(Clearwisdom.net) On the morning of November 10, 2011, Ruichang Court in Jiangxi Province attempted to frame Falun Gong practitioners Mr. Han Yuming, Ms. Zhou Meili, Ms. Yao Fenglan, and Ms. Zhang Daidi, who had been captured by the police.
In court, all four practitioners said that through practicing Falun Gong their hearts were purified and their health restored. They were able to become good people according to the principles of Truth-Compassion-Forbearance and refrain from committing bad deeds. Freedom of belief is a right protected by the constitution. Ms. Zhang Daidi said, “We are all trying to be good people. If being a good person is the belief in an evil cult, may I ask, your Honor, what is an orthodox belief?” The judge was silent.
Lawyer Wang Yajun from the Beiyuan Law Firm in Beijing, as well as lawyers Jiang and Guo, also from Beijing, presented a complete, powerful, and unarguable defense of the practitioners’ innocence.
In his defense statement, Wang said, “The public prosecutor claimed that my client utilized an organized evil cult to jeopardize law enforcement. Do you have proof? My client only maintains a belief and practices exercises. He doesn’t belong to an organization, nor did he jeopardize the enforcement of any law. As to the books and CDs you confiscated when searching his home, these items are legally owned by my client. According to clauses 35 and 36 of the constitution, his behavior conforms with said constitution. The charge is groundless. My client should be released unconditionally.”
Mr. Han Yuming said the police interrogated him using torture, and he still bears the burn marks from a policeman’s cigarette. The officer even said, “Who would see it if I hit you?”
Lawyer Jiang defended Ms. Zhou Meili, saying, “There is no evidence to prove the charges brought against my client. My client must be declared innocent and released.”
Ms. Zhou said, “I was yanked into a police car as I was walking down the road. They brought me to Wushan Police Station, interrogated, and beat me for an entire day and night.”
Lawyer Guo defended Ms. Yao Fenglan, saying, “It was illegal for you to beat my client. As to the books and CDs that you obtained through searching her home, they legally belong to my client. The prosecutor’s charges are groundless. My client should be released.”
Ms. Yao said, “I was sitting on a bus when the police pulled me out and shoved me into a police car. They brought me to a police station and beat me. I am innocent.”
Ms. Zhang Daidi defended herself, saying, “The public prosecutor said they found books and CDs when they searched my home. I was not present when they ransacked my home. They broke into my house; that was robbery. I was walking down the road when the police arrested me and brought me to Wushan Police Station for interrogation and torture. They violated the law. I am innocent.”
The public prosecutor read out an affidavit by witnesses. It said that someone saw posters on the light poles at 8:00 a.m. on July 12; 2011. Someone also saw posters in the residential area.
In fact, Falun Gong practitioners are exercising their freedom of speech protected by the constitution by putting up these posters. This also protects the public's right to know. It is a good deed, rather than a crime. The more posters they put up, the more credit they deserve.
The three lawyers read out their defense statements, one by one.
Wang pointed out that the public prosecutor could not prove the charges. Wang also said, “A man should be righteous and courageous and have conscience. To maintain silence in the face of evil makes a man the evil's accomplice. To convict an innocent person is the same as committing a crime.”
“We ask that every judge respect the constitution, respect each citizen’s constitutional rights, courageously maintain the righteousness of the court, and take up this historic responsibility. We hope you can be true to your conscience and truly carry out the rule of law. Please declared defendant Han Yuming innocent and release him without condition.
The defense attorney’s sound arguments and evidence earned prolonged applause from the spectators and defendants. The judge then said, “No applauding allowed!”
The public prosecutor lacked any powerful arguments. Some of the police officers left the courtroom halfway into the trial.
When court was adjourned, the families of the defendants reprimanded the public prosecutor. The prosecutor lowered his head in silence.
