second-instance rulings, designate a court outside the original jurisdiction to hear the entire case, investigate both the case and the conduct of those involved, and rehear the case; initiate a new appraisal of the appraisal opinions involved in the case in accordance with the law.

3. Correct the errors in the conviction and sentencing of Ma Jianjun in accordance with the law, and determine the causal link between Ma Jianjun’s acts of driving into and running over people and Ma Yongkui’s death; review the case against Wang Xiaogang and, if he was indeed innocent, find him not guilty in accordance with the law.

4. Protect complainant Wang Yingqiang’s rights in the attached civil action in accordance with the law, and order the responsible parties to compensate Wang Yingqiang and Wang Xiaogang’s family members for all economic losses they suffered as a result of this case.

Facts and reasons:

This case concerns intentional injury that occurred on September 28, 2022. Ma Yongkui went to the entrance of complainant Wang Yingqiang’s home carrying a knife, triggering a conflict. After being notified, Ma Jianjun drove a motor vehicle to the scene, drove into Wang Yingqiang, and also ran over Ma Yongkui; Wang Xiaogang struck Ma Yongkui on the head with a steel pipe. After the case was tried at first instance by the Weicheng District People’s Court of Xianyang, it was appealed to the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court, where Lu Xiaojuan presided and judge Fan Zhiqiang handled the second-instance proceedings. The complainant believes that the second-instance panel committed serious procedural violations at multiple stages, including the hearing, evidentiary rulings, application of coercive measures, and service of documents; improperly accepted a questionable appraisal opinion; changed the first-instance finding on Ma Jianjun’s offense; rejected our reasonable applications; and ultimately issued a seriously improper ruling. The specific facts are set out below:

I. Second-instance hearing procedures were unlawful, infringing the lawyers’ professional rights and affecting the fair adjudication of the case;

The second-instance hearing in this case took place on July 30, 2024. Our authorized representative, lawyer Zou Lihui, addressed the first-instance procedural violations and argued that the case should be remanded for retrial and the jurisdiction changed. Presiding Judge Lu Xiaojuan interrupted her several times and warned her in court that she would be removed from the courtroom if she continued speaking. After the hearing, lawyers Zou Lihui and Wang Guiyi, the representatives, asked to check the hearing transcript and whether audio and video had been recorded simultaneously. The clerk replied that no synchronized audio or video recording existed. The representatives said that, because there was no synchronized recording, they needed sufficient time to check the transcript line by line. They also said that lawyer Zou Lihui had diabetes and that hunger could trigger hypoglycemia, and asked to return after lunch to check the transcript. The clerk refused. On July 31 and August 1, the representatives repeatedly went to the court and called to request permission to check and sign the transcript, but were repeatedly put off and their calls were not answered. It was not until 11 a.m. on August 1, after the representatives said they had to leave Xianyang that afternoon and that the court would bear responsibility for any consequences, that the clerk arranged for them to check the transcript, while also refusing to let the lawyers copy it. These actions violated Supreme People’s Court rules on protecting lawyers’ professional rights, recording hearings in full, and judicial transparency. The panel showed an evident bias in this case, and the procedural defects were serious enough to affect a fair trial.

II. The second-instance change to the finding on Ma Jianjun lacked factual and legal grounds, and the reduction in his culpability was improper;

The first-instance judgment found Ma Jianjun guilty of intentional homicide and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The second-instance judgment, (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong No. 132, changed the offense to intentional injury and reduced the sentence to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. According to surveillance footage, dashcam footage, the first-instance hearing transcript, and witness testimony, Ma Jianjun drove at high speed toward Wang Yingqiang, who was seated in the courtyard, with enough force to smash a stone table and stone stools. At the same time, he ran over Ma Yongkui, who was already on the ground. After getting out of the car and seeing Ma Yongkui under the wheels, he did not immediately render aid; instead, he reversed, running over him a second time. At the first- and second-instance hearings, Ma Jianjun denied the objective fact that the vehicle struck the victim and changed his plea in court. He showed no signs of admitting guilt or remorse, and had not obtained the forgiveness of direct victim Wang Yingqiang; only Ma Yongkui’s close relatives had forgiven him. The complainant’s position is that the case began when Ma Yongkui proactively went to the home carrying a knife to cause trouble, and did not arise from an ordinary neighborly dispute; there was no basis for leniency. Ma Jianjun used a motor vehicle as a weapon to strike another person, an extremely dangerous act reflecting serious subjective culpability, and should have received a heavier punishment. The second instance changed the first-instance finding of voluntary surrender to a finding of confession, thereby lowering the sentencing range and changing the offense. This was an error in fact-finding and application of the law;

III. The appraisal materials in the case had major procedural defects, the appraisal opinions cannot serve as a basis for judgment, and the second instance did not initiate a new appraisal as required by law;

Several appraisals issued in this case by the Shaanxi Zhengyi Forensic Appraisal Center and the Shaanxi Xin’an Forensic Appraisal Center (concerning Ma Yongkui’s cause of death and injury severity, Wang Yingqiang’s injuries, and Wang Xiaogang’s psychiatric condition) share the following problems: the appraisal opinions did not include all underlying materials, such as complete surveillance footage, dashcam footage, full medical records and imaging, examination photographs, and commission letters. The prosecution and defense were unable to effectively question the evidence, and the authenticity and scientific validity of the opinions could not be verified.

1. Dispute over the appraisal of Ma Yongkui’s injuries and cause of death;

The appraisal opinion found the primary cause of death to be extremely severe open craniocerebral injury, attributed the craniocerebral injury to Wang Xiaogang’s blows, and assigned only 20%–30% of the injury contribution to Ma Jianjun’s act of running him over. However, the complete medical records, death discussion notes, and admission examination records show that Ma Yongkui was conscious on admission, complained of pain throughout his body, and had no nausea, vomiting, loss of consciousness, unequal pupils, or other typical signs of extremely severe craniocerebral injury. The treating physicians unanimously concluded in their death discussion that the cause of death was traumatic hemorrhagic shock. The autopsy record confirmed that Ma Yongkui had a total of 16 fractured ribs on both sides, a fractured sternum, multiple pelvic and iliac fractures, extensive contusions to abdominal organs, and large-scale retroperitoneal hemorrhage. These multiple injuries were sufficient to directly cause traumatic hemorrhagic shock. As new evidence, the complainant submitted a forensic documentary evidence review opinion issued by the Beijing Yunzhi Forensic Appraisal Center, with experts Hu Zhiqiang and Zhuang Hongsheng, arguing that the original cause-of-death appraisal conclusion contradicted the clinical records and medical common sense; that the fundamental cause of Ma Yongkui’s death was multiple chest and abdominal injuries and hemorrhagic shock caused by Ma Jianjun driving into and running him over; and that the head injury from Wang Xiaogang’s single blow was insufficient to cause death. The second instance, however, refused to accept the expert documentary evidence review opinion on the ground that the center lacked forensic appraisal qualifications, and also denied our application for a new appraisal.

2. Incorrect grading of Ma Yongkui’s injury severity;

The original appraisal classified multiple rib fractures, intestinal contusions, retroperitoneal hematoma, and multiple pelvic fractures as minor injuries of degree one. The complainant believes that under the Standard for Identification of the Degree of Human Injury, these multiple injuries should have been classified as serious injuries of degree two, and that the appraisal conclusion substantially understated their severity.

3. Unlawful procedure for appraising Wang Yingqiang’s injuries;

Nearly three months after the incident, on December 30, 2022, the appraisers finally came to conduct an on-site appraisal. They only measured healed scars on the body surface, and refused to assess the principal injuries, including rib fractures, cervical dislocation, and craniocerebral injury, on the grounds that the CT images were poorly lit and the diagnosis certificate was inaccurate. The appraisal document also contained subjective comments unrelated to the injuries, assessing whether the person concerned had insulted police officers, thereby losing its neutrality. When the key three-dimensional reconstruction CT images were missing, the appraisal agency did not ask the case-handling authority to obtain supplemental materials, but directly concluded that the matter could not be determined.

4. Serious procedural violations in the psychiatric appraisal of Wang Xiaogang;

The appraisal was accepted and conducted before the appraisal engagement letter was issued, and not all submitted materials had been delivered when the appraisal began. In 2019, the Shaanxi Xin’an Forensic Appraisal Center failed proficiency tests for forensic clinical and forensic psychiatry projects and lacked the relevant appraisal capabilities; its appraisal opinion should not be accepted. In addition, the psychiatric appraisal did not obtain the core surveillance footage from the incident as a basis for the appraisal. The complainant submitted multiple written applications for a new appraisal and for the appraiser to appear in court during the investigation, prosecution review, first-instance, and second-instance stages. All were denied.

IV. Wang Xiaogang’s application for release on bail pending trial was denied; he was deprived of supervision and medical care while in custody and ultimately died during the second-instance proceedings; judge Fan Zhiqiang, who handled the case, is suspected of dereliction of duty;

    On July 4, 2024, defense lawyer Shao Chenyang submitted an application for Wang Xiaogang to be released on bail pending trial to Judge Fan Zhiqiang, on the grounds that Wang Xiaogang’s mental illness was worsening, his physical condition was deteriorating, and he was unable to care for himself, circumstances that met the conditions in Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Law for release on bail pending trial: “suffering from a serious illness and unable to care for oneself.” Fan Zhiqiang denied the application on the ground that the detention center had not reported that Wang Xiaogang was ill. However, surveillance footage from the cell in which Wang Xiaogang was held at the Weicheng District Detention Center, where Fan Zhiqiang’s clerk went to question him on July 11, 2024, confirms that Wang Xiaogang was already unable to stand on his own, could not eat normally, was listless, and repeatedly lost consciousness, and had to be carried out of the cell by other detainees for questioning. The clerk should have promptly reported this to the judge handling the case, Fan Zhiqiang. Fan failed to arrange a medical examination, change the coercive measure, or coordinate medical treatment in a timely manner, and continued to keep Wang in custody. On July 23, 2024, Wang Xiaogang died in the detention center. In a later response to a petition referred by an inspection team, the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court claimed that the panel was unaware that the lawyer had been obstructed from meeting with Wang Xiaogang and that he was ill, contradicting objective surveillance evidence. This was an evasive and false response.

V. The second-instance ruling terminated the criminal proceedings against Wang Xiaogang without legally reviewing whether he was innocent, in violation of procedure;

The second instance issued criminal ruling (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong No. 130, terminating the criminal proceedings against Wang Xiaogang on the ground that he had died before the second-instance hearing. Under Article 297 of the Criminal Procedure Law, if a defendant dies and there is evidence proving the defendant’s innocence, the people’s court shall conduct a trial in absentia and declare the defendant not guilty in accordance with the law. We had already submitted evidence in the second instance arguing that Wang Xiaogang had acted in legitimate self-defense and was not guilty of intentional injury. The second-instance panel did not hold a hearing to examine the evidence of innocence and directly ruled to terminate the proceedings, depriving Wang Xiaogang of the statutory remedy of obtaining a not-guilty judgment.

VI. Service of the judgments did not meet the legal requirements for public pronouncement;

     The judgments in (2024) Shaan 04 Xing Zhong Nos. 132 and 130-1 were not publicly pronounced in court, but were sent directly by post to the complainant’s side on November 15, 2024, in violation of Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which states: “Judgments shall in all cases be pronounced publicly.”

VII. First-instance presiding judge Liu Yan committed multiple procedural violations, which the second instance failed to supervise and correct as required by law;

1. At the first-instance stage, before the first-instance judgment was pronounced, the complainant’s side submitted a civil complaint attached to the criminal case, within the statutory filing period. First-instance presiding judge Liu Yan refused to accept and returned the materials on the ground that they were late; after receiving the materials in court, he refused to hear the attached civil claim, depriving complainant Wang Yingqiang of his right to bring a civil claim for compensation.

2. During the hearing, the representative lawfully applied for the court president and judges to recuse themselves. Liu Yan did not submit the application to the court president for a decision in accordance with the legal procedure, but denied it himself in court and prohibited a request for reconsideration; he repeatedly warned and threatened the representative and even escorted the representative out of the courtroom. He treated the prosecution and defense differently, restricted the victim’s side from observing the hearing, searched the representative’s case materials, seized the phone used to present evidence, and repeatedly interrupted the representative’s submissions.

    3. After the hearing, the procuratorate supplemented the record with a public security agency situation report. This evidence was not served on our side, we were not given an opportunity to review the case file, and it was not examined in court; the first instance directly used it as a basis for its judgment. The authorities handling the case had obtained Wang Yingqiang’s complete inpatient medical records, but they were not included in either the first- or second-instance case files and were not examined as evidence. Despite these serious first-instance procedural violations, the second-instance panel did not find that the first-instance procedures were unlawful or remand the case for retrial. Instead, the judgment stated that “the facts found by the original trial were clear and the procedures were lawful,” which constituted a failure to supervise and correct errors.

VIII. Investigation of leads referred by the inspection team was perfunctory, and the response evaded key issues;

During its inspection of Shaanxi, the Central Inspection Team No. 15, Wang Xiaoqin made multiple in-person registrations and mailed materials raising issues in this case. After the leads were transferred to the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court, the court issued a written petition response that evaded core issues, including procedural violations in the appraisals, the need to release Wang Xiaogang on bail when he was critically ill, and the infringement of lawyers’ rights during the hearing; it upheld the original rulings and appraisal conclusions, shifted responsibility, and did not substantively initiate an investigation or correction process. In April 2026, Judge Fan Zhiqiang met with the representative and only verbally suggested filing separate lawsuits in the Weicheng District Court concerning civil compensation and Wang Xiaogang’s death, refusing to correct the case in this proceeding.

In conclusion, the complainant believes that, in their capacity as judges on the second-instance panel, Lu Xiaojuan and Fan Zhiqiang committed procedural violations during the hearing, improperly accepted appraisal opinions with serious procedural defects, improperly changed the offense and sentence, failed to change the coercive measure for a critically ill defendant as required by law, failed to examine evidence of innocence as required by law, and failed to correct multiple violations at first instance. These actions violated the Judges Law and the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions against Staff of People’s Courts; given the seriousness of the circumstances, they are suspected of abuse of power, deliberate miscarriage of justice, and dereliction of duty. The first-instance court has already taken an adversarial position toward the complainant’s side, and continued handling by a court in the original jurisdiction would make it difficult to ensure fairness. We respectfully request that the receiving authority investigate both the case and the conduct of those involved, designate a court outside the original jurisdiction to rehear the case, ascertain all the facts, correct the wrongful judgment, hold the relevant personnel accountable, protect the complainant’s lawful rights and interests, and uphold public confidence in the judiciary.

Respectfully submitted to

Liao Xiangyang, Supervision Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court

Complainant:Wang Yingqiang

October 26, 2026