“Today is the second day of the court hearing of the Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church. We the wives of the defendants are still denied attendance to the court hearing, because they said we are the witnesses. We are standing right outside the court, ready to enter the court at any time to testify that our husbands and Sister Wan are innocent. According to others, there are still dozens of empty seats in the courtroom, but the court would not let us in. Please keep praying for us.”

(Bengbu, Anhui Province – 11/20/2024) November 20, 2024 was the second day of the court hearing in the case of Wan Chunqin and four other Christians from the Living Stone Reformed Church in Bengbu, Anhui Province, who are accused of “fraud.

Family members of the defendant still not allowed in the courtroom

Wan Changchun’s wife, Xue Shaoqiang’s wife, Liu Xunzhen, and Cao Binting’s wife, Ma Peipei, were still refused by the court and could not attend the hearing. The reason for the refusal was that the three wives were witnesses and therefore could not observe the trial. The three wives had been waiting outside the door of the courtroom, ready to enter the courtroom at any time to testify.

They thought they had enough evidence to prove that their husbands and Sister Wan Chunqin were innocent. However, according to the Christians who attended the hearing, there were still a dozen empty seats in the gallery, but they were not given to the three wives or to the brothers and sisters who came to the court in the morning and applied to sit in on the hearing.

The Courtroom filled with strangers to the defendants, Defendants’ Attorney Rejected of request for recusal

Those who attended the hearing revealed the proceedings of the first day of the trial. It was reported that there was a large number of unidentified people in the gallery, while many family members were stopped outside the courtroom.

The attorneys apply for the judge’s recusal in light of the fact that the judge violated the principle of public trial by not allowing family members to enter the auditorium, as well as other inappropriate behavior. He also wished to review the identities of the participants in the hearing in order to prevent them from being mixed in with the investigators.

After the court adjourned, the presiding judge responded to the attorney’s request by stating that the recusal was not a legal ground for dismissal without reconsideration. Regarding the spectators, we have already reviewed them and will not say anything more about them now. The prosecutor continued to read the indictment.

The defendants’ family members have the right to testify

A lawyer said:

According to Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the defendant’s spouse, parents, and children have the right to be excused from testifying, and the judge did not require them to testify. So family members should be allowed to come in to participate in the audience. In addition to this, there are many family members who are not witnesses and have traveled a long way to be here for the hearing, and have applied with the court before. The court did not say no before, and now they are not allowed to come in, not only undermined the principle of public trial, but also caused damage to them.

The so-called fraud “victim” stands with the defendants and called for recusal, dismissed by court

The attorney argued that the “victims” application for recusal was rejected by the court, and the rights of the victims and the lawyers representing the “victims” were also ignored. The court asked whether to apply for disqualification, and after a round of questioning never asked the lawyer representing the “victim”, who kept his hand up but was never allowed to speak. The lawyer also did not receive the indictment in advance, and there was no case file. The indictment was not served in advance, and the right to read the case file was not guaranteed. The lawyer felt that his basic rights were not guaranteed and applied for the judge’s recusal.

The “victim” argued that the prosecutor had not told her that she was a victim at the indictment stage and had not allowed her to make a statement, which meant that the prosecutor had not even completed the examination of the indictment and that the case was not ready for trial. The court should review the legality and adequacy of the work at the prosecution stage, and if the prosecutor has not done this properly, it should be dealt with.

The prosecutor thinks that the lawyer should not dwell on these unnecessary issues and should focus on the factual issues of the case. The Presiding Judge found that the recusal motion was not a legal ground and dismissed it. The prosecutor continued to read the indictment.

Attorney requested fair and public trial

The attorney continued to request that the principle of a public trial be honored and that observers be allowed to be present in the courtroom. According to the victim’s statement, the prosecutor did not meet with the victim during the examination of the indictment and applied for the prosecutor’s disqualification.

The judge did not respond to this and the prosecutor continued to read the indictment. The prosecutor continued to read mechanically over the objections of both the attorney and the defendants.

The judge also read out the report of the pre-trial conference, which rejected applications for jurisdiction, disqualification, composition of the panel, exclusion of the victim, witness statements, reappraisal, access to the same records, and attendance of witnesses.

Public Prosecution said Wan Changchun, Xue Shaoqiang’s statement will not be used as evidence. After reading the report of the pre-trial conference, the judge began to review the legitimacy of the evidence of the defendants Cao Binting and Wan Chunqin without any comments from the lawyers. The lawyers objected to this, arguing that it was time to respond to the pre-trial conference report. The presiding judge gave no response.

Attorney called for exclusion of all interrogation transcripts with mysterious accounts of “legal education”

The attorney applied for the exclusion of all interrogation transcripts that were not co-recorded, including those of the other three defendants. Because the so-called “legal education”, which lasted one or two hours, appeared repeatedly in the transcripts, but not a single word of the content of the “legal education” was recorded, and it was necessary to verify by means of the same transcripts whether the confessions were coerced by torture or threatened or induced during this period.

Cao Bintang applied for exclusion of all transcripts. He stated that the public security authorities had, on several occasions, insulted, threatened and induced him personally, her wife and the other defendants during interrogations. On one occasion, seven people interrogated him for a long time, and on another occasion, five people interrogated him for a long time. On several occasions, he was subjected to “legal education” lasting up to two hours. He said: “He believes that no one sitting here wants to go through such a legal education.”

“Victim” also requested to exclude her interrogation transcripts, court denied

Wan Chunqin also demanded that the transcripts of her accusations be excluded in their entirety. She asked for access to the co-record of the prosecutor’s first interrogation of her, which was extremely insulting and intimidating. The court later decided to adjourn the morning session first.

(By Ningmeng, Special Correspondent to ChinaAid)