Understand the complete context of the case firstFrom the incident, the first trial to the second trial, read the introduction to the case "The only thing that accompanied him in the end was two bottles of milk".

The case will undergo preparation procedures for the second instance in the Taiwan High Court on August 6.

First-Instance Judgment

Mr. Wu (stepfather)

Intentional injury to a child by an adult; intentional aggravated injury to a child resulting in death by an adult

Life Imprisonment

Deprivation of Civil Rights for Life

Ms. Chen (biological mother)

Abandonment of a child in violation of law by an adult, resulting in death

19 Years’ Imprisonment

First-Instance Judgment

Both defendants appealed against their sentencing and therefore entered the second instance trial.

Key points of the second instance hearing

1. Mr. Wu hopes to redo the sentencing appraisal

Defense ArgumentMr. Wu's defense lawyer argued that the First Instance did not conduct a pre-sentencing social investigation and appraisal, and could not fully assess whether Mr. Wu would be able to return to society in the future. Therefore, he hoped that the second instance would review the case again, or even send the case back to the First Instance for a new trial.

Prosecution PositionThe prosecutor stated that not all cases involving Citizen Judges require sentencing appraisals, and if the life sentence meets the conditions for parole in the future, the possibility of returning to society will be re-evaluated. Therefore, whether appraisal is required is left to the court to judge.

2. Ms. Chen presented new evidence, hoping to use it as a reference for sentencing.

Defense ArgumentMs. Chen’s lawyer presented new evidence to the court, including:

  1. Information related to the indictment
  2. Records of interviews and rejections of letters received by the Taipei Women’s Detention Center
  3. A letter sent by Mr. Wu to Ms. Chen on May 21 this year

Defense ArgumentThe lawyer argued that the content of the letter could prove that Ms. Chen had been under the (violent) control of Mr. Wu for a long time, and hoped to use it as a reference when sentencing.

Prosecution PositionThe prosecutor asked, since Ms. Chen had applied to reject Mr. Wu’s letter, why did she still receive the letter?

Defense ArgumentMs. Chen’s defense lawyer stated that Ms. Chen herself did not open the envelope at the time, but sent the relevant emails/information to the lawyer handling her divorce civil case, so the defense team obtained this information. The defense also claimed that this information can be used as evidence to show that Ms. Chen may have been subjected to violence, control, etc. during her relationship with Wu Nv. In addition to being related to the background of the case, it also hopes that the court will incorporate this into Ms. Chen's personal situation and criminal circumstances when sentencing.

Court’s HandlingThe current progress is that the collegial panel will evaluate whether to accept the evidence presented by the defense, and let the prosecutor read the documents and express his opinions. Afterwards, it will be decided based on the statements made by both parties and the arrangement of the evidence, whether it is necessary to open further preparatory procedures; as for whether the evidence is finally admitted and whether it will affect the sentencing, it is still up to the collegial panel to judge.

3. Both defendants admitted the criminal facts found in the First Instance.

Court’s HandlingDuring the court hearing, the judge confirmed the scope of the appeal. Both defendants stated that they recognized the criminal facts found in the first-instance judgment, and the current focus of the appeal is only on the sentencing part.

4. The judge asked Mr. Wu: "Why do you think this happened?"

Mr. Wu said that at that time, he saw Ms. Chen beating her child, which caused him to suffer from depression and bipolar disorder, so he committed violence.

Court’s HandlingThe judge immediately asked how the First Instance found that Ms. Chen was taking a shower when the violence was committed. How could the two be consistent?

Mr. Wu changed his story and claimed that Chen had beaten the child before taking a bath. He then went to the balcony to "relax" and finally started beating the child violently because his "rational line was broken."

Court’s HandlingThe judge asked again: "Since I went to the balcony to relax, why was the line of sanity still broken?" Mr. Wu still said that it was because the child kept crying.

5. Ms. Chen shed tears in court

Ms. Chen said that the child was originally taken care of by her grandfather and grandmother. After she took her child back to her, everything began to get out of control.

"I am not ready to welcome my child home, nor have I arranged his life well. I just want to evade responsibility and listen to Mr. Wu in everything."

She said that because she believed Mr. Wu came from an "education family", she always thought his judgment was right.

"I never thought that a mistake would lead to the Death of my son. This is something I have never been able to forgive myself for."

6. Detention part

Court’s HandlingThe judge asked the two defendants if they had any opinions on whether to extend their detention after the expiration of August 28.

Mr. Wu said that he respects the court's judgment according to law; Ms. Chen said that he has no opinion.

Prosecution PositionThe prosecutor asked the court to continue the detention, believing that the reasons for detention still existed.

Court’s HandlingThe court stated that it will decide whether to reconvene the preparatory procedures and renew the detention after the prosecutor adds written information and the defender reviews the file.

This case is still being heard in the second instance, and the final judgment is still pending for the court to make its decision in accordance with the law.

This page is organized for the purpose of recording the key points of the court proceedings. Involving the defendant's claims, defense opinions or statements in court are not equivalent to the court's final determination; before the case is decided, the presumption of innocence and judicial procedures should still be respected.

#May every child grow up safely