Chinese Law Prof Blog

Teng Biao talk at GWU Law School - update and streaming information

I blogged the other day about Teng Biao's talk at GW Law School today (Feb. 5th). Two updates:

1. Location has been changed to Burns 505 (Faculty Conference Center).

2. The talk will be live streamed on the web. Here's the URL: 

http://video.law.gwu.edu:8080/ess/echo/presentation/73a078a4-a1bf-4bd2-8f9c-3114ba6491fa

 

Teng Biao to speak at George Washington University Law School Feb. 5th

I am pleased to announce that Teng Biao will be giving a talk on the New Citizen Movement at George Washington University Law School on Feb. 5th, 2014. I'm attaching the announcement here.

Jerome Cohen on the Xu Zhiyong case

Here's Jerry Cohen's comment on Xu Zhiyong's trial, published in the South China Morning Post.

Text of decision in Xu Zhiyong case

Here's the text of the decision in the Xu Zhiyong case (full text below). Let's note the names of the judges hearing the case who refused to allow the defense to bring their own witnesses or cross-examine those of the prosecution so that they can receive appropriate credit for their work: chief judge Sun Qinghong (审判长孙庆宏); Zhang Peng (代理审判员张鹏), who is listed as "daili shenpanyuan" (a term that doesn't appear in any legislation but that probably is best translated as "acting judge" and probably means someone who holds an assistant judge (助理审判员) position in the court); and people's assessor Hong Xiaoda (人民陪审员洪晓达).

* * *

许志永一审被判处有期徒刑四年

发布时间：2014-01-26 10:38:43

2014年1月26日上午，北京市第一中级人民法院依法公开开庭对被告人许志永聚众扰乱公共场所秩序案作出一审判决，认定许志永构成聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪，依法判处许志永有期徒刑四年。被告人许志永及其辩护人到庭参加了庭审及宣判，许志永的亲属旁听了全部庭审及宣判过程。附一审判决书:

北京市第一中级人民法院

刑事判决书

（2013）一中刑初字第5268号

公诉机关北京市人民检察院第一分院。

被告人许志永，男，1973年3月2日出生。因涉嫌犯聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪于2013年7月16日被刑事拘留，同年8月22日被逮捕。现羁押于北京市第三看守所。

辩护人张庆方，北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所律师。

辩护人杨金柱，湖南岳林律师事务所律师。

北京市人民检察院第一分院以京一分检刑诉[2013]306号起诉书指控被告人许志永犯聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪，于2013年12月13日向本院提起公诉。遵照北京市高级人民法院（2013）高刑指字第101号指定管辖决定，本院于2013年12月13日立案受理，并依法组成合议庭于同日向被告人许志永送达了起诉书副本，告知其合议庭组成人员、书记员名单及被告人依法享有的各项诉讼权利。根据许志永的委托，其辩护人向本院提交了委托辩护手续并查阅、复制了全部案卷材料。合议庭于2014年1月17日召集控辩双方召开庭前会议，就本案的管辖、回避、证人出庭、非法证据排除等程序性问题听取意见，并组织控辩双方对当庭拟出示的证据进行开示。辩护人在庭前会议中未提出回避及非法证据排除申请，但对案件的管辖及分案审理提出异议并申请证人出庭作证。公诉人对辩护人提出的异议及申请亦发表了意见。合议庭听取控辩双方的意见后，就辩护人提出的异议依法作出了答复。被告人许志永收到起诉书副本后就管辖及证人出庭问题向本院提出书面意见。合议庭安排许志永查阅公诉机关拟出示的证据后，亦对其申请依法作出了答复。合议庭于庭前会议结束后，分别向许志永及其辩护人送达了开庭传票、出庭通知书。合议庭于2014年1月20日再次召集控辩双方就具体出庭证人名单，辩护人表示不再申请证人出庭作证，且不向法庭提交新证据。公诉人亦表示不申请证人出庭。本院于2014年1月22日依法公开开庭对本案进行了审理。北京市人民检察院第一分院指派代理检察员王滨、孙傲、李楠出庭支持公诉。被告人许志永及其辩护人张庆方、杨金柱到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。

北京市人民检察院第一分院指控：

2012年7月至2013年3月间，被告人许志永利用群众关心的社会热点话题，单独或伙同他人，组织、策划、煽动多人，分别在国家教育部门前、北京市教委门前、朝阳公园南门、中关村地区、西单文化广场等地，实施了多起聚众扰乱公共场所秩序的行为。被告人许志永作案后被公安机关查获归案。

北京市人民检察院第一分院向本院移送了物证、书证、证人证言、鉴定意见、勘验笔录、视听资料、电子数据、被告人供述和辩解等证据，认为被告人许志永多次组织、策划聚众扰乱公共场所秩序行为，抗拒、阻碍国家治安管理工作人员依法执行职务，情节严重，且系首要分子，其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百九十一条之规定，应当以聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪追究刑事责任，提请本院依法惩处。

被告人许志永在法庭审理中对管辖及分案审理提出异议，对起诉书指控的事实和罪名未发表意见。合议庭在法庭调查及辩论阶段多次向许志永告知其依法享有辩护权，可就案件事实及证据发表意见。许志永未对案件事实和证据发表意见，亦未进行辩解。在庭审最后陈述阶段，许志永陈述了其行为动机并提出个别现场参与人员情绪激动系其他因素造成。

被告人许志永的辩护人在庭前会议中对管辖及分案审理提出异议。合议庭在法庭调查及辩论阶段多次提示辩护人依法负有辩护职责，应根据事实和法律，提出被告人无罪或罪轻的材料和意见，维护被告人的诉讼权利和其他合法权益。许志永的辩护人在法庭调查阶段未向许志永发问并发表质证意见，在法庭辩论阶段未发表辩护意见。

经审理查明：

一、被告人许志永利用群众关心的社会热点话题，组织、煽动百余名人员于2012年7月5日到国家教育部门前聚集。上述人员在现场张打横幅、喧闹，且不服从现场警察的指挥疏导，造成国家教育部门前周边地区秩序严重混乱。

上述事实，有经庭审举证、质证，本院予以确认的下列证据证实：

1、北京市公安局文保总队于2012年7月4日对许志永所做的《询问笔录》证明：许志永承认曾于2012年7月3日晚和7月4日14时，分别在其网易微博和腾讯微博上发过“7月5日上午九点半教育部请愿，欢迎围观”的消息，希望7月5日有更多人到教育部去围观。7月3日晚，许志永和二十多名随迁子女家长聚会时，家长提出7月5日要上访。其当时建议参与上访请愿的人要多一些，以引起政府的高度重视。其赞同打标语、静坐、散步。

2、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：2011年11月1日，北京市公安局对许志永案立案侦查。2012年7月4日在工作中发现，许志永在腾讯微博发文称7月5日非京籍家长将到教育部上访。为核实该情况，北京市公安局文保总队于2012年7月4日下午对许志永进行了谈话，并制作了询问笔录一份。

3、证人孟×的证言证明：许志永组织非京籍学生家长每月末去教育部门请愿、递材料。2012年7月3日聚会上，许志永主要谈了如何动员学生家长参与7月5日活动的问题。许志永提议，参与当天活动的家长要先在教育部信访办院内聚齐，再一起走到教育部门前站立；只要去的人多了，必然引起关注。7月5日现场秩序比较乱，其在警察执法时与警察发生了争执。

4、证人孔×的证言证明：2012年7月5日活动之前的聚会上，许志永让家长发动更多的人，并表示去100人和去1000人的效果是不一样的，必须召集更多的人。2012年7月5日，几百名学生家长聚集到教育部信访办，后从信访办走到了教育部的正门。在这期间，有的学生家长张打横幅、高喊口号，后被警察制止了。

5、证人邵×的证言证明：2012年7月5日9时，其和百余名家长到教育部信访办反映问题。中午信访结束后，家长途经教育部北门时，被警察拦下了。13时许，大概50名家长在教育部北门东侧站着，有家长打出横幅、高喊口号。

6、证人孙×1的证言证明：2011年以来，一些人经常聚集在教育部门口打标语。这些人每次来，其都会安排保安员做好防控工作，但是这些人根本不听劝阻。2012年7月5日，有200多人在教育部门口打横幅、喊口号。保安公司抽调了100余人，西城分局也来了警察，那天其一整天都在北门口进行处置。

7、证人孙×2的证言证明：2012年7月5日9时许，其在教育部北门执勤，当时有上访人员在北门慢慢聚集。13时许，保安和警察劝阻上访人员离开，不要在教育部门前聚集，扰乱教育部门前的正常秩序。但上访人员不听劝阻，有人手举横幅，有人站在门口大骂，引起了过往行人的围观。之后警察没收了横幅，并将闹事的两人带回派出所处理。

8、证人王×1、后×的证言与证人孙×2证言的内容基本一致。

9、证人费×、成×的证言证明：2012年7月5日8时许，警察到教育部北门执勤。9时许，100多名家长先后来到教育部信访办，中午才离开。13时许，50多名上访家长聚集在教育部北门东侧，有人打起横幅并且喊起口号。警察进行制止时，有很多上访人员不听劝阻，并且阻挠执法。其中一人用手机拍照并对处置警察破口大骂，随后还有一人也带头闹事，警察将二人带回派出所。

10、公安机关出具的《调取证据通知书》及《工作说明》证明：许志永腾讯微博相关内容均源自公安机关从深圳腾讯总公司提取的证据光盘。为固定证据，公安机关将该内容调整为纸质版，并在审讯过程中交由许志永核对签字。

11、许志永腾讯微博数据证明：2012年7月3日、4日，许志永在其账号为×××的腾讯微博中发布了含有新北京人7月5日上午九点到教育部请愿，欢迎围观内容的微博。

12、公安机关出具的《工作说明》及案发现场视频证明：公安机关从二龙路派出所调取的案发现场视频显示现场秩序混乱，现场人员有抗拒、阻碍执法的情况。

13、公安机关出具的《现场勘验检查笔录》、现场图及现场照片证明：案发地点西城区大木仓胡同37号教育部北门外周边地区的情况。

14、北京市规划委员会出具的市规复[2014]56号《北京市规划委员会关于教育部等单位用地有关规划情况的函》证明：教育部北门外是规划辟才胡同（市政道路），是城市公共用地。

二、被告人许志永利用群众关心的社会热点话题，与王×2、丁×（均另案处理）等人组织、策划、煽动近百人，于2013年2月28日，前往北京市教育委员会门前长时间聚集，且不服从现场警察的指挥、疏导，造成北京市教育委员会门前周边地区秩序严重混乱。

上述事实，有经庭审举证、质证，本院予以确认的下列证据证实：

1、被告人许志永在侦查阶段的供述：“2.28请假一天”活动的传单应该是2月25日发的，是为了动员大家在2月28日到北京市教委门口上访。名片是其找人制作的，传单的文字内容是其起草由家长们制作的。其看到有几个人拍了照，不知道是谁发到网上的。关于2月28日去北京市教委请愿上访的事情，其除了发卡片之外，还在微博上呼吁过。其记得在跟大约二三十位家长讨论时，其提议“2.28请假一天”这个主题，大家同意了。虽然其通过媒体呼吁和网络签名已经制造了相当大的影响，但其认为媒体和网络的舆论压力是不够的，用聚集上访的方式实际上是施加压力，迫使教育部门出台政策。这个思路是一把双刃剑，其和积极参与的家长都冒着一定风险，当然社会秩序也冒着一定风险。

2、证人王×2的证言证明：2013年1月中下旬，其同许志永、丁×在学院路上岛咖啡店开会。会上，许志永说2月28日要动员学生家长请假一天到北京市教委请愿，还说他本人也会去街头动员学生家长参加。许志永希望其用微博也发布这个消息，希望更多的人知道并且参加这个活动。其根据许志永的建议于2月2日发了一条微博。

3、证人丁×的证言证明：2013年1月25日中午，其和许志永、孙×4、王×6、李×3、赵×、彭×、王×2在保福寺桥东南角的上岛咖啡搞过一次聚会，彭×和王×2来得特别晚。后许志永单独向王×2介绍了“2.28请假一天”的活动构想。2月26日或27日，其曾用自己的手机（号码为1370xxxx609）向100多名朋友转发了“2月28日请假一天去北京市教委请愿”的短信息。

4、证人彭×的证言证明：2013年1月25日，其参加了在海淀区北四环附近上岛咖啡店的小范围聚餐活动。13时许，王×6、孙×4等人先走了，其记得当时剩下其和许志永、丁×、王×2，还有一个人是谁记不清楚了。许志永提出了2月28日要组织非京籍学生家长请假一天，较大规模的到教委去请愿信访。许志永说他已经通过家长骨干联络好各区县的学生家长参加2月28日请假一天去教委请愿信访。许志永还说让大家有条件的多发微博宣传这次上访活动，并特意跟王×2说，希望王×2通过微博宣传，引起更多的人关注，从而扩大请愿规模。王×2当时也答应了。

5、证人孟×的证言证明：2013年2月28日之前，许志永在地铁口专门发过印有活动内容的名片，还制作过宣传单，卡片是许志永自己做的。2月份，其和许志永、孔×、杜××参加的一次聚餐中，许志永曾说过要在2月28日组织一次大规模的活动，去的人多就能出台政策。

2月23日晚上，许志永在家长聚餐中提出他写了一个宣传单，要让更多的人知道并支持这件事。孔×当时表示可以负责印刷传单，许志永说确定好宣传单内容后会让其发给孔×，要印6万张。后许志永将宣传单的电子版通过邮件发到了其电子邮箱，其转给了孔×。传单印好后，胡×给其打电话让付款，其告诉林×后由林×银行转账。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》及孟×亲笔书写的声明证明：经对一组不同男子正面免冠照片共10张进行辨认，孟×指出本组照片中的4号（孔×）就是为许志永联系印刷宣传单的孔×。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》证明：经对一组不同男子正面免冠照片共10张进行辨认，孟×指出本组照片中的10号（许志永）就是许志永。

6、证人孔×的证言证明：2013年2月中旬，许志永组织其和孟×、杜××举行过一次小聚会。许志永在会上提出参加活动的人要更多一点，后来定下2月28日组织一次大规模的活动。许志永在地铁口发放过“2.28请假一天到教育部门请愿活动”的名片，还编写了活动宣传单。2013年1月23日晚上家长聚会时，许志永提出写了一个宣传单，要让更多的人知道这件事。其表示可以帮助印刷。许志永说写好宣传单后让孟×转给孔×，宣传单要印6万份。第二天，孟×通过电子邮件将许志永写的宣传单电子版发给了孔×。收到电子版后，其联系了胡×制作，并将宣传单的电子版通过电子邮件发给了胡。其让胡×和欧阳×联系具体的运送问题。（经警察出示物证）孔×确认就是这个宣传单，内容与其看的电子版完全一样，没有区别。

7、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：在对证人孔×询问过程中，警察向其出示的是在廊坊河北××印刷厂起获的、许志永指使孔×等人印制的传单。

8、证人胡×的证言证明：2013年1月底，孔×联系其制作一批宣传单，并通过QQ传来一份传单的样本。后其联系了河北廊坊的一个印刷厂。第二天，孔×通过银行汇款转给其3000多元。交完钱的第二天，印刷厂把印好的6万份传单送来了，其电话联系了孔×，孔×说让其留一包自己发，剩下的孔×派司机取走。下午，孔×的司机取走了传单。

公安机关出具的三份《辨认笔录》分别证明：经对一组不同女子正面免冠照片共10张进行辨认，胡×指出本组照片中的3号（孟×）参与了2013年1月在大兴区小豆花餐馆聚餐。经对一组不同男子正面免冠照片共12张进行辨认，胡×指出本组照片中的8号（许志永）参与了2013年1月在大兴区小豆花餐馆聚餐。经对一组不同男子正面免冠照片共12张进行辨认，胡×指出本组照片中的8号（孔×）参与了2013年1月在大兴区小豆花餐馆聚餐。

9、证人欧阳×的证言证明：2013年1月25日，孔×让其联系胡×接货。其和胡×见面后，胡×将25件货搬到了其车上。接到货后，其给孔×打电话，孔×让其去苏州桥紫金庄园路边等待。12时10分左右，其到达紫金庄园附近，后其车辆被警察检查，并被带至派出所。其愿意配合公安机关工作，主动将货品上交。

10、证人朱×的证言证明：2013年1月23日，一个叫胡×的男子打电话要求印刷一批单页共6万张。1月24日胡×通过QQ将CTP版发给其工厂，随后其下单开始印刷。1月25日印刷完成，打包后当天中午由胡×联系的司机将货拉走。

11、公安机关扣押的传单证明：传单包含呼吁家长2月28日请假一天到北京市教委请愿的内容。

12、证人果×的证言证明：2013年2月底的一天18时许，当时其在地铁五道口站值班。其在巡视时看见一男子在站口外站着向行人发名片，旁边立着一个硬板广告牌，蓝底白字，题目是“2.28请假一天”。（警察向果×出示许志永打广告牌的照片）果×确认就是该人。

13、证人张×1的证言与果×证言的内容基本一致。

14、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：许志永在地铁站发放卡片的图片来源于境外网站博讯新闻网，详情见京公（网安）勘（2013）029号《远程勘验工作记录》。2013年11月1日，海淀公安分局东升派出所警察对证人果×、张×2，向二人出示该照片。

15、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）029号《远程勘验工作记录》证明：经对境外网站博讯新闻网进行远程勘验，发现许志永在地铁站口发放卡片的图片。

16、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）312号《远程勘验工作记录》证明：公安机关在名为“许志永”的推特网页上勘验到含有其呼吁2月28日请假一天，前往北京市教委内容的推文。网络发布时间为2013年2月26日。

17、证人张×3的证言证明：2013年2月份，其在网上看到许志永手扶蓝底白字的宣传板的照片后，于2月28日去了北京市教委。其当时看到有七八十人围在教委门口，现场有警察在维持秩序并进行劝说。

18、证人王×3的证言证明：其在地铁上收到陌生人给的一张小卡片，内容是2月28日到市教委解决外地孩子在北京参加中考和高考的问题。其按卡片上的时间去了。当天现场有200人左右。

19、王×3签字确认的“2.28请假一天”卡片复印件证明：王×3确认，其收到的卡片上写有“我们定于2013年2月28日上午九点到北京市教委（北四环奥运大厦）请愿，敬请围观”及许志永的姓名、联系方式。

20、证人李×1的证言证明：2013年2月26日下午，其在地铁里收到传单，大概内容是2013年2月28日到教委反映学生异地高考的问题。2月28日上午8点多，其去了北京市教委，当时看见有100多人在大门口的马路边上等着反映问题。现场有很多警察维持秩序。

21、李×1签字确认的传单复印件证明：传单包含呼吁家长2月28日请假一天到北京市教委请愿的内容。

22、证人张×4、蔡×、李×2、孙×3、汪×、杨×1、田×1、谭×等人的证言分别证明：上述证人参与2月28日事件的情况。

23、证人杨×2的证言证明：2013年2月28日7时许，警察到北京市教委上勤。9时许，陆续有人到达北京市教委南门外的辅路便道上，后警察对停留在便道上的人员进行疏导，但这些人不听劝阻，一直聚集在北京市教委南门的便道上。上午11时左右，聚集的人数达到90余人。这些人在教委南门外的便道上站着，造成拥堵。由于人数较多，在北四环辅路上的车辆也都减速行驶。警察先对家长们劝导、疏散，但这些人不听劝阻，依然停留在北京市教委门前。后来根据现场情况，警察把学生家长疏导至北京市教委东侧学院路的辅路上。14时许，家长们仍然不离开，继续聚集，警察将不听劝阻的家长们带离现场，并由属地分局接回教育、训诫。

24、证人张×5、王×4的证言与杨×2证言的内容基本一致。

25、北京市教育委员会办公室出具的《关于我市部分随迁子女家长2月28日到市教委上访情况的说明》证明：2013年2月28日9时起，有90余人陆续来到市教委办公地北京奥运大厦南门聚集。11时40分左右，6名随迁子女家长从聚集人员中来到市教委信访室（北京奥运大厦北门），其余人员仍在市教委南门聚集，个别人甚至辱骂工作人员，造成在北京奥运大厦办公的相关委办局工作人员无法正常出入，影响了正常办公秩序。13时40分左右，仍有40余人坚持在市教委南门处聚集，并造成四环辅路拥堵。经警察反复劝说无效后，上述人员被公安机关带离。

26、公安机关出具的《2013年2月28日非京籍学生家长在市教委聚众扰乱公共场所秩序案的情况说明》证明：2013年2月28日，海淀公安分局安排118名警力到位于北四环奥运大厦的北京市教委上勤。2月28日上午9时许，陆续有部分非京籍学生家长到达北京市教委南门。现场警察立即进行疏导化解。到中午11时左右，来访人员达到90余人。非京籍家长们的聚集造成市教委门口人行横道拥堵及出入车辆的不便。经警察劝阻，非京籍学生家长选出5名代表由市教委工作人员接谈，其余非京籍学生家长被有序疏导至外围并进行谈话劝阻。14时许，警察将不听劝阻不愿离开的56名非京籍学生家长劝上处置分流车，送至处置分流点核录审查。后经市局协调各分县局将各自辖区内非京籍学生家长接回，进一步审查、教育、训诫后予以释放。

27、证人王×5的证言证明：2013年2月26日19时30分左右，其在地铁里接到一乘客发的一张卡片，内容是要在2月28日去北京教委请愿，后他拨打“110”反映问题。报警后，其将卡片交给了安河桥北车站派出所值班的警察。

28、王×5签字确认的“2.28请假一天”卡片证明：该卡片包含有2月28日9时到北京市教委请愿的内容，并有许志永的姓名及联系方式。

29、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：2013年2月26日，安河桥北站派出所接市局“110”布警，一男子反映称有人在地铁4号线西单站至西四站区间，散发内容为“2.28请假一天”字样的卡片，后报警人到安河桥北站派出所报案，将当时的那张卡片交给了警察。

30、公安机关出具的《“110”接处警记录》证明：2013年2月26日，王×5报案称，在地铁西单站内有人散发卡片（内容为“2.28请假一天”）。

31、卡片复印件及公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：王×5报案后将卡片上交公安机关。因该卡片系双面印制，为充分体现卡片全貌，公安机关在办理本案时将卡片两面内容复印后附卷，并在相关工作中使用。

32、公安机关出具的《工作说明》及现场视频证明：公安机关从海淀公安分局调取的2月28日现场视频显示，警察对聚集在北京市教委门前的上访人员进行疏导，在此过程中，部分上访人员抗拒、阻碍警察执法。

33、公安机关出具的《现场勘验检查笔录》、现场图及现场照片证明：案发地点海淀区北四环中路267号北京奥运大厦南门周边地区的情况。

三、2012年12月至2013年3月间，被告人许志永与丁×、李×3、赵×、王×6、孙×4（均另案处理）等人，利用群众关心的社会热点话题，组织、策划多人在公共场所聚集并实施张打横幅、发放传单等行为。期间，许志永、丁×、王×6等人制作了横幅，并由王×6具体组织、煽动袁×、张×3、侯×、李×4（均另案处理）等人先后实施了以下聚众扰乱公共场所秩序的行为：

2013年1月27日，张×3、袁×、李×4等人在北京市朝阳区朝阳公园南门附近张打横幅及拍照，且不服从现场警察的制止，造成现场秩序混乱。后袁×、李×4又继续前往北京市海淀区清华大学西门张打横幅及拍照。

2013年2月23日，张×3、袁×、丁×等人在北京市海淀区中关村广场张打横幅、发放传单，引发群众围观。当日活动结束后，张×3、袁×、丁×等人商定继续上述活动。2月24日，张×3、袁×、李×4、丁×等人先后到北京市海淀区海龙大厦、海淀黄庄地铁站、北京大学东门、清华大学西门等地继续张打横幅、发放传单，引发群众围观。上述人员在清华大学西门张打横幅期间，受属地公安机关协调在该区域进行治安管理的清华大学保安人员对张打横幅行为予以制止，上述人员不服从管理并与保安人员发生肢体冲突，造成现场秩序混乱。上述行为的照片等相关信息被上传至互联网。

2013年3月31日，张×3、袁×、侯×伙同马×（另案处理）等人在北京市西城区西单文化广场张打横幅、发放传单，持扩音器演讲，对现场进行拍照、录像，引发群众围观，造成现场秩序混乱，且不服从现场警察进行执法处置。该起行为的照片等相关信息被上传至互联网。

上述事实，有经庭审举证、质证，本院予以确认的下列证据证实：

（一）认定被告人许志永与丁×等人组织、策划上述活动的证据

1、证人孙×4的证言证明：2012年12月9日，他们开始在网上公开征集签名。活动开始之后，确定每周五中午在上岛咖啡进行小范围聚餐，一共进行了八九次，主要参加者是其和许志永、丁×、王×6、赵×、李×3。小范围聚餐的目的就是阶段性的汇总征集签名的情况，想办法征集更多签名。后来征集签名不顺利，许志永、丁×在小范围聚餐上提出走上街头打横幅，拍成照片，然后发到网上，大家都觉得可行。许志永、丁×提出用公义积金做横幅，其后来看过公义积金使用明细，确实看到公义积金中有横幅的账目。1月25日中午的小范围聚餐中，许志永向其介绍了彭×和王×2。会上，他们商量1月27日到朝阳公园南门打横幅的事情，并确定王×6具体负责这次张打横幅的横幅准备、人员安排。

2、证人丁×的证言证明：2012年12月9日前的一周，其和孙×4、许志永、王×6在保福寺桥上岛咖啡举行了一次小聚餐，这是第一次小型聚餐。2013年1月25日中午，其和许志永、孙×4、王×6、李×3、赵×、彭×、王×2在保福寺桥东南角的上岛咖啡搞过一次聚会。当天谈到参与签名的人数比较少，许志永提出要上街进行宣传。后来商定1月27日下午到朝阳公园南门打横幅。会上大家还商定活动时要拍照，将照片发到腾讯和新浪微博上，吸引更多人的关注。当时王×6表示要去，后来大家还讨论让孙×4去照相。横幅是其和许志永、王×6定好内容后由王×6统一制作的。在活动期间，应该制作过两批横幅，都是王×6联系制作的，资金都是许志永提供的。

3、证人王×6的证言证明：从2012年12月底开始到2013年1月份，每周五中午在上岛咖啡举行聚餐，参加人员有其和许志永、丁×、赵×、孙×4、李×3。许志永和丁×谈到了制作和散发传单，许志永还提出做横幅，横幅内容是小型聚餐中大家共同讨论的。

4、证人李×3的证言证明：因为网上征集签名活动的效果不好，于是在2013年1月中旬的几次上岛咖啡小聚会上，他们几个人讨论了上街散发传单、上街举牌张打横幅的事情。1月25日小聚会上讨论了1月27日朝阳公园上街张打横幅的事情。参加这次聚会的有其和许志永、丁×、王×6、孙×4、赵×。可以说1月27日朝阳公园张打横幅的事情就是他们六人共同商议的结果。

5、证人赵×的证言证明：在朝阳公园打横幅之前应该召开了两次小范围聚会。这两次会议的参加人有其和许志永、丁×等人。两次会议的主题一样，就是准备在朝阳公园打横幅。其在这两次小范围聚会上讲过应该把街头活动放在人流多的公共场所，让效果扩大一些。在这一点上大家没有分歧，达成了共识，最后决定去朝阳公园打横幅，所以当时参会的人都是1月底朝阳公园打横幅事件的组织者、决策者。

6、证人王×2的证言证明：其参加了2013年1月中下旬许志永等人在北四环学院路上岛咖啡店的会议。在会上，许志永对其说有公民上街张打横幅，这样做很有意义。

7、证人彭×的证言证明：2013年1月25日12时左右，其到北四环保福寺桥上岛咖啡与许志永、丁×、赵×、李×3、王×6、孙×4等人一起吃饭。期间，他们讨论了1月27日到朝阳公园张打横幅的活动。当时丁×提出有人张打横幅，有人拍照，还要把照片发到网上。大家还提到要组织一些人在张打横幅的时候进行围观。

8、证人林×的证言证明：许志永名下有一个公义积金账户，账户日常由其管理。每一笔支出都是许志永决定或授意的。2013年3月有一笔4950元的制作费用，是其给丁×报销的。

9、林×签字确认的公义积金2013年3月收支明细证明：该月支出4950元制作费。

10、公安机关出具的《扣押决定书》证明：从林×处扣押电脑的情况。

11、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：从林×电脑内发现并打印涉及公义积金收支明细的文档。

12、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）354号《远程勘验工作记录》证明：公安机关从网上提取《公义积金普通捐款账户2013年3月收支明细》的情况。

13、《公义积金普通捐款账户2013年3月收支明细》证明：该账户2013年3月间支出过横幅制作费共计人民币4950元。

14、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：办案人员在对北京市海淀区北四环西路××号院××号楼××室王×6办公室搜查过程中，在王×6办公桌抽屉内查获白色塑料文件袋一个，内有王×6于2013年4月29日签名确认横幅内容的书证原件，书证原件现暂存在公交分局预审大队证物室。另本案第83卷（制作横幅相关证据材料）中第7页至24页照片中的65条横幅为海淀公安分局马连洼派出所移交，现暂存于公交分局预审大队证物室。

15、王×6签字确认的字条证明：丁×让其制作横幅的内容。

16、公安机关出具的《检查笔录》、《收缴物品清单》、《扣押决定书》及《证据保全清单》证明：公安机关对从王×6汽车内起获的横幅45条及宣传单2580份等物依法予以扣押。

17、公安机关出具的《办案说明》证明：2013年2月23日，公安机关从王×6汽车内起获横幅45条并办理了扣押手续，后王×6又主动上缴了其前期制作的相关横幅20条。因案件已办结，故未对该20条横幅办理相关扣押手续。

18、有关反映2013年2月23日、24日及3月31日现场张打横幅及从王×6处扣押横幅的照片，经王×6签字确认，照片中的横幅均是其联系制作的。

19、证人段×1的证言证明：2013年1月底的一天晚上，一男子到其经营的××照相服务部说要做横幅，其同意了。该人提供了横幅内容及制作规格，要求做100条。其用电脑排版后将图片传给专门制作横幅的下家。

20、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：警察在询问证人段×2，经向其出示王×6的彩色打印大头照，其表示照片所示人员就是做横幅的那个人。

21、证人刘×1的证言证明：2013年1月底春节前的一天，××照相服务部的负责人通过QQ联系其制作了100条横幅。

22、有关反映2013年2月24日、3月31日现场张打横幅的照片，经刘×1签字确认，照片中的横幅都是其制作的。

23、证人陈×（别名陈××）的证言证明：其经营复印生意。2013年2月的一天晚上，一个王姓男子在其店里制作65条横幅，并提供了横幅内容和规格。后其按要求找下家制作了横幅。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》证明：经对10张不同免冠照片辨认，陈×指出编号为5号的免冠照片（王×6）为曾到其店内定做65条横幅的王姓男子。

24、证人余×的证言证明：2013年2月20日上午，陈××找其制作了65条横幅。

25、有关反映2013年2月23日、24日现场张打横幅的照片，经余×签字确认，照片中的横幅都是其制作的。

26、证人侯×的证言证明：2013年1月26日聚餐时，王×6说要上街去宣传，包括发传单、打横幅等形式，扩大社会影响力。当时王×6带了很多传单，发给现场参加聚餐的人。

27、证人张×3的证言证明：其第一次听见要上街打横幅是2013年1月26日，应该是王×6在聚餐饭店的过道里和其单独说第二天下午在朝阳公园有活动。

28、证人李×4的证言证明：2013年1月27日上街张打横幅的事情是两天前王×6先提出来的。王×6约其见面商量此事并给了其一条做好的横幅让其去张打。1月27日其拿着横幅到了朝阳公园南门口张打。

29、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）090号《远程勘验工作记录》及相关视频证明：公安机关经对国际互联网上域名为boxun.com的网站进行远程勘验，发现并提取2013年1月27日发布的一段视频，该视频内容为1月26日王×6向参加聚餐的人员提出要走上街头张打横幅。

（二）认定2013年1月27日聚众扰乱公共场所秩序行为的证据

1、证人张×3的证言证明：2013年1月27日其到朝阳公园南门后，看见袁×打出一条用红布制作的横幅。其给袁×拍了几张照片。之后穿制服的警察过来了，袁×就顺着马路往西边跑。之后其走到朝阳公园南门门口处，袁×又回来了，几个穿便衣的警察和袁×争夺手里面的横幅。当时袁×和警察抢了好长时间，李×4和张××拦着警察不让警察抢袁×的横幅，其在旁边照相，当时还有其他人照相。

2、证人袁×的证言证明：2013年1月27日14时左右，其在朝阳公园对面的马路上打开事先准备的一条横幅，张×3拍照，当时围观的群众有二十几人。大约过了五分钟，穿制服的警察赶到现场制止，其就往马路西边一侧跑了。之后其回到朝阳公园南门口处，警察要没收横幅，其与警察发生争执，最后警察将横幅没收了。此后其和张××坐李×4的车回家，路过清华大学门口时，其下车张打自制的横幅，张××给其拍照。

3、证人李×4的证言证明：2013年1月27日中午，其开车接袁×一起去了朝阳公园南门。到后，袁×到马路对面路边张打自制的小横幅。其和张××拿着横幅走到公园门口张打时被便衣警察发现了，经与警察争执，最后横幅被没收了。后袁×回到公园门口继续张打横幅，这时有五六个便衣警察和公园保安过去阻止并欲没收横幅。袁×与警察发生了争执。其和袁×、张××在回家路上又去了清华西门。袁×张打自己准备的三四条横幅，其用手机给袁×拍照。

4、证人孙×4的证言证明：2013年1月27日中午其到朝阳公园南门后，看到袁×在对面路南拿出一块横幅。李×4和张××准备要拉开横幅，几个穿便衣的人过来制止，把横幅收走了。这时袁×跑到南门，后边有几个穿便衣的人和两三个保安追过去和袁×抢横幅。袁×与对方发生了争执。1月27日后，其在小范围聚餐时向大家通报过。许志永说这次没搞成挺遗憾，他们还在上岛咖啡小聚餐中讨论过，这种上街张打横幅的活动还要搞。

5、证人张××关于在朝阳公园南门及清华大学西门张打横幅的证言与上述证人证言的内容基本一致。

6、证人王×6的证言证明：许志永、丁×、孙×4、赵×、李×3和其共同讨论决定

到朝阳公园张打横幅，其负责组织实施。后其和李×4、袁×确定了张打横幅的具体时间。横幅是其做的，其将横幅交给了李×4或者袁×。1月27日后许志永说公安机关小题大做，反应过激了，还说可以继续推动。

7、证人叶×的证言证明：2013年1月27日其去了朝阳公园南门，看到公园南门东侧台阶下有人撕扯。

8、证人李×5的证言证明：2013年1月27日上午，其和两名保安跟着一名警察去朝阳公园南门工作，看到一男子跑到公园南门前的广场，打开了一条横幅并且大声喊口号。其见该人在公共场所闹事即上前夺横幅，对方与其发生争执，造成一些群众的围观。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》证明：经对12张不同男子免冠照片进行辨认，李×5指出9号照片上的男子（袁×）即为张打横幅的男子。

9、证人庞×、刘×2的证言证明：2013年1月27日中午左右，在朝阳公园南门广场南侧有一名男子张打横幅，并大声喊口号，造成群众围观，后麦子店派出所的人上去把横幅给收了。

10、证人张×6的证言证明：2013年1月27日，其在朝阳公园南门广场看到广场上有十几个人聚集。一男子在南门广场对面张打一条红色横幅，还大声喊口号。后该男子手持横幅跑回南门广场，其同事对该男子进行阻止。该男子打横幅、喊口号的行为引起大量群众的围观，造成了现场公共秩序的混乱。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》证明：经对10张不同男子正面免冠照片进行辨认，张×6指出照片中的6号（袁×）就是2013年1月27日在朝阳公园南门广场打横幅、喊口号的男子。

11、证人秦×的证言与张×6证言的内容基本一致。

公安机关出具的《辨认笔录》证明：经对10张不同男子正面免冠照片进行辨认，秦×指出照片中的6号（袁×）就是2013年1月27日在朝阳公园南门广场打横幅、喊口号的男子。

12、证人常×的证言证明：2013年1月份的一天，孙×4给其发短信说朝阳公园南门有活动。其到后看见一男子拿着横幅要张打，几个人过来制止，该男子反抗，和制止的人争抢横幅，并且喊口号。这时有人过来围观，孙×4当时在拍照。

13、证人翟×的证言证明：2013年1月27日中午，其在清华大学西门巡视时发现一名男子站在清华大学西门外，胸前挂了一块红布，有两人在给该男子照相。

14、公安机关出具的《扣押决定书》、《扣押清单》及《工作说明》证明：2013年5月4日，孙×4的妻子刘××与公安机关联系，称找到孙×4的笔记本电脑，警察立即赶往孙×4家中对孙×4的黑色联想笔记本电脑一台予以扣押。

15、公安机关出具的《工作说明》及公安部公物证鉴字（2013）3092号《物证检验报告》证明：2013年1月27日朝阳公园南门现场照片来自孙×4的笔记本电脑。

16、案发现场照片证明：袁×在朝阳公园南门张打横幅，在被警察制止的过程中，袁×、李×4抗拒、阻碍执法。后袁×又到清华大学西门张打横幅。

17、孙×4新浪微博、腾讯微博内容证明：孙×4将2013年1月27日朝阳公园张打横幅的情况及图片在其新浪微博及腾讯微博发布。

18、警察执法录像证明：袁×等人在朝阳公园南门张打横幅及抗拒、阻碍警察执法的情况。

（三）认定2013年2月23日、24日聚众扰乱公共场所秩序行为的证据

1、证人张×3的证言证明：2013年2月23日15时许，在中关村广场“生命”标志雕塑位置，袁×提出脱去上衣在身上写口号，后其和袁×、周××互相在对方的前胸后背上写字。他们张打两条横幅,丁×拍照并在现场向围观群众发放宣传单，当时围观的有三四十人左右。离开时有人提议次日中午再来打横幅，大家都同意。次日15时许，其和颜××、齐×、李×4、丁×、袁×、曹××从中关村广场步行至中关村E世界、地铁海淀黄庄站、海龙大厦的天桥等处，并一路张打横幅、散发传单。后又乘坐地铁到北大东门和清华西门继续张打横幅，丁×为他们照相。

2、证人袁×、丁×的证言与证人张×3证言的内容基本一致。

3、证人李×4的证言证明:2013年2月24日15时许，其和丁×、袁×、颜××、齐×、张×3、曹××等人在中关村一带张打横幅、散发传单，后又到北大东门、清华西门继续张打横幅。清华西门保安人员不让他们在门口张打横幅，他们和保安人员发生了争执，袁×和保安发生了推搡。

4、证人颜×、齐×的证言均证明：2013年2月24日，二人在中关村一带及北大东门、清华西门与李×4、袁×等人张打横幅的情况。

5、证人霍×的证言证明：2013年2月24日，其和杨×3在清华大学西门值班。16时50分左右，突然出现六男一女在清华大学西门口正中间打横幅、发传单。其立即前去劝阻，但对方不听，后杨××带着张×7、申×、王××、翟×赶来支援。在保安劝阻过程中，对方不听而且与保安推搡。当时大概有三四十人围观，场面挺混乱的。

6、证人张×7的证言证明：2013年2月24日16时50分左右，霍×、杨×3在西门巡逻时发现有人张打横幅，其接到报告后带着申×、王××、翟×进行阻止，对方不听劝阻。

7、证人杨×3的证言证明：2013年2月24日17时许，其在清华大学西门站岗。这时从马路对面走过来四五个人，在清华大学西门外高举横幅，保安上前劝阻。

8、公安机关出具的证明材料证明：北京市公安局文化保卫总队在维护清华大学校内政治稳定和治安秩序方面，对清华大学保卫处进行指导、监督、检查。

9、北京市保安服务总公司文安分公司出具的证明材料证明：霍×、张×7、申×、杨×3系该分公司派驻清华大学保卫处保安队保安员。

10、清华大学保卫处出具的证明材料证明：霍×、张×7、申×、杨×3为北京市保安服务总公司文安分公司保安，于2013年2月1日至2013年8月31日在清华大学保卫处服务。

11、清华大学保卫处出具的证明材料证明：清华大学西门口外至公路范围内公共场所系该校门前三包范围，该处在日常工作中，每日会安排数名保安员在此区域内配合公安机关维护日常秩序。

12、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：清华大学西门口至公路范围内公共场所的日常治安管理的管辖由海淀公安分局青龙桥派出所负责。该所协调清华大学保卫处派保安员在此区域负责协助该所开展日常治安管理工作，遇有清华大学保卫处有关人员报警，该所接警处置。

13、公安机关出具的《检查证》、《检查笔录》、《扣押决定书》、《扣押清单》及照片证明:警察对李×3的住处北京市海淀区××园××号楼××号进行检查，后扣押联想笔记本电脑一部。

14、公安机关出具的《工作说明》及公安部公物证鉴字（2013）3097号《物证检验报告》证明：2013年2月23日现场照片出自李×3的笔记本电脑。

15、现场照片证明：2013年2月23日、24日张×3、袁×、周××等人在中关村广场赤裸上身张打横幅及发放传单的情况。

16、现场监控录像证明：2013年2月24日中关村广场东南角录像显示张打横幅的情况；2月24日清华大学西门录像显示张打横幅及与清华大学保安争执、推搡的情况。

17、公安机关出具的《现场勘验检查笔录》及照片证明：现场位于北京市海淀区清华园西门丁字路口，南北为中关村北大街，西为清华西路，北为清华园西门。

18、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）327号《远程勘验工作笔录》证明：公安机关经对互联网进行远程勘验，从名为“丁×律师”的腾讯微博中勘验到2月23日、24日张打横幅相关图文信息。

19、北京市规划委员会出具的市规复[2014]56号《北京市规划委员会关于教育部等单位用地有关规划情况的函》证明：清华大学西门外前方土地规划为城市道路，属城市公共用地。

（四）认定2013年3月31日聚众扰乱公共场所秩序行为的证据

1、证人袁×的证言证明：2013年3月31日13时许，其带着事先准备好的扩音器、横幅等物来到西单文化广场。其负责宣讲，马×和张×3负责举横幅，侯×负责照相。他们打出横幅有十几分钟，警察到现场进行制止。他们和执法警察争辩并发生争执。

2、证人侯×、张×3、马×、张×8的证言与袁×证言的内容基本一致。

3、证人王×6的证言证明：2013年3月31日张打横幅的行为与1月27日张打横幅的行为有关联，这些都是他们活动的内容。其和许志永、丁×、赵×、孙×4、李×3在小型聚餐时提到他们的活动要到国家立法以后才结束。

4、证人孙×4的证言证明：2013年2月28日之后，征集签名结束了，但他们的活动还没有结束。所有核心层成员对继续张打横幅的活动是肯定和支持的，也没有研究过停止张打横幅，更没有人表示或者明确阻止街头张打横幅行为。

5、证人闫×的证言证明：2013年3月31日15时40分许，其看见有四十多人向文化广场北侧台阶处聚集。后来其听同事张×9讲，在西单文化广场台阶上有人张打横幅，还有人在横幅前演讲。

6、证人张×9的证言证明：2013年3月31日15时许，其在西单文化广场看到广场正中央的周围有许多人围观，中间站了好几个人，有一个人一边比划一边说，还有四个人打出两条横幅。周围的人越来越多。后警察带着几个人上警车走了。

7、证人康×的证言证明：2013年3月31日，保安在西单文化广场北侧大看台处发现四个男子张打两条横幅，还有一个男子戴着耳麦大声演讲。保安上前制止并让对方收起横幅，对方不收。后保安给西单大街派出所打电话，警察来后，保安便协助警察将对方请上车带回派出所。当时现场大约有五六十人围观。

8、证人李×6、平×的证言与康×证言的内容基本一致。

9、证人芦×的证言证明：2013年3月31日15时许，其和同事徐×在西单地区巡逻时，接到所内值班室打来电话称，有人在西单文化广场中心区域拉横幅、演讲。他们知此情况后马上赶往现场，发现在西单文化广场中心区域的一个台阶上，有两名男子手举横幅，还有一名男子身上带着喊话器，胸前挂着一本书，在对围观群众演讲。还有一名女子拿着相机在拍照。当时已经围了200名左右的群众。他们向该四人出示工作证件后，告知对方的行为是扰乱公共场所秩序的行为，要求对方马上把横幅收起来，停止演讲。举横幅的两个男子把横幅收起来后，演讲的人依然没有停止，完全不听劝阻。这时田×2也赶到现场对演讲的人进行制止，但是该男子依然不听劝阻。田×2要求查看对方证件时，对方也很抵触。他们见劝阻没有用，就依法口头传唤对方到派出所接受询问，但对方不予理会，他们就将四个人强行带离。

10、证人徐×、田×2的证言与芦×证言的内容基本一致。

11、公安机关出具的《检查证》、《检查笔录》、《扣押决定书》、《扣押清单》及照片证明：警察对李×3的住处北京市海淀区××园××号楼××号进行检查，后扣押联想笔记本电脑一部。

12、公安机关出具的《照片提取说明》及公安部公物证鉴字（2013）3097号《物证检验报告》证明：2013年3月31日案发现场照片出自李×3的笔记本电脑。

13、现场照片证明：2013年3月31日，袁×等人在西单文化广场张打横幅、演讲及抗拒执法的情况。

14、现场监控录像及警察执法录像证明：袁×、张×3、侯×等人在现场张打横幅、演讲、拍照及阻碍、抗拒警察执法的情况。

15、视频录像证明：许志永在合肥与张×等人在宾馆房间内开会时发言，称其事先对2013年3月31日袁×等人在西单文化广场的行为知情并表示支持。

16、合肥市公安机关出具的《搜查笔录》、《扣押清单》、硬盘照片及合公电检记（2013）16号《电子物证检查分析报告》证明：合肥市公安机关调取上述视频的情况。

17、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：北京市公安机关于2013年12月从合肥市公安局调取了李××案中的视频文件，该视频系从扣押的孙×的移动硬盘中提取。

18、公安机关出具的京公（网安）勘（2013）078号及京公（网安）勘（2013）290号《远程勘验工作记录》证明：公安机关经对互联网上域名为boxun.com、voachinese.com的境外网站进行远程勘验，勘验到关于2013年3月31日西单文化广场事件相关文章。

19、公安机关出具的《起赃经过》、《扣押决定书》、《扣押清单》及物证照片证明：2013年3月31日，警察将袁×、张×3、侯×等人抓获后，从袁×手中起获并扣押其演讲时持有的扩音器1套、《南京大屠杀》书籍1本、红色条幅1副。从张×3随身物品中起获并扣押其所持有的横幅3副。从马×随身物品中起获并扣押其所持有的横幅5副。

公诉机关当庭还出示了以下证据，本院予以确认：

1、公安机关出具的《立案决定书》证明：北京市公安局于2011年11月1日决定对许志永案立案侦查。

2、公安机关出具的《常住人口信息》及北京邮电大学人文学院出具的《许志永基本情况说明》证明：许志永的身份情况。

3、公安机关出具的《到案经过》、《拘留证》及《逮捕证》证明：2013年7月16日10时，警察依法将许志永刑事传唤到北京市公安局公共交通安全保卫分局。许志永于同日被刑事拘留，同年8月22日被逮捕。

4、北京市第三看守所出具的《入所健康检查表》证明：许志永入所时健康情况正常。

5、公安机关出具的《工作说明》证明：许志永一案案卷材料中，相关复印卷宗分别复印自丁×、赵×、李×3、侯×等案，内容与原案卷一致。

被告人及其辩护人在法庭审理中未提出新证据，亦未提出证人出庭作证申请。

对于被告人及其辩护人在庭前及庭审中对管辖及分案审理所提的异议，经查，本案事实涉及北京市海淀区、朝阳区及西城区等属于不同法院管辖的区域，北京市人民检察院第一分院对许志永一案向我院提起公诉后，北京市高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第二十六条之规定，指定由我院管辖。鉴于公诉机关在起诉书中明确指控了犯罪事实，并附有案卷材料及证据，符合《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百八十一条的规定，我院依法应当受理并开庭审判。对于共同犯罪案件是否并案审理，人民法院、人民检察院、公安机关依法均可以在各自职责范围内决定。被告人及其辩护人所提上述异议不能成立，本院不予支持。

对于被告人许志永在法庭最后陈述阶段所陈述的行为动机及提出的个别现场参与人员情绪激动系其他因素造成的意见，经查，每个人都有表达自己意见的权利，但这种权利应该在法律规定的范围内行使。许志永明知组织、策划、煽动不特定多数人在同一时间段集中于公共场所表达某种诉求和张打横幅将引发社会公众围观，极易造成公共场所秩序混乱并出现抗拒执法的情况，仍通过各种方式组织更多人员到现场，且未采取任何有效措施避免出现秩序混乱。许志永作为聚众行为的首要分子，对于现场参与人员直接引发秩序混乱的行为，依法应当承担刑事责任。

本院认为，被告人许志永无视国家法律对于公民正当行使权利的规范，利用群众关心的社会热点话题，多次组织、策划在政府机关周边地区、商业繁华地带及人流密集地区等公共场所，实施多人聚集及张打横幅的活动，且参与人员在现场抗拒、阻碍国家治安管理工作人员依法执行职务，扰乱了公共场所的秩序，情节严重。许志永作为首要分子，其行为已构成聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪，依法应予惩处。北京市人民检察院第一分院指控被告人许志永犯聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪的事实清楚，证据确实、充分，指控的罪名成立。根据许志永犯罪的事实、犯罪的性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百九十一条、第二十五条第一款、第六十一条及第四十七条之规定，判决如下：

被告人许志永犯聚众扰乱公共场所秩序罪，判处有期徒刑四年。

（刑期自判决执行之日起计算，判决执行前先行羁押的，羁押一日折抵刑期一日，即自2013年7月16日起至2017年7月15日止。）

如不服本判决，可在接到判决书的第二日起十日内，通过本院或者直接向北京市高级人民法院提出上诉。书面上诉的，应当提交上诉状正本一份、副本二份。

审判长孙庆宏

代理审判员张鹏

人民陪审员洪晓达

二○一四年一月二十六日

书记员耿大为

书记员潘萌萌

Xu Zhiyong gets four years

Here's the report (in Chinese) from the court's Weibo feed, and here's some pre-sentence commentary from the Global Times. The spin is that Xu Zhiyong is being punished not for the content of what he was seeking, but for the way in which he sought it. Of course, the article contains the usual tendentious claims that people like Xu demand legal immunity for whatever actions they might take in pursuit of their goals - claims that are not backed by any evidence and are too silly to bother refuting.

[Some text and links changed from original post.]

More on the Xu Zhiyong case

Here's an informative and well-documented backgrounder, with links to original sources, on the Xu Zhiyong case from the Congressional-Executive China Commission.

Xu Zhiyong's defense statement

In a puzzlingly familiar pattern, the authorities in Xu Zhiyong's trial - who after all control the outcome - have gone out of their way to avoid even the appearance of fairness. According to the New York Times, the court told Xu and his lawyers that no prosecution witnesses would appear in court to be cross-examined, and Xu would not be allowed to present any witnesses of his own. The response of Xu was to remain silent and refuse to present a defense. Nevertheless, he did attempt to make a closing statement, which was stopped by the court after ten minutes. Here it is: Chinese | English.

On another listserv of which I'm a member, there's been some discussion of whether Xu can be called a "moderate" and whether his recent actions have been a strategic mistake. 

If you read anything Xu Zhiyong has written, including his closing statement above, or consider the actions he has taken, it’s hard to see why the word “moderate” should not apply. What is immoderate and extremist are the government’s actions against him and others like him. I cannot see any reason to call Xu immoderate unless anything that gets you persecuted is by definition immoderate. That logic would make it impossible to conclude that governments ever persecute moderates, and so doesn’t seem very helpful as a tool of social science analysis, in addition to its unacceptable moral privileging of governments over their opponents.

A discussion about whether Xu made some kind of strategic mistake seems to me to miss the point of what Xu is doing and why he is doing it. He is not engaging in some kind of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis; who would be an activist and oppose this government on rational cost-benefit grounds? The collective action problems are insurmountable. I have met Xu only a few times and can’t claim intimate knowledge of what motivates him, but my own take is that he does what he does because he feels he must, and cannot do otherwise. This accounts for his calm and steadfastness in the face of intense pressure, and explains why he inspires such fear and loathing in the mighty state. I’m not suggesting he doesn’t have a healthy streak of pragmatism as well, but in many cases analyzing what people like him do in terms of tactical or strategic mistakes will miss the point, since they aren’t trying to avoid “mistakes.” We don’t analyze why people tip at restaurants they’ll never go back to by (a) assuming they believe it will somehow benefit them down the road, and then (b) asking whether that belief is mistaken. Same here.

The Xu Zhiyong trial: Why an intermediate court?

Here's Elizabeth Lynch's take on this and related issues over at the China Law and Policy blog.

Jerome Cohen on the upcoming trial of Xu Zhiyong

Here are some thoughts by Jerome Cohen on the upcoming trial of Xu Zhiyong:

This Wednesday's trial of Xu Zhiyong (and Wang Gongchuan) may make a public mockery of the recent efforts of China's Supreme People's Court to prevent further wrongful convictions by requiring investigation and verification of criminal evidence in an open court hearing.

 

The SPC and the country's leader, Xi Jinping, have been emphasizing greater transparency and openness in judicial conduct. Yet it is very difficult to learn what transpired at last Friday's pre-trial conference since official court sources have published nothing, and there seems to be a domestic news blackout on the case. Foreign and Hong Kong press reports based on contacts with Xu's counsel suggest that, while the trial will be "public" in principle, its openness will be highly restricted in practice, as is customary in sensitive criminal cases. despite the new verbal emphasis on openness of trials. For example, a very small courtroom has apparently been selected, and arrangements have reportedly been made for the admission of only two members of Xu's family, and no other supporters, to the courtroom. I assume foreign media have been excluded.

 

As my January 14 essay in World Politics Review pointed out, the SPC's November 21, 2013, major instructions newly emphasized the importance of the courts conducting "open trials" that "make courtroom hearings the center of the trial" so that "evidence is investigated in the courtroom, conviction and sentencing debated in the courtroom and the court's judgment shaped in the courtroom." I noted that "The forthcoming trials of Xu Zhiyong and other recently-persecuted human rights advocates, now the topic of fierce intra-Party debate, will provide an early test of how the new emphasis on open trials will be applied in practice."

 

Press reports of the pre-trial conference indicate that the court will not require prosecution witnesses to testify in the court hearing and that it will not permit defense witnesses to testify in the hearing. Nor will it permit those defendants who are to be separately tried for their involvement in the incidents for which Xu and Wang are being tried to appear and take part in the hearing of the Xu/Wang case. Xu's lawyers made a long argument about why, since these were allegedly joint offenses, the law requires all accused to be tried together, which would have allowed the defendants in the other cases to testify about Xu's participation, but the court apparently rejected the argument.

 

Thus Xu and his lawyers are being denied the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses that has long been authorized by Chinese legislation but seldom permitted to be exercised, and the court also denies him the opportunity to demonstrate through the live, in-person demeanor evidence of his own witnesses and the defendants in the other cases the correctness of his version of the disputed facts.

 

This is not a case where the facts are not in dispute and the only issues will be the application and interpretation of the relevant legal standards for conviction. In this case there is a serious conflict in the evidence that calls for resolution through the open court hearing that is supposedly to be held. Even Bo Xilai and his lawyer had the opportunity to cross examine some of the witnesses against him. Yet Xu will not have that legally-required opportunity. The court apparently will "investigate and verify" the evidence against Xu in open court by simply having it read into the record, leaving the defense with no meaningful chance to demonstrate its falsity or inaccuracy. One can't cross examine a piece of paper. If this indeed proves to be the case, it will demonstrate how hollow the SPC's new emphasis on testing the evidence in open court hearings is in practice. In other words, no change from the previous practice, so that the SPC's new strictures would clearly be seen, as Shakespeare put it, to "keep the promise to the ear but break it to the hope."

 

Non-PRC newspaper reports indicate that, to protest this denial of a fair trial, Xu will remain silent during the court hearing. At least one report suggests that his lawyer may also remain silent. The precise extent of this silent protest is unclear. Will Xu refuse to answer relevant court questions put to him? Will he invoke a privilege against self-incrimination? While the new Criminal Procedure Law forbids the court to force the accused to answer, will the court take the refusal as an implicit admission of guilt? Will the defense lawyer and Xu challenge the prosecution evidence as best they can or remain silent on that score as well? Will they silently introduce written defense evidence? Will the accused and/or his lawyer refuse to make a closing statement? 

 

The stage appears to be set for another wrongful conviction.

Use of Wikipedia in expert opinions

Defense attorneys in a criminal trial for economic espionage have moved to disqualify the prosecution’s expert witness, Prof. James Feinerman of Georgetown Law Center, because (they allege) large portions of his expert witness report (a document that summarizes his proposed testimony) contain verbatim extracts from Wikipedia entries on China’s technology, high-technology development plan, and Communist Party. (Here’s the news report.) I have not seen either Prof. Feinerman’s report or the motion to disqualify him, so what follows is based solely on the news report. I should also add that Prof. Feinerman is a personal friend and colleague, so weigh that as you will.

In thinking about the appropriateness of using Wikipedia, it’s important to keep a couple of things in mind: first, the difference between an expert witness report and an academic article, and second, what the language in Wikipedia is actually being used for.

In an academic article, nothing should rest on the authority or existing reputation of the author. The article should speak for itself and should present evidence and arguments in favor of its conclusion. An academic article should never say or imply, “Take my word for it because I’m an eminent professor in the field.” It would not count as a serious criticism of a paper by a junior scholar to point out that a position taken in her paper was contrary to the position taken in a paper by a senior scholar.

This is not wholly true in an expert witness report. Here we are generally not asking the witness to engage in original research; we are asking him to tell us what experts in the field think of a particular question. Instead of concluding from the content of the writing that the writer (whom we may never have heard of before) deserves to be called an expert – this is what we might do in the academic context – we start from the premise that the writer is an expert and then see what he has to say about the subject. That’s why it would be improper for an academic journal to publish articles only from senior professors at big-name universities, but is wholly proper for a court to inquire into the qualifications of those presented to it as experts. Of course, the expert can bolster his testimony and make it more powerful by alluding to specific evidence supporting his opinion and citing to other prominent experts in the field who agree with him, but that’s not required by the logic of expert witnessing. What is required by the logic of expert witnessing is for the expert to say something like, “I am an expert in this field, and here is my view of the issues based on my expertise.”

Now let’s go back to Wikipedia. Any given entry is written by anonymous people about whom we know nothing. Consequently, to cite Wikipedia as authority for some proposition is a bad idea, whether in an academic article or in an expert witness report. (Wikipedia can still be useful academically if the article’s claims are well documented in footnotes; you can just chase down the footnote references.) Note, however, that Prof. Feinerman is not accused of citing Wikipedia as authority for what he wrote; he did not say, “The Communist Party operates in the following way, and I know this is true because it says so in Wikipedia.”

What I think he has done – I cannot read his mind and have not discussed this matter with him – seems to me not in essence different from declaring in his report, “I have reviewed the Wikipedia entry on X, and in my expert opinion I believe it accurately states the relevant facts.” In other words, while Wikipedia is not reliable as an authority, that doesn’t mean it is always wrong. The entry might well be accurate, at least in the opinion of the person reading it. I don’t think any objection could be made to a declaration of this kind.

The next question is, if an expert believes that certain language in a Wikipedia entry accurately reflects his personal views on some matter, is there any reason he should not use it? The reason for using it is quite simple: the expert is probably getting paid by the hour, and like anyone getting paid by the hour, he has an ethical duty not to needlessly inflate the time required to perform a job. If a Wikipedia entry accurately sums up everything the expert might want to say, why should he take the time to engage in an artificial re-writing exercise that will just add to the bill? I don’t think it makes sense to disqualify an expert because he tried to do the job at lower cost.

Finally, there is the question of whether the verbatim quotations from Wikipedia should be properly footnoted. An expert witness report is not an academic paper for which the author seeks academic credit, so personally I don’t see an academic integrity issue in this case. The author is not asking you to admire his words or his thoughts. He is testifying about the content of the ideas expressed by the words, and he is doing so on the basis of his own pre-existing authority and reputation. In this sense, direct quotation is not different from indirect quotation or re-writing. At the same time, quoting a source directly without a footnote is bound to lead (and in this case has led) to the suspicion that something is being concealed. That's not good. Thus, my gut feeling (subject to change upon further reflection) is that despite the differences between academic articles and expert witness reports, it makes sense to follow the same citation rules in each instead of spending a lot of time trying to figure out when the different context justifies different rules.

In this particular case, I don’t think failure to cite should count as a reason for disqualification. As I understand it, experts may be disqualified on grounds such as (a) lack of expertise, or (b) evidence that they are saying something they don’t really believe (e.g., previous writings in which they take a completely different position on the same issue). Neither of those problems is (as I understand the story) alleged to exist here.

Attention US government officials with a Chinese law interest

Mark Cohen is looking for you! Mark is a Chinese IP law expert now (back) at the US PTO, and recently circulated the following message on the Chinalaw list. With his permission I'm re-posting it here. I hope all in his target audience will respond; it would be great to have a list of such people available (but in responsible hands, of course).

If your work in the US government involves Chinese law and you are interested in meeting colleagues and exchanging experiences and updates, please contact me at my official address: [email protected].
 
Knowledge of Chinese is not required.  My sense is that there is an expanding community of us, and that it would be useful to exchange views on common concerns.
 
I am personally particularly interested in getting to know people who are involved in areas such as public international law, securities regulation, environmental protection, labor standards, law enforcement, human rights, etc. (in addition to the trade and IP community I know), that need to look at Chinese legal matters and would benefit from getting involved in a larger community of people.
 
If you work on the Hill, or you are a judge or judicial official, and you are interested in Chinese law, please give me your name as well. 
 
We will probably meet informally at some point after I have collected all the names - either virtually or perhaps a lunch or dinner.

More documents in the case of SEC vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.

Last January I posted some expert witness reports, including one by me, in the continuing proceedings of SEC vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. (District of Columbia District Court). In these proceedings, the SEC is seeking to compel a Chinese accounting firm to produce documents. Here are two declarations (publicly available, of course) filed in May that may be of interest to those following the case.

• First Declaration of Alberto Arevalo, Assistant Director, Office of International Affairs, SEC (filed May 1, 2013)
• Second Declaration of Alberto Arevalo, Assistant Director, Office of International Affairs, SEC (filed May 1, 2013)

As before, I am providing these with no comment.

 

 

 

More materials on the Chen Guangcheng/NYU affair

Here's a report from the Wall Street Journal's China RealTime Report about a statement from Chen Guangcheng's former adviser, Mattie Bekink. Ms. Bekink's full statement is below. One has to wonder who has Chen's ear and what advice they are giving him. Is he even aware of the shitstorm his statement has kicked up? As many have noted, it's a sad situation all around. And let's not forget who's really to blame here: not Chen, not NYU, not his current or former advisors, but the Linyi authorities who made it necessary for him to leave China in the first place by their inhumanly cruel persecution of him for perfectly lawful activities, and the central government that enabled them and consistently looked the other way.

NYU has been Generous to Chen Guangcheng

Cheng Guangcheng is not being forced out of NYU. Neither the Chinese government nor the university is pushing him out. His time at the university is simply coming to its conclusion, a conclusion that was determined long ago and that Mr. Chen has been aware of since shortly after his arrival in the United States. NYU's campus in Shanghai had nothing to do with it then, and has nothing to do with now. And to suggest China's Communist Party is somehow involved or is putting pressure on NYU is absurd.

I should know, since I am the one who told him about the length of his tenure at NYU.

I currently have no affiliation with NYU. But I was a consultant to the university in 2011 and 2012, first working in Shanghai for a year on establishing the campus there, and then coming to New York shortly after Mr. Chen's arrival at NYU to serve as his special advisor.

As a lawyer who had done rule of law work in China, I was glad to come to New York to assist the courageous Mr. Chen and his family. I believe he is a remarkable individual who has faced tremendous injustice, suffered greatly, and nonetheless continues to shine with a sense of purpose and optimism that is inspiring. His legal advocacy work was impressive and important for China. It was a great privilege to work with him and I look back at our time together fondly. I am very saddened to see him now distorting the facts about his time at NYU. It is for this reason that I wish to set the record straight.

NYU has consistently been generous to and supportive of Mr. Chen and his family. The university, with no advance warning, no budget, and no chance to prepare, embraced Mr. Chen and provided him with an unprecedented level of support. Professor Jerry Cohen's comment that "no political refugee, not even Albert Einstein, has received better treatment," couldn't be more apt. Professor Cohen's personal generosity similarly cannot be overstated.

NYU’s support for the Chens was extensive and comprehensive. It was thoughtful and deeply personal, specifically designed to meet their needs and adapted as those needs changed. When Mr. Chen arrived in New York, he was recovering from injuries sustained from his dramatic escape. NYU provided physical therapists to work with him along with an interpreter. When the children faced an unplanned summer, NYU found them a bilingual Mandarin summer camp and provided daily transportation. My clear instructions from the university were to do whatever was necessary to support this family. Never once did NYU deny a request I made on behalf of the Chens, regardless of expense. The university always put the Chens’ needs first.

Professor Cohen and others at the university tried to help the Chens make the difficult transition from rural China to the heart of Manhattan. He and other colleagues invited them to their homes, organized dinners with people they thought the Chens might like to meet, and arranged outings and activities for the children. We wanted to see them thrive. We cared. NYU cared. And, as far as I can tell, still cares. This is why I was so mystified to see his claims.

Mr. Chen's advocacy was also in no way curtailed or limited by NYU. In fact, the university enabled him to continue his advocacy by providing him with interpreters, helping him to write and get op-ed pieces placed, facilitating meetings with relevant stakeholders in the human rights and disability rights communities, government, academia, and media, and supporting his work. Professor Cohen, himself an outspoken critic of China, worked tirelessly to ensure that Mr. Chen's voice was heard and especially to draw attention to the ongoing suffering of his family members still in China.

NYU's unflinching support for Mr. Chen clearly demonstrates that it was not influenced by the Chinese government. As the university has pointed out, approval for the NYU Shanghai campus came only after Mr. Chen was already comfortably settled in his Greenwich Village apartment. If the university had put its own interests in China ahead of its commitment to academic integrity and principles of academic freedom, it never would have extended the invitation to Mr. Chen in the first place. NYU also did not accept Mr. Chen under duress. It was public knowledge as Mr. Chen's departure from China was being negotiated that he had offers from other institutions, such as the University of Washington. NYU could easily have side-stepped this matter, so its welcoming of him and its continuous support make plain the university's values have not been compromised.

NYU provided Mr. Chen with a soft landing as a fellow in the Law School and helped him adjust to life in the United States. The plan was to support him and his family for a year and then assist them in making more permanent arrangements. That was always the understanding, and Mr. Chen was informed of this and was very grateful. NYU never committed to supporting the family indefinitely. The only thing that has changed is the passage of time.

It is a great shame that as his time at NYU comes to a close Mr. Chen chooses to malign his friends and supporters at the university with false statements. But his comments suggest that he is having a hard time accepting the reality of his new life. It is not the Chinese communist authorities who "want to make [him] so busy trying to earn a living that [he doesn't] have time for human rights advocacy". Rather it is life in capitalist America that requires individuals to support themselves. NYU's extreme generosity has perhaps protected him from confronting this reality until now, but that level of largesse was never intended to continue indefinitely.

I wish Mr. Chen and his lovely family nothing but the very best during their continued stay in the United States. My time helping him continue his advocacy work and helping his wonderful wife and children adjust to their new home was deeply meaningful and rewarding. I respect the many real challenges Mr. Chen has overcome. But any alleged challenges coming from NYU's being under pressure from China are entirely fictional.

Mattie J. Bekink was formerly affiliated with NYU's US-Asia Law Institute as Special Advisor to Chen Guangcheng. She is a lawyer and independent consultant currently based in Milan, Italy.

 

 

 

The Chen Guangheng/NYU affair

The circumstances of Chen Guangcheng's leaving New York University have been in the news lately and the subject of dispute. Essentially, Chen says he is being pushed out due to pressure on NYU from the Chinese government. (Here's his statement (web version here).) NYU says that the original arrangement was that he would come and be supported for a year, and the year is up. (Here's an interview with Jerome Cohen, and here's a good post from China Digital Times that puts the whole story together with links to all these souces.)

My impression is that NYU is more sinned against than sinning here; the one-year deal squares with my recollection, and I think it's beyond question that NYU has been quite generous to Chen during the time he's been there. If you believe that NYU has an obligation to look after Chen indefinitely, then of course you'll see him as being booted out, but I note that neither Chen nor anyone else has offered actual evidence, or even specific (as opposed to general) allegations, of Chinese pressure on NYU to get rid of him. Activist Bob Fu, for example, declines to identify any direct pressure from China, but still manages to imply that NYU did something discreditable: "There is also self-censorship, particularly if a college president believes their China campus or the future enrollment of Chinese students will be sabotaged." In other words, there are absolutely no facts that could prove Fu wrong. He just knows.

Prof. James Feinerman of Georgetown Law School has kindly permitted me to quote his post to the Chinalaw list on this subject:

I'm taking this in from London, where there's little to no interest in this development. However, I have several reactions to the news and to how it's become public. First of all, a little history - Months ago my colleagues and I at Georgetown were approached by Chen's "people" (yes, he has them), sounding us out about a move to Georgetown (and presumably, more importantly, DC). This set off certain "alarm bells" - why was he leaving or interested in leaving NYU? The pretext for his departure to the US less than a year earlier was the fellowship he received to study at NYU; would moving elsewhere upset that? We were assured that, No, he was just "reviewing his options," probably because the term of his stay was coming to an end after one year. Obviously, he's been checking elsewhere, if rumors of his departure for Fordham are true. That's just one reason not to buy his story that PRC interference has caused his "ouster" from NYU. Secondly, he's waited until the very end of his stay at NYU - the term of which was well known all along - to voice his first complaints about the mistreatment he's suffered. If this were an ongoing problem, why not previously? Third, along with others (such as both Don Clarke and I), Jerry Cohen and a host of China scholars in the US regularly write, speak and even testify before committees of the US Congress and other governmental bodies about China's human rights abuses, flawed rule of law and other shortcomings - rarely pulling our punches - and have faced no retaliation for doing so. We still get visas to visit the PRC, have regular interchange with Chinese colleagues and (to my knowledge, at least) have caused no undue problems for our home institutions with our activities. Notwithstanding this, I take [another contributor]'s point that a few Western academics have been targetted - Perry Link and Andy Nathan come immediately to mind. Old habits die hard among the Communist diehards.

We may have to remember back to the era of the Tiananmen dissidents - Wu'er Kaixi, Chai Ling and others - to find a good analog for Chen. They came to the US after the massacre, were lionized for a while as the heroes of the "Democracy Movement," and then faded from public attention in fairly short order. As that happened, they became vocal and bitter, complaining just like Chen, that they were betrayed, that the cushy welcome they received was evaporating as memories faded. In short, they learned (as Jerry Cohen liked to quip at East Asian Legal Studies lunches to the invited speakers) that "there is no free lunch." After a reasonable transition, they were supposed to find something to do, on their own. In Chen's case, he's had a pretty sweet deal - a year of housing in Washington Square, financial support, translators, educational opportunities if he chose. Understandably, he's unhappy. But biting the hand that fed you - well, for a year - makes Chen seem like an ingrate.

Finally, Chen mistakes what he knows (and what he knows works) in China for the way things work in the US. He assumes that the PRC government - or government in general - can make academics fall in line. How little he knows us. Nothing rankles the academy more than a heavy governmental hand - especially that of one viewed by most as a vile totalitarian autocracy - trying to wield influence. It's more likely to cause academics - even academic administrators - to react in opposition. We prize our freedom more than that. It's a shame he's failed to learn at least that much about the institution that has sheltered him and his family for the past 16 months or the country of his exile. This latest screed, however, is likely to backfire. Remember Solzhenitsyn? Despite his heroism, his Nobel prize, and his writerly brilliance, he was remembered more as a reactionary scold, ranting about the West while enjoying its perks. From various accounts, Chen also risks becoming a captive and a mouthpiece for the religious right, anti-abortion, and China-threat factions here in the US. His current story will resonate with them, but in the longer run it promises he will receive even less attention from influential mainstream opinion makers in this country.

 

Chinese law schools: a ranking (sort of)

I just came across a ranking of Chinese law schools, posted on the web in April 2012. The source is a book entitled "Picking a University and Selecting a Major: A Guide to Applying to the 2012 College Entrance Examination" (挑大学 选专业－2012高考志愿填报指南). I'm reprinting the list below, translated by Google Translate with a few modifications by me.

A few caveats and observations:

1. These rankings appear to have been compiled as an individual effort of the author of the book. I have no idea what methodology he used.
2. This doesn't exactly rank "law schools." What it ranks is "the study of law." And the study of law here is defined to include law (narrowly defined), Marxist-Leninist theory, sociology, political science, and police studies. Thus, even if you think that Peking University ought to outrank Renmin University as a law school, maybe Renmin University really does outrank Peking University in Marxist-Leninist theory by more than enough to make up the difference.
3. Law studies at the Institute for International Relations, well known as China's spy school, don't do very well at 95th. Maybe they're putting their resources into computer science these days.
4. In another table on the same web page you can see what people are studying these days. Not surprisingly, engineering is pretty popular (801379 graduating undergrads in 2011). What did surprise me was the comparable figures for some of the other majors: apparently the romantic types who take literature (288014) and arts (181158) still outnumber (separately; you don't even need to add them together) those who take all of the courses subsumed under "law" combined (113342).

Ranking	Grade	School Name
1	A + +	Renmin University of China
2	A + +	Beijing University
3	A + +	Wuhan University
4	A + +	Tsinghua University
5	A + +	China University of Political Science and Law
6	A + +	Jilin University
7	A + +	Fudan University
8	A + +	Southwest University of Political Science and Law
9	A + +	Nanjing University
10	A + +	Sun Yat-sen University
11	A + +	East China University of Political Science and Law
12	A +	Central China Normal University
13	A +	Beijing Normal University
14	A +	Xiamen University
15	A +	Zhongnan University
16	A +	Shandong University
17	A +	Zhejiang University
18	A +	Nankai University
19	A +	Nanjing Normal University
20	A +	Northeast Normal University
21	A +	Huazhong University of Science and Technology
22	A +	Chongqing University
23	A +	Shanghai Jiaotong University
24	A +	Suzhou University
25	A +	Sichuan University
26	A +	Northwest University of Political Science and Law
27	A	East China Normal University
28	A	Xiangtan University
29	A	Zhengzhou University
30	A	Shanghai University
31	A	Heilongjiang University
32	A	Yunnan University
33	A	Hunan University
34	A	Shanxi University
35	A	Hunan Normal University
36	A	Hebei University
37	A	South China Normal University
38	A	Foreign Affairs College
39	A	Central South University
40	A	Shenzhen University
41	A	Southwestern University of Finance and Economics
42	A	Tianjin Normal
43	A	Jinan University
44	A	Xi'an Jiaotong University
45	A	Yantai University
46	A	Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
47	A	University of International Business and Economics
48	A	Nanchang University
49	A	Liaoning University
50	A	South China University of Technology
51	A	Southwestern University
52	A	Shanghai Normal University
53	B +	Tongji University
54	B +	Capital Normal University
55	B +	Shanghai Institute of Politics
56	B +	Central University for Nationalities
57	B +	Southeast University
58	B +	Anhui Normal
59	B +	Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
60	B +	Yangzhou University
61	B +	Central University of Finance and Economics
62	B +	Anhui University
63	B +	Central University for Nationalities
64	B +	Ningbo University
65	B +	Guangdong College of Commerce
66	B +	Lanzhou University
67	B +	China Youth Political College
68	B +	Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
69	B +	Shenyang Normal
70	B +	Hehai University
71	B +	Shanghai International Studies University
72	B +	Hubei University
73	B +	China Agricultural University
74	B +	Zhejiang Gongshang University
75	B +	Henan University of Economics and Law
76	B +	East China University of Science and Technology
77	B +	Beijing Institute of Technology
78	B +	Henan Normal University
79	B +	Guangxi Normal
80	B +	Henan University
81	B +	Huazhong Agricultural University
82	B +	Zhejiang Normal
83	B +	Fujian Normal University
84	B +	Ocean University of China
85	B +	Changchun University of Science and Technology
86	B +	Jiangxi Normal
87	B +	Guangzhou University
88	B +	Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
89	B +	Dalian Maritime University
90	B +	Guangxi University for Nationalities
91	B +	Hebei Normal
92	B +	Hainan University
93	B +	Sichuan Normal
94	B +	Hainan Normal
95	B +	Institute of International Relations
96	B +	Northwestern University
97	B +	Jiangsu University
98	B +	Northwestern Polytechnical University
99	B +	Gansu Institute of Politics and Law
100	B +	Hunan University of Science and Technology
101	B +	Wenzhou University
102	B +	Nanjing University of Finance and Economics
103	B +	Zhejiang University of Technology

 

Teng Biao's defense in the second trial of the Xia Junfeng case - English translation

Seeing Red in China has published a good translation of human rights lawyer Teng Biao's 2010 defense statement on behalf of Xia Junfeng, a street vendor charged with murder after a deadly fight with chengguan (urban administration) officials. I'm reproducing their introduction to the case below; for the introduction and links to the full statement in English and Chinese, click here.

Pu Zhiqiang barred from all mainland micro-blogging sites

Here's the story from the South China Morning Post.

So much for Xi Jinping's call for the Party to tolerate "sharp criticism".

More on the timing of the Bo Xilai trial

Now we're being told (Global Times story here) that it will be after the March meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. According to the report, unnamed insiders say that the case is complicated and that the trial might last ten days.

Ten days would be extraordinarily atypical in a criminal trial. A recent study of a large sample (non-random, but those are the limitations of research in China) of criminal cases found that two thirds of Basic Leval court cases and one third of Intermediate Level court cases were completed within one hour, including adjournments. Of course, that's hardly surprising - in the vast majority of cases, the defendants admit most or all of the prosecution's case, so these trials are functionally similar to a US court's processing of a plea- bargained deal. (This is by no means to claim they are identical or problematic in the same way.) What empirical research shows, however, is what anecdotal evidence has long suggested: that matters of importance are almost never decided at the trial stage, and that the mere fact that the case has gotten that far is evidence that a guilty verdict will be forthcoming. (The acquittal rate is below 1%.)

But the Bo case is of course an atypical case. Still, if he’s not contesting the charges (Chinese criminal procedure doesn’t have a formal guilty/not guilty plea), one wonders what can be so complicated about it. If he is contesting the charges, then going forward with the trial really is atypical. Possibly he is being allowed to contest some minor aspects of the charges – for example, did he take $10 million in bribes or was it only $9 million – and the court will reject a few elements of the prosecution’s case in an attempt to show that it wasn’t all pre-ordained from the start.

Stuart Schram, 1924-2012

Last July, Stuart Schram, a giant in the field of modern China studies, passed away. He was my professor when I did an M.Sc. degree at SOAS, and he left an indelible impression - truly a brilliant man. The Dec. 2012 issue of the China Quarterly carries a terrific obituary by Roderick MacFarquhar that is not a simple hagiography but captures him in all his complexity. I'm very lucky to have known him.

New dean for Peking U's School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen

It's Philip J. McConnaughay, who will step down as dean of Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law on July 31st of this year and take up his new duties the following day. Here's the news report.