State vs. Chen Long-Qi 陳龍綺In December 2013, Taiwan High Court granted Chen Long-Qi a retrial based on new DNA evidence. Chen became the first person to be granted retrial since the Taiwan Association for Innocence (TAI) was founded in 2012.

The FactsOn March 24, 2009, two escorts were raped between 4 to 6 AM in a warehouse that Chen and his friend rented for business usage. The victims failed to identify the assailants due to alcohol intoxica-tion.

Chen always maintained his innocence during the investigation and trial. He claimed that he left before the crime took place to pick up his wife, Ko, at her workplace. Ko’s timesheet corroborated Chen’s defense. An eyewitness also testified that Chen was not at the scene. Despite no testimony linked Chen to the crime, the district court and high court found him guilty of gang rape with the other two co-defendants.

Taiwan Association for Innocence (TAI) was founded in 2012. We have 12 board members who are experienced criminal defense lawyers, law professors and forensic experts. The estab-lishment of our organization was very much inspired by the remarkable work of Innocence Project in the U.S.

Our Mission1. To provide the wrongfully convicted direct representation.

2. To locate the causes of wrongful convictions.

3. To assist the exonerated filing claims for compensation and making requests for other nece- ssary relief.

4. To pursue legal action against state misconduct.

5. To request for policy reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.

TAI only accepts post-conviction cases that claim to be innocent, either with flawed forensic evidence or state misconduct. We’ve received more than 350 case applications since 2012, and have taken 11 of them. Each case is assigned to one of the board members.

We are not affiliated with any law schools, but we have been participating in legal clinic pro-grams in National Taiwan University, Chiao Tung University, and National Chung Cheng Univer-sity.

The Man Who Can Not Be ExcludedA Documentary on Chen Long-Qi Case

TEL: +886-2-25418561 │ E-mail: twnafi@gmail.comWebsite http://www.tafi.org.tw/FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/taiwaninnocence

The decision was solely based on a 17 Y-STR DNA test (see figure1), which concluded that Chen “cannot be excluded “ from the semen stain found on one of the victims’ underwear. Chen was convicted of gang sexual assault and was sentenced to 4 years in March, 2013.

Chen sought TAI’s help right after his conviction. He refused to serve his time. He told his lawyers that “Unless they drag me in, I will not voluntarily walk into jail for something I did not do.” He divorced his wife, worrying that his daughters would have to go through psychological consultation and labeled as “daughters of the rapist” in schools. He sold his seafood stall and hid in a small apart-ment that his wife rented. “For many times, I looked down the street from the window of the apart-ment, thinking that I could have jumped down to end this nightmare”.

TAI consulted Prof. James Chun-I Lee of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the National Taiwan University, and Prof. Lee confirmed that he could only tell from the 17Y-STR test that that there were two or more perpetrators committing the crime. However, he needs the electrophoretic graphs of the original DNA testing to see how many people were actually involved.Chen’s lawyers then filed an application to the forensic lab for the graphs. The lab replied that a court order is required to provide the graphs. Chen’s lawyers therefore submit a motion for retrial to the TaiChung High Court, citing the lab’s reply as a proof that there is an evidence neglected by the fact-finders in the original trial. ( To fulfill the “new evidence” threshold, the evidence needs to satisfy the “new” and “sufficient “ standards. According to the precedents, it requires the evidence to be (1) existent back in the time of the original trial, but not known to the fact-finders or the defendant, and (2) sufficient to challenge the original verdict.) The court held a hearing and put the DNA analysts on the stand. They testified that there are electrophoretic graphs in the lab. However, they suggested that since they got a new machine this year that can do a more precise 23 Y-STR test using the original sample; a retesting using the original sample would be more convincing. The court hence ordered a retest, which showed that Chen “can be excluded” from the DNA sample collected (see figure 2).

Based on this new piece of evidence, the court granted his motion in December 2013, and Chen was exonerated on March 26, 2014. He is now a volunteer for TAI.

Chen D1 D2 semen stain found on victim Bs’ underwear

DYS 576 17 19 21 19,21

DYS 481 23 23 23 23

DYS 549 13 14 12 12,14

DYS 533 12 11 12 11,12

DYS 570 17 17 17 17

DYS 643 12 11 12 11,12

17 Y–DNA STR Chen D1 D2 semen stain found on victim Bs’ underwear

1 DYS456 15 15 15 152 DYS389Ⅰ 12 12 12 123 DYS390 23 25 23 23,254 DYS389Ⅱ 28 28 29 28,295 DYS458 20 20 18 18,206 DYS19 14 14 14 147 DYS385a/b 15,18 13,18 15,18 INC8 DYS393 12 12 12 129 DYS391 10 10 10 1010 DYS439 12 13 12 12,1311 DYS635 20 20 20 2012 DYS392 14 14 14 INC13 Y_GATA_H4 12 12 13 12,1314 DYS437 15 15 15 1515 DYS438 11 11 11 1116 DYS448 20 20 20 20

Figure 1

What went wrong?(1) Ineffective assistance of counsel→Chen and D3 share the same lawyer , who paid little attention to Chen’s defense.

→ Ko’s timesheet corroborated Chen’s words, but this piece of evidence was never brought to the district court.

→The DNA analyst was not put on the stand.

(2)Confusing wording used in the DNA Report

can’t be excluded ≠ consistent with ≠ matchThe DNA analyst conducting the original 17Y-STR test failed to provide the information about the actual number of the accomplices.

TimelineMarch 25, 2009 Two escorts A&B were raped between 4 to 6 AM in a warehouse that Chen and his friend rented for agricultural products distribution. The victims failed to identify the assailants due to alcohol intoxica-tion.D1 and D2 admitted having sexual intercourse with B, but claimed it was consensual.

January 8, 2010A 17 Y-STR DNA report concluded that D1,D2 and Chen “cannot be excluded “ from the semen stain found on victim B’s underwear .

Feb 27, 2010DA prosecuted D1 and D2.

March 17,2010DA prosecuted Chen for gang sexual assault.

January 20, 2012Chen was found guilty by Taichung District Court.

November 6, 2012Chen was again found guilty by High Court.

March 7, 2013Chen’s appeal was denied by the Highest court.* Direct appeal exhausted.

April 2, 2013TAI took the case.

December 12, 2013Taiwan High Court granted Chen a retrial and authorized a 23 Y- STR test on the original mixture DNA sample.

March 26, 2014Chen was exonerated.April 10, 2014The deadline for the prosecutor to file an appeal. The prosecutor dropped the case.

Figure 2