AI summary
Summary of article:
In the second trial of the Jinghua City case, Ke Wenzhe claimed that Peng Zhensheng was improperly interrogated by the prosecutor and requested that the audio files be preserved. However, the High Court held that the time and material did not meet the requirements and ruled that the case was dismissed without objection.
popular party former chairmanke wenzhe The first-time sentence in the Jinghua City case was 17 years, and the case is pending a second-time appeal. Ko’s appointed lawyer Zheng Shenyuan believed that Peng Zhensheng, former vice mayor of Taipei City, was improperly interrogated by prosecutors, and it was necessary to investigate how prosecutors deceived and induced him. He requested that the audio files of Peng’s interrogation be preserved. The Taiwan High Court ruled that the case was dismissed and there were no objections.
Zheng Shenyuan claimed that the court of first instance inspected the audio and video recording of Peng Zhensheng’s interrogation transcript on September 3 and 4, 2024 last year. It can be seen that Peng confessed to profiteering under pressure from the prosecutor. Kay’s testimony was adopted as the basis for an adverse determination, and it was determined that the interrogation was an unreasonable interrogation without evidence. However, it is still necessary to investigate whether the prosecutor committed fraud, inducement or unfair interrogation, and request the preservation of all audio files of Peng’s interrogation, including the suspension period of the interrogation.
high court It was pointed out that according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, requests for evidence preservation must be made to the prosecutor during the investigation of the case, or to the court before the first hearing period in the trial of the court of first instance.
The verdict explained that although Zheng Shenyuan had requested the preservation of the investigation recording file, he also said that he was not sure whether the recording file existed, and was also not sure what content was contained in the recording file. The High Court could not determine whether Zheng was preserving evidence to prove any facts in the case, or requesting investigative evidence to prove a certain fact in the case, and the case was adjudicated at first instance. Zheng’s request to preserve evidence was illegal, and there was no way to make corrections. The decision was rejected.
Summary FAQ
-
Ko Wenzhe appointed a lawyer to request that the audio files of Peng Zhensheng’s interrogation be preserved, and he hoped to include all the materials during the suspension period of the interrogation, arguing that it could clarify whether the prosecutor committed fraud, inducement, or unreasonable interrogation.
-
The lawyer argued that relevant audio and video observations in the first trial showed that Peng Zhensheng may have confessed to profiteering under pressure from the prosecutor. Therefore, he believed that whether or not the prosecutor’s interrogation process was illegal still needed to be investigated.
-
The High Court pointed out that the request for evidence preservation should be made during the investigation or before the date of first instance trial. Ke Fang made the request during the second instance process, which does not meet the legal time point. Furthermore, the existence and contents of the recording are unknown and cannot be recovered.
