Christians including Wang Honglan, her husband Ji Heying, her son Ji Guolong, her daughter Liu Minna, her nephew Wang, Yang Zhijun, Zhang Wang, Liu Wei (Liu Minna’s husband), Li Chao, and others are charged with “illegal business operations” for “subsidizing money to help people buy the Holy Bible” in Hohhot. As of December 1, 2023, the case has been in trial at Huimin District People’s Court for nine days, entering the phase of evidence presentation and cross-examination.

Before the court session, defense lawyers requested the prosecution to provide an outline of evidence to enhance trial efficiency, but this request was refused by the prosecutor. The collegial panel asked the prosecutor to present evidence, and the prosecutor read aloud two sets of evidence. The presiding judge directly allowed the defendants to cross-examine. The defense lawyers requested to view the original documents. The presiding judge asked lawyers to present the legal grounds. After presenting the legal grounds, the collegial panel agreed to allow the lawyers to examine the original case files. The lawyers insisted that the defendants should be shown the original case files when presenting evidence, ensuring they know the materials to express their opinions; otherwise, they requested to present the evidence one by one. The collegial panel and the prosecutor ignored them and did not respond to this request.

The trial continued at 2:00 PM, with the prosecutor spending half an hour reading about eighty volumes of evidence on bank transfer records and accounting appraisals. Due to the refusal to disclose an outline of evidence, the court clerk’s hurried recording could not capture the complete details. Defense lawyers listened attentively to the prosecutor’s presentation but found it challenging to follow, while the defendants appeared bewildered. When the presiding judge and the prosecutor finished, the defendants were asked to express their objections. The defendants mentioned being detained for over two years, having poor memory, and requested to see the original evidence presented. This immediately faced opposition and rejection from the prosecutor Yang Yan. The presiding judge stated that if they did not express objections, it would be deemed as waiving the right to speak. The defense lawyers protested, demanding the defendants be allowed to examine the evidence presented.

Despite multiple requests, the presiding judge continued to refuse. Lawyer Zhao Qingshan protested the unjust conduct of the presiding judge, who responded that the application for request did not meet the Articles 29 and 30 of the “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” and was rejected without reconsideration.

Judge Han Yanjie of the collegial panel also argued that the defendants had no right to view the original case files during cross-examination phase. She criticized the lawyers for not diligently verifying the evidence with their clients in advance. Lawyer Zhao Qingshan stated that verification of evidence with their clients during visitation doesn’t void the defendant’s rights to examine original case files during cross-examination, the collegial panel should ensure the defendants’ right to examine the original case files.

Other defense lawyers again requested the prosecutor to present the evidence he read aloud and show this part of the case files to the defendants. The presiding judge insisted that the defendants review the court clerk’s records but refused to let them see the case files. The dispute continued. Lawyer Zhao Qingshan criticized the presiding judge for unjustly presiding over the trial, accusing him of violating the law. The presiding judge responded, ‘Then come up and hit me!’

The stalemate remained for a long time. The presiding judge finally announced an adjournment, instructing court security to provide five defendants with the case files to review.

The prosecutor Yang Yan stated, “Now that we are showing the case files to the defendants, what’s the point of having defense lawyers?”

Lawyer Zhao responded, ‘Defense lawyers can only verify evidence with their own clients and cannot cross-examine evidence with other co-defendants. If lawyers have already verified the evidence with the defendants, there’s no need for the defendants to see the materials in the courtroom. What’s the purpose of the trial then?’

Several defense lawyers live in other cities. At the end of the afternoon session, without consulting the defense lawyers, a sudden decision was made to hold court proceedings over the weekend. This arrangement disrupted the plans of many lawyers, especially those from out of town, and many lawyers expressed opposition. They believe that such an arrangement is too arbitrary. The court did not schedule trial over the weekend, and yesterday, on Thursday, a working day, no trial were arranged. However, after concluding the trial on Friday, there was a sudden decision to hold court over the weekend, completely disregarding the feelings of the lawyers. If a trial is necessary on the weekend, advance notice should be given. Such arbitrary arrangements have left the lawyers feeling unacceptable.

After reviewing the case files, it was already 4:15 PM, approaching the adjournment time. The prosecutor Yang Yan, proposed extending the trial to Saturday. The presiding judge asked court security if they could provide personnel on Saturday, and they replied that they can borrow personnel from week days. The presiding judge then went out to negotiate with court security and came back to announce directly to the lawyers: “The trial will continue tomorrow [Saturday].”

The lawyers expressed objections, stating that Thursday was a regular working day but an adjournment was arranged. Holding court trial on Saturday is an additional burden, but there was no prior consultation with the lawyers. Three lawyers had already left early because there were no court sessions last weekend, anticipating no hearings this weekend. Additionally, five lawyers had already booked round-trip flights for the evening.

Hearing the lawyers’ objections, the presiding judge Duan Wen directly said, “If you have booked a ticket, reschedule it. Tomorrow’s trial will proceed.” The five lawyers who had booked flight went up to the sixth floor to find the court president and report the arbitrary scheduling of court sessions by the collegial panel. However, they were intercepted in the corridor of the fourth floor by the head of the security team, who prevented them from going upstairs. The lawyers then requested that their message be conveyed to court president Mr. Zhou for coordination. Later, the head of the security team brought back Mr. Zhou’s response: He doesn’t meet with lawyers during the trial. Around 5:30 PM at the end of the court’s working hours, the head of the security team asked the lawyers to leave the courthouse.

During the sixth day of the trial, there was also an outburst from the audience accusing the prosecutor. The cause was that Christian who are over 70 years old, while answering questions, revealed that during questioning, the prosecutor not only falsely accused him of being a religious scammer but also mocked his personal life tragedy from over twenty years ago when his child died. The elderly, with gray hair and plagued by illness, became furious. This also triggered the anger of the audience, whose accusations were mostly directed at how a public servant could treat an elderly person of their parents’ age so heartlessly, not only lacking basic empathy but also using derogatory language, completely devoid of humanity.