July 30, 2007: UPDATE
Court Sessions (to date)
participants
March 14 All parties
June 6, June 12 Evaluation Committee Members
May 30, June 27 Dr. Shieh
May 16, June 27 Hong Hua (Construction Company)
While each participant only attends the dates specifically assigned to him, transcripts of the sessions are made available to all participants after each session. Information about the sessions of the other defendants have been acquired from these documents.
OVERVIEW
Right now, the court proceedings are still in a state of preparation. What that means is that the judge presiding over the case opens the court for a series of sessions in which all parties come to a clearer understanding of the case, where the indictment is scrutinized, charges clarified, and evidence and witnesses are carefully vetted. Preparatory trial proceedings began on March 14, 2007 in Tainan, with all parties present (the prosecution team, presiding judge, and all 10 defendants and their respective lawyers).
At the end of the court session on March 14, the judge asked the prosecutor to rewrite the indictment. The original indictment was approximately 14,000 characters, 24 pages. The judge asked that the prosecutor clarify the charges and suggested that the indictment could be substantially reduced. Statements in the indictment included such phrases as "masterminded by the Deputy Minister," "project was manufactured and unnecessary," and "intended to create the project in order to benefit the contractor." The judge called the style of the indictment "unorthodox" and suggested that 2 pages would probably be enough. The original indictment document counted 70 charges against Dr. Shieh.
On May 30, the prosecutor returned with a rewritten indictment at 8,000 characters, 14 pages. In the rewritten indictment document the number of charges against Dr. Shieh dropped dramatically to 30.
On May 30, Dr. Shieh's lawyers proposed that each defense team take the indictment paper and list line-by-line all disputes each team would like to raise against the stated point. These line-by-line disputes would be compiled and then given to the prosecutor such that the prosecutor can prepare their witnesses and evidence to support their claims.
The judge agreed to this method and asked all 10 defendants to prepare their own documents. The judge then asked the prosecution how long it would take for them to prepare a response to these documents, and the prosecution answered that it would take 2 months.
On June 27, Dr. Shieh's legal team submitted their 95 disputes to the indictment. Based on the prosecution's time estimate, it will be at least the end of August before the court opens again.
HongHua submitted their disputes on July 18, and all evaluators have received notice to prepare similar documents relevant to their individual cases.
Favoritism
The charges brought again Dr. Shieh are for Favoritism (XX--túlì), of which there is no equivalent in U.S. law. In the opening court session on March 14, the judge reiterated the following:
In order to be guilty of Favoritism (tu-li) as charged, the prosecution must prove ALL three of the following points:
1. Intention: There was a clear and identifiable intention.
2. Violation of Law: The intention led the defendant to commit a crime in
violation of a specific law.
3. Benefit: The defendant received some form of return (either direct or indirect).
The Defense of the Evaluators
The defense team of each evaluator had the following protests to the charges:
1. The charges brought against the defendants are cited specifically from the Corruption Law, which applies only to civil servants. The evaluators are all professors brought in by merit of their academic expertise to select an effective project. They are not civil servants and can therefore not be charged or indicted under the Corruption Law.
2. The task of the evaluators was to decide on the best suitable methodology to solve the vibration problem. The task was NOT to decide whether or not the project was necessary in the first place.
3. Even though the necessity of the project was not what they were asked to consult on, each evaluator went out of his way to go on the record as stating that, based on his expertise, yes, the project was indeed necessary. Without the project, the production at the Southern Taiwan Science Park would have been disturbed. Considering the proportion of the national GDP derived from the hi-tech industry, the potential impact on national interests was grave.
4. The prosecution repeatedly used the premise that the original target of 48 dB was not reached in order to support their conclusion that the project was unnecessary. Each evaluator explained the 48 dB was only a provisional target that was based on background measurements taken at the site prior to the initiation of the project. When the project began, new tests found that the background vibrations at the site had increased well above 48 dB and that the goal of the project was therefore to reduce vibrations from the High-Speed Railway (HSR) such that the vibrations on the site would not exceed background levels. It was also made clear that the scope of the vibration mitigation project only concerned with vibrations caused by the HSR.
5. There is no evidence that supports the claim that the evaluators worked with Dr. Shieh to steer the project to HongHua. The claims are based on hearsay and are purely speculative.
6. Evaluators only participated in Phase I, which concerned the selection of the best methodology for the project. There was no construction or money involved in Phase I. Each evaluator received only a 2000NT compensation for his participation.
Prosecution's response:
1. You are all civil servants. Based on your involvement in the project, in addition to the type of project, all evaluators meet the definition of civil servant and can thus be rightfully charged in violation of the Corruption Law.
2. The mitigation vibration project was unnecessary because the initial target of 48 dB could not be reached.
3. While the evaluators were only involved in Phase I, that does not exempt them from the favoritism charge.
Comments