Wang Yingqiang: First-Instance Complaint in the September 28 Intentional Injury Case in Xianyang, Shaanxi

 

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

Complainant: Wang Yingqiang, male, ID number: 610404194105176010, telephone: 18064379278, address: Family Compound of Northwest Electric Power Construction No. 4 Company, No. 66 Jinxu Road, Qinhan New City, Xixian New Area, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.

Respondent: Liu Yan, presiding judge of the Criminal Division of the Weicheng District People’s Court of Xianyang;

Respondent: Wang Min, judge of the Weicheng District People’s Court of Xianyang. Related first-instance judgments: (2023) Shaan 0404 Xing Chu No. 72 and (2023) Shaan 0404 Xing Chu No. 73 (the “9/28” intentional injury case) 

Complaint matters:

During the trial of the above “9/28” intentional injury case, judges Liu Yan and Wang Min, the respondents, violated statutory criminal procedure, abused their judicial authority, and are suspected of perverting the course of justice for personal gain. They improperly admitted judicial appraisal opinions that had serious procedural defects and questionable conclusions, unlawfully split the cases for trial, deprived the complainant, the parties, and defense counsel of multiple statutory procedural rights, and failed to transfer a case that should have been heard by the Intermediate People’s Court. This led to erroneous findings of fact and a seriously unjust judgment, left the issue of Ma Jianjun’s suspected serious crime without a lawful determination, resulted in Wang Xiaogang being wrongfully sentenced, and was followed by Wang Xiaogang’s unnatural death in custody. The complainant’s lawful rights and interests have been seriously infringed. The complainant hereby files this complaint:

1. Request a lawful investigation into disciplinary and legal violations by Liu Yan and Wang Min in handling cases (2023) Shaan 0404 Xing Chu 72 and 73; transfer leads involving suspected crimes committed in the course of official duties to investigative authorities for investigation and filing, and pursue corresponding legal liability;

2, Review the first-instance judgment in this case in accordance with the law, and, if statutory grounds for retrial are confirmed, vacate judgments (2023) Shaan 0404 Xing Chu 72 and 73, designate an out-of-area court to hear the entire case, conduct a dual investigation of the two cases, and retry them;

3, Protect the complainant’s right to bring a civil claim incidental to the criminal proceedings in accordance with the law, and handle the incidental civil complaint submitted by the complainant during the first-instance proceedings in accordance with the law.

Facts and reasons: 

I, Basic account of the case;

The complainant’s son, Wang Xiaogang, developed a mental illness after being harmed by his former employer years ago. Beginning on September 27, 2022, Ma Yongkui repeatedly went to the complainant’s home, carrying a 30-centimeter-long knife, to provoke trouble, hurl insults, and make threats. On September 28, Ma Yongkui again entered the courtyard with a knife to cause trouble. Wang Xiaogang defended himself, injuring Ma Yongkui’s head; Ma Jianjun, Ma Yongkui’s son, drove an off-road vehicle into the complainant’s courtyard, striking and running over Ma Yongkui while also crashing into the complainant, Wang Yingqiang. Ma Yongkui suffered multiple fractures and organ injuries and died after emergency treatment. The complainant, Wang Yingqiang, was seriously injured.

    After the investigation, the Xixian New Area Public Security Sub-bureau split events arising from the same cause and occurring at the same scene, with closely related facts, into two cases. The Weicheng District People’s Court of Xianyang heard them separately under case numbers (2023) Shaan 0404 Xing Chu Nos. 72 and 73, with Liu Yan as presiding judge and Wang Min serving on the collegial panel. The complainant believes Ma Jianjun’s act of driving into and running over the victims constituted intentional homicide and could carry a sentence of life imprisonment or more; under the law, the case should have been within the jurisdiction of the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court. However, the first-instance panel did not transfer it to the higher court as required by law and instead forced separate trials in a basic-level court. After the first-instance judgments, Wang Xiaogang was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, while Ma Jianjun was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for intentional injury. Wang Xiaogang later died an unnatural death in the Weicheng District Detention Center before the second-instance hearing.

II, Procedural and substantive legal violations in the first-instance proceedings; 

(I) Key surveillance evidence is questionable, and repeated requests to obtain it and for video appraisal were not acted upon 

    On September 27, 2022, Ma Yongkui went to the complainant’s home with a knife to provoke trouble; the neighbor Wang Xiaoqin and several eyewitnesses could attest to this. However, the surveillance video from that day included in the case file omits key footage of Ma Yongkui causing trouble with a knife. The complainant and defense lawyers repeatedly submitted written applications to the panel to obtain the complete original surveillance footage and police body-camera recordings, and requested a forensic appraisal to determine whether the video in evidence had been edited or altered. After the applications were submitted, presiding judge Liu Yan and judge Wang Min did not respond as required by law or initiate an investigation, and instead directly used the questionable video as evidence for their findings. 

(II) Multiple judicial appraisals in the case had serious procedural defects and medical inconsistencies, and requests for reappraisal were rejected without justification; 

1, Appraisal of Ma Yongkui’s cause of death (Shaanxi Zhengyi Forensic Appraisal Center): The appraisal opinion identified extremely severe open craniocerebral injury as the fundamental cause of death, assigning a 70%–80% contribution to the head injury and treating the crush injuries as an auxiliary cause, with a 20%–30% contribution. However, according to the inpatient medical records, emergency treatment records, and death discussion records, Ma Yongkui was conscious on admission and showed none of the typical signs of severe craniocerebral injury, such as vomiting, loss of consciousness, or abnormal pupils. The treating doctors unanimously determined that the cause of death was traumatic hemorrhagic shock. The autopsy records show 16 fractured ribs, a fractured sternum, multiple pelvic fractures, and contusions and bleeding in multiple abdominal organs; injuries of this kind were sufficient to cause traumatic hemorrhagic shock. The appraisal also did not include the complete materials submitted for examination and lacked core materials such as the original surveillance footage, dashcam video, and original imaging, leaving its evidentiary basis incomplete. The complainant and defense counsel repeatedly submitted written requests for a new appraisal of the causal relationship between the injuries and Ma Yongkui’s death and of the severity of the injuries, but the panel did not grant them. 

2, Appraisal of the complainant Wang Yingqiang’s injuries (Shaanxi Xin’an Forensic Appraisal Center): The appraisal process was one-sided. Citing unclear medical records and scans, the appraisers declined to examine injuries including rib fractures, cervical dislocation, and craniocerebral injury, and measured only external scars. The appraisal procedure did not comply with forensic clinical standards; the opinion included assessments unrelated to the injuries themselves, compromising its impartiality. Our request for a new appraisal was not granted. 

3, Appraisal of Wang Xiaogang’s mental illness and fitness to stand trial (Shaanxi Xin’an Forensic Appraisal Center): The dates on the commissioning documents were out of order: the appointment letter was issued after acceptance of the case and the appraisal, and the materials submitted for examination had not yet been completed when the appraisal began. The institution had previously failed proficiency testing for forensic psychiatry and forensic clinical appraisal and did not meet the qualifications for the relevant appraisal work. The appraisal did not obtain the surveillance video of the incident as a core basis for its conclusions, making the procedure seriously unlawful. 

4, We also raised the following: The public security authorities did not prioritize commissioning a public security forensic appraisal institution and instead uniformly commissioned social appraisal institutions, making the appraisal chain questionable. All of the above appraisals had major defects and should not have been used as a basis for the findings under the law. The panel nevertheless admitted this series of appraisal opinions as core grounds for conviction.

(III) Unlawfully splitting the cases and holding separate hearings, evading jurisdiction based on the level of court, and infringing the parties’ procedural rights;

The acts of Ma Jianjun and Wang Xiaogang occurred at the same scene and in the same chain of conflict, and the facts were closely related; the cases should have been heard together. Instead, this case was split into two cases. The same collegial panel and the same prosecutor held hearings in the two cases one after the other on the same day and at the same place; the hearing in Ma Jianjun’s case was scheduled for an extremely short time. The complainant’s side repeatedly requested a joint trial and transfer of the case involving Ma Jianjun’s suspected intentional homicide to the Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court, but the panel rejected the requests and forced separate trials. This prevented the nature and consequences of Ma Jianjun’s conduct from being fully examined in a single proceeding and objectively severed the causal relationship between the cases.

(IV), Unlawfully depriving and restricting the complainant and defense counsel’s multiple statutory procedural rights; 

1, Right to bring a civil claim incidental to criminal proceedings was denied: As the victim of Ma Jianjun’s intentional injury, the complainant Wang Yingqiang, before the first-instance judgment was announced, successively authorized a representative to submit in person and by mail a civil complaint incidental to the criminal proceedings. The panel’s staff refused to accept it and returned it. After it was submitted in court, presiding judge Liu Yan still refused to accept or hear it, in violation of the Criminal Procedure Law provisions on accepting incidental civil actions.

2, Recusal application was improperly handled: Citing Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the representative requested Liu Yan’s recusal on the grounds that the presiding judge had shown bias against the complainant’s side in handling the case and might not hear it impartially, and requested an adjournment so the court president could decide. Liu Yan rejected the recusal application himself in court and did not refer it to the court president for a decision under the statutory procedure, in violation of procedure. During the hearing, he repeatedly interrupted and warned defense counsel, restricting the lawyer’s ability to present cross-examination and argument.

3, Unequal treatment concerning the right to review the case file: Wang Xiaoqin was permitted to review the file as Wang Xiaogang’s defense counsel; when acting as litigation representative for the complainant Wang Yingqiang, the panel refused to allow her to review the file as usual, treating the representatives of the two sides differently. 

4, Unequal treatment concerning the right to attend hearings: Wang Xiaogang’s family members and retained lawyer were stopped outside the courtroom and not allowed to observe; Ma Jianjun’s family members were allowed to attend. The standards applied to the parties at the hearing were inconsistent. 

(V) The defense system was unlawfully implemented, with a legal aid lawyer forcibly appointed despite an existing retained defense lawyer; 

At the second hearing in Wang Xiaogang’s case on January 12, 2024, Wang Xiaoqin was already participating in the proceedings as defense counsel retained by Wang Xiaogang himself. Despite the defendant already having counsel, the panel separately appointed legal aid lawyer Cui Xinfa to appear. Throughout the proceedings, the legal aid lawyer made no substantive challenge to the prosecution’s evidence or the facts alleged, did not request suspension of the proceedings or recusal, and did not perform the independent duties of defense counsel. In addition, Wang Xiaogang appeared dazed and unable to respond during the hearing. We applied in court for a forensic appraisal of Wang Xiaogang’s fitness to stand trial and for the proceedings to be suspended, but the panel refused and continued the hearing.

(VI), Witnesses did not appear for cross-examination, and testimony not tested in court was used as a basis for the findings

Several witnesses in the case file were relatives or friends of Ma Yongkui or Ma Jianjun, and their testimony was crucial to the legal characterization of the case. We repeatedly submitted written requests for key witnesses and appraisers to be summoned to appear for cross-examination, but the panel rejected them. It accepted and included in the first-instance judgment testimony from witnesses who had not appeared in court and whose testimony had not been tested in court by both the prosecution and defense, in violation of the statutory requirements that trials serve as the center of proceedings and that evidence be tested through cross-examination.

(VII), The judgment announcement procedure did not comply with the law; 

Under Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Law, judgments must always be announced publicly. On May 31, 2024, the panel notified Wang Xiaoqin to come to the court and, without reading out the judgment in full or fully informing her of its contents, asked her to sign the acknowledgment of service first. The method of service did not comply with the statutory procedure for publicly announcing a judgment.

(VIII) Key medical records were not included in the case file, and evidence was concealed; 

The panel did not place in the case file the complainant’s side’s submission of Wang Yingqiang’s complete inpatient medical records, which had been obtained by the public security authorities, or use them as a basis for reviewing the case. As a result, the injuries and resulting harm could not be fully considered in the proceedings. 

In summary, the complainant believes that in the course of the proceedings, panel members Liu Yan and Wang Min repeatedly violated the Criminal Procedure Law, the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Judges Law, and related provisions: they failed to transfer to the Intermediate People’s Court a case that should have been heard there; refused to lawfully handle requests for reappraisal, obtaining evidence, postponement of trial, joint trial, recusal, and incidental civil claims; imposed unequal restrictions on the procedural rights of the victim and defense counsel; and improperly admitted judicial appraisals that were procedurally unlawful and contradicted the medical records, as well as witness testimony that had not been tested through cross-examination. The complainant has reasonable grounds to believe that these actions constitute abuse of judicial authority and perversion of the course of justice for personal gain, resulting in reversed findings of fact and an unjust judgment, causing Wang Xiaogang to be wrongfully imprisoned and ultimately die an unnatural death in custody, leaving the serious circumstances of Ma Jianjun’s offense without lawful assessment, and causing the complainant serious physical and psychological harm. The complainant hereby formally files this complaint and respectfully requests that the Supreme People’s Court’s inspection department, pursuant to Article 2 of the Regulations on Accountability for Judicial Personnel of People’s Courts, which provides that judicial personnel of people’s courts shall bear lifelong responsibility for their performance of adjudicative duties and that those who intentionally violate their adjudicative duties in their work, or whose gross negligence in performing those duties causes serious consequences, shall be held correspondingly accountable for judicial responsibility in accordance with rules, discipline, and law,

To safeguard judicial fairness and supervise judicial personnel in the lawful performance of their duties, I hereby submit this application to your inspection department and respectfully request that it be accepted and the entire case be investigated in accordance with the law, that accountability and retrial review be undertaken, that the erroneous judgment be corrected, that judicial fairness be safeguarded, and that the applicant be given a written response.

Respectfully submitted to

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

Complainant: Wang Yingqiang October 26, 2026