Reading and attribution boundaries
This page distinguishes public reporting, law, and courtroom-observation accounts. Charges, admissibility, state of mind, and criminal liability remain for the court to determine under law; this page does not presume guilt. Statutory source: Criminal Code ↗
Observation notes, not an official transcript
The following hearing points preserve the supplied observation account while identifying statements as positions or issues rather than settled facts. They are not an official court transcript. Facts, evidence, and intent are subject to the court’s investigation and final judgment.
Defense position. Defense counsel argued that the defendant was trying to shake off Station Chief Liu Zongxin, not intentionally kill him; the account says the defense attributed the collision with the barrier to avoiding a bus and a passenger vehicle, and argued for a negligence-based assessment.
Dispute over the vehicle-window footage. The prosecution’s position, as summarized in the supplied account, was that body-camera footage showed the defendant holding the steering wheel with the right hand and operating the power window with the left, connecting the window action to the dragging death. The defense disputed that the footage showed the window being raised. These are contested litigation positions, not findings of fact.
Family position. Liu’s father objected in court to characterizing the dragging as negligence and asked the court to take the first-instance video examination seriously. The family’s counsel stated that citizen judges had repeatedly examined the footage and urged care before displacing the first-instance conclusion. These are family-side positions for the court to assess.
Procedure and video examination
Central News Agency reported that the High Court examined footage from three intersections and two police body cameras on October 22, and allowed a renewed examination to help understand the incident. Source: CNA, 2026-10-22 ↗
Public reporting shows that the appeal had already opened on May 11. Accordingly, this page describes October 22 as the hearing that examined incident footage, not as the first appeal hearing. Source: CNA, 2026-05-11 ↗
Hearing focus: prosecution, defense, and family positions
DefensePublic reporting says the defendant denied murder on appeal; counsel disputed the first-instance video-examination record and evidentiary issues and sought a renewed examination. The observation account additionally describes an avoidance-and-escape explanation, which remains to be checked against the official record and evidence. CNA, 2026-06-15 ↗
Window-footage disputePublic reporting described footage in which the defendant attempted to raise a window and held the steering wheel before accelerating and scraping a barrier. Whether the described hand movements or a completed window-raising action can be established is a contested matter for courtroom review. CNA, 2026-10-22 ↗
FamilyPublic reporting records the family’s concern about renewed examination and wish that the first-instance judgment be maintained. Their assessment of the citizen-judge trial and the video is litigation opinion, not a judicial finding. CNA, 2026-05-11 ↗
Core question: state of mind
The issue is whether the defendant knew a person was clinging to, trapped by, or within the vehicle’s danger zone, yet continued driving, accelerating, steering, raising a window, or otherwise removing that person; and whether the mental state was direct intent, conditional intent, or conscious negligence. This is an issue framework drawn from the observation account, not an official transcript. Criminal Code, Article 13 ↗
“Was a person hanging from the car, or an ant?”
This quoted phrase was supplied as a discernible audio-transcription fragment. No publicly verifiable official transcript has been located, so it is presented only as courtroom observation, not as a verified fact.
Legal standard and evidence review
Article 13 of Taiwan’s Criminal Code addresses intent, including awareness that a criminal result may occur when that result is not contrary to one’s will. The label “conscious negligence” describes foreseeing risk while believing the result will not occur; its application depends on evidence. Criminal Code, Article 13 ↗
Conditional intent cannot follow from risk awareness alone. Relevant review may include whether danger became concrete; alternatives such as slowing or stopping; opportunities to stop; the timing and purpose of window operation; post-collision assistance; and whether video, vehicle data, witness accounts, and other evidence corroborate one another. This is general legal analysis, not a conclusion in this case.
Facts requiring examination
- Whether the defendant knew the victim was clinging to, trapped by, or in a dangerous vehicle position.
- Whether slowing, stopping, calling for help, or rescue was possible.
- Whether opportunities existed to stop the dangerous conduct but driving or removal continued.
- The timing, purpose, and connection of window operation to subsequent driving.
- Whether help was provided immediately after the collision.
- Whether footage, vehicle records, witness statements, and other evidence mutually corroborate.
Raising a window alone cannot prove intent. It may become relevant only if it coheres with other established facts, such as knowingly continuing to drive while someone is clinging to the vehicle. Public video-examination report: CNA, 2026-10-22 ↗
Conclusion and current procedure
The court must assess the continuous conduct before danger arose, while it escalated, and after impact. Whether there was direct intent, conditional intent, or only conscious negligence remains for official records, complete evidence, and the court’s final judgment.
The New Taipei District Court’s citizen-judge panel imposed a death sentence and lifelong deprivation of civil rights on charges including murder, obstruction of official duties, and drugged driving. The case is on appeal; the parties’ positions on footage, examination, and legal evaluation remain subject to appellate review. Source: CNA, 2026-02-11 ↗
← Back to home