(Minghui.org) The Shenyang City Intermediate Court in Liaoning Province ruled on October 28, 2024 to uphold a 7.5-year prison sentence of a 70-year-old man for sharing videos on Kuaishou, a popular short-form video platform in China.

Mr. Guan Chenglin

Mr. Guan Chenglin, a resident of Faku County (which is under the administration of Shenyang City), was arrested on August 29, 2023. During his court hearing on July 30, 2024, he said that he did not know how to create or edit videos himself and that all the videos he reposted were recommended by Kuaishou. Most of the videos were about prophecies, reincarnation stories, legends, and poems that advised people to be good. The other videos were about his faith, Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that has been persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since July 1999.

Despite the fact that no law in China criminalizes Falun Gong, the Xinmin City Court sentenced Mr. Guan to 7.5 years with a 20,000-yuan fine on August 22, 2024. He filed an appeal one week later and the Shenyang City Intermediate Court docketed his case on September 23, 2024. Wen Xiaoxia was named the presiding judge, but she never made herself available to Mr. Guan or his defenders. She delegated everything to her assistant judge Kong Xianglai (+86-24-22763149).

Kong did not allow Mr. Guan’s son and daughter-in-law, who served as his non-lawyer defenders, to photocopy or carbon-copy his case file. He also declined to hold a hearing as requested. Mr. Guan’s son submitted a request on October 28, 2024 to have Kong recused from the appeals case. Kong and his supervisor Wen, however, ruled on the same day to uphold Mr. Guan’s original verdict, which also bore the signatures of judge Song Yongzheng, Jin Liang (assistant to judges), and clerk Fu Di.

Mr. Guan’s son recently filed a complaint against Kong and detailed the latter’s violation of legal procedures.

Forced to Delete Photos of Case File from Phone

Mr. Guan’s son and daughter-in-law submitted all the required paperwork to represent him in his appeals case on September 26, 2024. They also booked an appointment to review his case file on September 30. When they arrived at the Shenyang City Intermediate Court that day, neither judge Kong nor his assistant Xu Mingxuan answered the phone. The couple then called the office of the court president. Only then did Kong arrange a colleague to bring out Mr. Guan’s case file. His son asked if they could photocopy the file and that judge said yes.

About half an hour later, Xu came and said that Kong refused to allow them to photocopy Mr. Guan’s case file and demanded that Mr. Guan’s son delete the photos of the case file from his phone. Not long after, Kong himself came and reiterated his no-photocopying policy. Mr. Guan’s son refuted that by law defenders are allowed to carbon-copy, photocopy, or scan case files. Kong insisted that photocopying required the court’s permission, which he did not give. He then forced Mr. Guan’s son to delete the photos and said he could return on October 8, 2024 to hand-copy the case file.

Mr. Guan’s son and daughter-in-law ended up having to take four days off work to hand-copy the case file.

Not Allowed to View Videos Used as Prosecution Evidence During Trial

During Mr. Guan’s trial, the videos he reposed on Kuaishou were not played in court and there was no cross examination of other prosecution evidence either. The prosecutor only presented a chart showing how many videos he reposted and how many views each video got.

Mr. Guan’s son requested to view the Kuaishou videos but judge Kong claimed that the videos were sealed. He also refused to show a flash drive containing videos documenting how the police extracted the Kuaishou videos from Mr. Guan’s cell phone. He refused again when Mr. Guan’s son asked to see the police interrogation video, claiming that there was already written interrogation records for review. Mr. Guan’s son said the written records had been altered as he noted discrepancies between what was in the case document and the content presented during the court proceedings. Kong refused to address, but asked him to simply note the inconsistency in his defense statement.

Open Hearing Request Denied

Mr. Guan’s son submitted three documents to Kong on October 21, 2024, requesting 1) an open hearing; 2) a re-evaluation of the prosecution evidence used to arrive at the wrongful conviction; 3) an exclusion from the appeals case of the “evidence” illegally extracted by the police. He called Kong the next day to see if he received the documents. Kong said yes but said that he discarded them, because they didn’t have a handwritten signature.

Mr. Guan’s son then re-did the documents and signed them by hand. He also added a fourth document requesting an explanation of the laws applied to his father’s case. Additionally, he included a note requesting that Kong confirm the receipt of the four documents. The note also stated that he would not submit a written defense statement without having an open hearing or cross examination of the prosecution evidence. He mailed everything on October 23, 2024 and received delivery confirmation from the post office days later.

When he called Kong again, he acknowledged that he received the documents but claimed there was no new evidence. He insisted on no open hearing and still demanded that Mr. Guan’s son mail the defense statement to the court.

Mr. Guan’s son rejected the request as he had also noted the written court proceedings did not match what happened as shown in the video of the trial. He intended to testify against the trial judge’s violation of legal procedures in an appeals hearing. He proceeded to request the recusal of Kong on October 28, 2024, but Kong and his supervisor Wen ruled that day to uphold his father’s original verdict.

Related Reports:

70-Year-Old Man Sentenced to 7.5 Years for Sharing Videos on Social Media

70-Year-Old Liaoning Man Stands Trial for Practicing Falun Gong