(Minghui.org) Minghui.org previously reported on the four-year prison sentence of a 78-year-old Kunming City, Yunnan Province resident on December 21, 2024 for his faith in Falun Gong. This report provides additional information on how the prosecutor in charge of the case continuously violated legal procedures and indicted him—with the tacit support of the local judicial system, which resulted in his wrongful conviction.
Mr. Su Zesheng, born in July 1946, used to work as an attending physician at the Pu’er County People’s Hospital in Yunnan Province. He took up Falun Gong on January 1, 1998 and held firm in his faith after the communist regime launched a nationwide campaign against Falun Gong. He was repeatedly targeted for his belief over the years prior to his latest persecution episode.
Mr. Su was arrested on June 30, 2006 and sentenced to one year in prison on April 23, 2007. His appeal was denied on July 24, 2007 and he was ordered to serve time at the Ninger County Detention Center. Due to abuse in custody, Mr. Su suffered significant hearing decline. After he was released on June 29, 2007, his employer did not allow him to return to work. They suspended his pay in August of that year. On April 15, 2008, he received formal notice that his job at the hospital was terminated. He appealed, but never received any response. Mr. Su had planned to retire in July 2006 but did not get to finish his application due to his arrest and incarceration. After he was terminated, he was stripped of his pension and all other benefits, including health insurance. He had to do odd jobs to make ends meet.
Mr. Su’s son, Mr. Su Kun, 50, and daughter-in-law Ms. Zhang Xiaodan, 52, were also persecuted for practicing Falun Gong. The younger Mr. Su was given three years of forced labor in December 2004. As he refused to renounce Falun Gong, his term was extended by eight months. He and his wife were arrested at home on May 4, 2012 and later sentenced to six and four years in prison, respectively. Mr. Su Kun’s employer, the Yunnan Open University, later terminated his job as a computer science lecturer.
Mr. Su Kun, his wife, his mother, Ms. Zhang Zhenyi, 78, and father were most recently arrested again at their shared residence on November 15, 2023. While the younger Mr. Su, his wife and his mother were released on bail, his father Mr. Su Zesheng remained in custody and was sentenced to prison a year later.
Officer Ren Junhong from the Lishutou Police Station, who was in charge of the case, called Ms. Zhang Zhenyi on February 29, 2024 and ordered her to report to him at 9 a.m. the next day. She went there on March 1 as instructed and was taken to the Xishan District Procuratorate for deposition.
Prosecutor Su Jing (female, no relation to the Su family) cited the November police interrogation records as “evidence” against Ms. Zhang. Ms. Zhang explained that the sudden arrests of her and her loved ones on November 15, 2023 had her so traumatized that her systolic blood pressure shot up to more than 200 mmHg (when a normal range is 120 or lower). She said she was confused and dazed during the police interrogation, and whatever the police forced her to say should not be admissible evidence in her case. She also submitted a written declaration to nullify what she’d said under police coercion. Prosecutor Su ignored her.
Ms. Zhang’s son Mr. Su Kun went with her to the procuratorate again on March 5, 2024 to submit his request to represent Ms. Zhang as a non-lawyer defender. Prosecutor Su notified him the next day that he could not serve as a defender as he was listed as a prosecution witness. When Mr. Su asked if his wife could represent his mother, prosecutor Su again said no because his wife was also a prosecution witness. Mr. Su Kun questioned prosecutor Su as to how he and his wife were both listed as prosecution witnesses without their knowledge. Prosecutor Su said that was because they were both interrogated on the day of their arrests. She added that anyone who was not involved in the case could be a defender.
Mr. Su then invited two friends to represent his parents. He, his mother and the two friends visited the procuratorate on March 11, 2024. Prosecutor Su was not in and the group dropped off their paperwork with the front desk. On the way back, they received prosecutor Su’s call, saying that only blood relatives could be defenders. Mr. Su refuted that declaration, explaining that he’d consulted with lawyers and was told that by law, any family member or friend could be non-lawyer defenders. Prosecutor Su hung up the phone but soon called one of the friends, telling them the same thing. The friend said he’d just checked China’s Criminal Procedure Law and it was completely legal to have non-family serve as defenders. Prosecutor Su responded, “Don’t educate me on the law.” She called again in five minutes and said that her supervisor confirmed that non-relatives must have a lawyer’s license to be defenders. When the friend said they’d applied to be non-lawyer defenders, prosecutor Su hung up the phone. Hours later the prosecutor called Mr. Su Kun and reiterated that his two friends were not allowed to represent his parents. This time, she said the order was from the Xishan District Court.
Mr. Su Kun, his mother and the two friends returned to the procuratorate on the afternoon of March 11, 2024 to file a complaint against prosecutor Su. The Appeals Department said they could not accept the case as they were at the same administrative level as the prosecutor. They asked Mr. Su to write a brief note explaining the whole situation. He did, and the Appeals Department head, Mao Xunyang, came out to talk to him. Mao said that friends could indeed be defenders but fell short of specifying what legal procedures prosecutor Su had violated. He referred the family to the Disciplinary Department. Mr. Su called the latter department and a department head named Yang Lanke spoke with him. Upon learning what happened, Yang went to talk to prosecutor Su. He then returned to say that his department was not in charge of such complaints and referred the family to the Procuratorial Supervision Department. He then proceeded to gather people from that department, along with prosecutor Su, to talk to the family.
Mr. Su repeated his family’s official complaint and submitted another complaint against the Lishutou Police Station and its supervising agency, the Panlong District Police Department, for arresting him and his family and searching their home without a search warrant. He made three requests to prosecutor Su: 1) to re-examine the case due to the police’s violation of legal procedures; 2) to approve his two friends’ requests to represent his parents as non-lawyer defenders; and 3) to release his father on bail given his high blood pressure, severe hearing loss, and injured joints.
Prosecutor Su did not respond to any of the requests and simply told the family to go home and wait for further notice.
Ms. Zhang and the two friends returned to the procuratorate the next afternoon. Prosecutor Su was not in and Ms. Zhang again submitted her declaration nullifying what she’d been coerced into saying during the police interrogation. She also submitted written requests to have her husband released on bail and to obtain open information regarding prosecutor Su’s credentials and job performance. She asked that prosecutor Su be recused from the case and be disciplined by the relevant supervising agencies.
Ms. Zhang went back to the procuratorate on March 13, 2024. Prosecutor Su’s assistant said she could not meet with them as she was in a meeting to discuss the family’s requests to have her recused from the case.
The family then went to the appeals department, which referred them to the Disciplinary Department. Department head Yang again said he was not in charge. He then called prosecutor Su’s assistant, who passed the phone to her. She said she was in a meeting and could not see them then. Mr. Su then requested to see her supervisor. She came out to the lobby a few minutes later along with her assistant and a bailiff. The latter two each held a camcorder. Prosecutor Su did not explain the purpose of audio- and videotaping Mr. Su and his family.
Mr. Su reiterated his earlier requests and further demanded that prosecutor Su drop the case and release his father. Prosecutor Su said they planned to have another meeting the next day and promised to call him about the results.
She then asked what the police had confiscated from Mr. Su’s room and which items belonged to him and which to his father. Mr. Su was outraged that prosecutor Su was not focusing on the police’s illegal raid of his home but was instead trying to find evidence against them.
Mr. Su, his wife, and mother then filed complaints against prosecutor Su with various agencies, accusing her of colluding with the police and prosecuting law-abiding citizens like his family without legal basis.
On March 18, 2024, the lawyer that Mr. Su Kun hired for his parents said that prosecutor Su had denied her request to have his father released and had proceeded to indict both of his parents on March 15. The case was being submitted to the Xishan District Court. Mr. Su called prosecutor Su, and her assistant picked up the phone and said they had issued a notice for the police to correct their mistakes but that did not influence their decision to indict his parents.
Mr. Su, his wife, and mother went to the procuratorate the next day to request a review of the case files. Prosecutor Su said the cases had been submitted to the Xishan District Court on March 15. Mr. Su said that she had not responded to his friends’ requests to represent his parents yet. He resubmitted his complaint against prosecutor Su and was told that Zhang Liyun (no relation to Mr. Su’s mother or wife) from the First Procuratorial Division had been assigned to handle the complaint.
On March 25, 2024, the family went to the procuratorate again. Zhang was not in and prosecutor Su received them. She dodged their questions and directed them to talk to her supervisor. Mr. Su called Zhang and the First Procuratorial Division but no one answered the phone. He tried many more times later on but no one ever picked up the phone.
April 5, 2024 was an audience day with the public allowed to schedule meetings with the chief prosecutor and deputy prosecutors. The Su family met with deputy chief prosecutor Kuang Judan that day. She only gave them a few minutes and promised to review the written materials that they gave her. When they returned to the procuratorate the following week and ran into her, she did not have a response to their complaint as promised.
On April 12, 2024, the family met with Politics Department head Jiang Qi. Jiang said that prosecutor Su did fail to follow the law to notify the family of their rights. She should also have responded to the family’s requests before forwarding the cases to the court. Qi added that Zhang from the First Procuratorial Division should have responded to the family’s concerns as well.
Jiang then went to talk to deputy chief prosecutor Ding Zhizhong, who was Zhang’s supervisor. He returned ten minutes later to say that both Ding and Zhang were out of the office attending a meeting. He asked the family to go home and wait for a call. The family returned the following week but Jiang had no resolution. He simply said he relayed their concerns to Ding. He said there was nothing he could do when Zhang refused to meet with the family.
The family had an appointment with Disciplinary Department head Yang Lanke on April 19, 2024, but he refused to meet with them. They then requested to see the chief prosecutor Zhao Yunzheng, but was told that a meeting was not guaranteed. The family returned on April 26 and saw a procuratorial official named Li Jun. Mao, the head of the Appeals Department, was also present. He said all the complaints that the family filed with other agencies had been forwarded to him and promised to consider their concerns. He, however, insisted that the family’s requests to drop the cases must be directly handled between the family and prosecutor Su.
On the morning of May 7, 2024, the Su family received a notice of a meeting in two days to discuss their complaints. That afternoon, Ms. Zhang Zhenyi received a call from the court ordering her to pick up her indictment the next morning. When Ms. Zhang said the case still rested with the procuratorate, the caller said she should talk to the police.
Officer Ren called Mr. Su Kun at around 5 p.m. that day and told him to take his mother to the court to pick up the indictment. Mr. Su reiterated that the case was still with the procuratorate, but Ren insisted that he should pick up the indictment first. Mr. Su refused.
The family went to the procuratorate at 9 a.m. on May 9, 2024 to meet with deputy chief prosecutor Ding, Zhang from the First Procuratorial Division, and a clerk. Mao met with Mr. Su separately. Instead of delivering a resolution as they’d promised, they asked him to repeat his requests.
While Mr. Su was in the meeting, a man and a woman, both uniformed, asked his mother if she was going to sign her indictment. When Ms. Zhang said no, the woman, who was later identified as clerk Zhang Shiman (no relation), began to read the indictment aloud. Ms. Zhang refused to listen and began to walk outside. The man followed up and recorded everything. When Ms. Zhang reached the security checks in the courthouse, the man suddenly produced his ID. He was judge Pu Huijun from the Xishan District Court, who had been assigned to preside over the case. But he lied, saying that he was a bailiff. Zhang Shiman was still reading the indictment out loud when Ms. Zhang hopped in a taxi.
May 10, 2024 was chief prosecutor Zhao Yunzheng’s audience day. Mr. Su Kun requested a meeting with him but was told he was not in that day when he should have been there.
Mr. Su Zesheng received his indictment on May 8, 2024. Judge Pu held a secret hearing of his case on December 20, 2024, without the presence of his family or lawyer. Pu announced the next day that Mr. Su had been sentenced to four years with a 5,000-yuan fine.
It’s not clear whether judge Pu plans to try Ms. Zhang.
Yunnan Judge Sentences Seven Falun Gong Practitioners to Prison Since 2014