A motion for retrial was filed by the Taiwan Innocence Project’s pro bono legal team on the 7th of September for Lu Cheng—a man executed in 2000 amid concerns over a miscarriage of justice. The motion was supported by five new pieces of evidence. In the press conference and documentary screening earlier this month, the Taiwan Innocence Project expressed its disappointment with the Supreme Prosecutors Office’s decision on August 28th that it will not pursue further remedies to this case. The recent motion offers a new opportunity to overturn the conviction dating back to 2000, that raises serious concerns about a potential miscarriage of justice.
In January 1998, Lu Cheng, a 29-year-old man was summoned to the police station to “assist with [an] investigation.” After arriving and being held at the station for 31 hours, Lu Cheng confessed to the abduction and murder of Chan Chun-Tzu, the wife of his former classmate, in December of 1997. In May of 1998, Lu Cheng was officially prosecuted with the offence of kidnapping for ransom and murder by the Tainan District Prosecutors Office.
Lu Cheng was later convicted and sentenced to death by the Tainan District Court in April 1999, and the case was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2000. Despite Lu Cheng and his family’s claim that he had been falsely accused, authorities quickly executed Lu Cheng on September 7th, 2000.
The case was fraught with serious doubts. Firstly, the conviction relied solely on Lu Cheng’s confession. During the first trial, Lu Cheng claimed he had been coerced to confess to the crime through police torture. Additionally, the confession was made after Lu Cheng had already been held in police custody for 31 hours, with no complete recording of the interrogation process presented in court to rule out possibilities of torture. In 2026, the forensic examination of Lu Cheng’s interrogation records, conducted by Psychology professor Teoh, Yee-San, also raised questions as to the reliability of Lu Cheng’s confession.
Moreover, the physical evidence also makes this case highly questionable. New forensic studies carried out by professor Hsiao, Hsu-Feng questioned the time of the victim’s death, which could potentially support Lu Cheng’s alibi. In addition, doubts were raised over the shoelace which the court identified as having been Lu Cheng’s murder weapon. Firstly, the forensic report found that the wound could also have been caused by a telephone cord. Secondly, there were no traces of blood or DNA on the shoelace seized by the police. According to the report of Tainan City Police Department, the fingerprints found on the victim’s helmet, the tape used to bind the victim’s body, and the telephone booth allegedly used to demand a ransom did not even match Lu Cheng’s fingerprints.
Setting aside doubts over the conviction, there were serious flaws in the investigation process. Lu Cheng’s 31 hours of prolonged interrogation and detention violated Article 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to habeas corpus (the right to challenge the court for their detention), and requires persons to be brought to court within 24 hours of liberty restraint, as well as Article 156 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits fatigue-inducing interrogation. The failure to record the interrogation in its entirety also breached Article 100-1 and 100-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Taiwan Innocence Project took up Lu Cheng’s case in 2019. In 2022, Taiwan Innocence Project petitioned the Supreme Prosecutors Office to pursue a retrial and an extraordinary appeal for this case. Four years later, the Supreme Prosecutors Office rejected the petition in August of this year. Similarly, the organisation’s petition to the Constitutional Court in 2022 for a constitutional review was also dismissed.
The new motion for retrial was filed with Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court on the 7th of September. Unlike the previous petition, the new motion presents new pieces of evidence–including the blood typing of cigarette butts found on the crime scene–and video analysis of footage showing Lu Cheng identifying the body disposal site. Twenty-six years after Lu Cheng’s execution, his family awaits his exoneration.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.