In December 2013, the Taiwan High Court granted Chen Long-qi a retrial based on new DNA evidence, making him the first person to receive such a decision since the Taiwan Association for Innocence was established in 2012. The initial conviction for gang rape was based on flawed evidence and ineffective legal representation, while the retrial revealed that Chen could be excluded from the DNA evidence, leading to his exoneration in March 2014. Following his exoneration, Chen became a volunteer for the Taiwan Association for Innocence, which works to address wrongful convictions.

1. State vs. Chen Long-Qi 陳龍綺
In December 2013, Taiwan High Court granted Chen Long-Qi a retrial based on new DNA evidence.
Chen became the first person to be granted retrial since the Taiwan Association for Innocence (TAI)
was founded in 2012.
The Facts
On March 24, 2009, two escorts were raped between 4 to 6 AM in a warehouse that Chen and his
friend rented for business usage. The victims failed to identify the assailants due to alcohol intoxica-
tion.
Chen always maintained his innocence during the investigation and trial. He claimed that he left
before the crime took place to pick up his wife, Ko, at her workplace. Ko’s timesheet corroborated
Chen’s defense. An eyewitness also testified that Chen was not at the scene. Despite no testimony
linked Chen to the crime, the district court and high court found him guilty of gang rape with the
other two co-defendants.
Taiwan Association for Innocence (TAI) was founded in 2012. We have 12 board members
who are experienced criminal defense lawyers, law professors and forensic experts. The estab-
lishment of our organization was very much inspired by the remarkable work of Innocence
Project in the U.S.
Our Mission
1. To provide the wrongfully convicted direct representation.
2. To locate the causes of wrongful convictions.
3. To assist the exonerated filing claims for compensation and making requests for other nece-
ssary relief.
4. To pursue legal action against state misconduct.
5. To request for policy reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.
TAI only accepts post-conviction cases that claim to be innocent, either with flawed forensic
evidence or state misconduct. We’ve received more than 350 case applications since 2012, and
have taken 11 of them. Each case is assigned to one of the board members.
We are not affiliated with any law schools, but we have been participating in legal clinic pro-
grams in National Taiwan University, Chiao Tung University, and National Chung Cheng Univer-
sity.
The Man Who Can Not Be Excluded
A Documentary on Chen Long-Qi Case
TEL: +886-2-25418561 │ E-mail: twnafi@gmail.com
Website http://www.tafi.org.tw/
FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/taiwaninnocence

2. The decision was solely based on a 17 Y-STR DNA test (see figure1), which concluded that Chen
“cannot be excluded “ from the semen stain found on one of the victims’ underwear. Chen was
convicted of gang sexual assault and was sentenced to 4 years in March, 2013.
Chen sought TAI’s help right after his conviction. He refused to serve his time. He told his lawyers
that “Unless they drag me in, I will not voluntarily walk into jail for something I did not do.” He
divorced his wife, worrying that his daughters would have to go through psychological consultation
and labeled as “daughters of the rapist” in schools. He sold his seafood stall and hid in a small apart-
ment that his wife rented. “For many times, I looked down the street from the window of the apart-
ment, thinking that I could have jumped down to end this nightmare”.
TAI consulted Prof. James Chun-I Lee of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the National Taiwan
University, and Prof. Lee confirmed that he could only tell from the 17Y-STR test that that there were
two or more perpetrators committing the crime. However, he needs the electrophoretic graphs of
the original DNA testing to see how many people were actually involved.Chen’s lawyers then filed
an application to the forensic lab for the graphs. The lab replied that a court order is required to
provide the graphs. Chen’s lawyers therefore submit a motion for retrial to the TaiChung High
Court, citing the lab’s reply as a proof that there is an evidence neglected by the fact-finders in the
original trial. ( To fulfill the “new evidence” threshold, the evidence needs to satisfy the “new” and
“sufficient “ standards. According to the precedents, it requires the evidence to be (1) existent back in
the time of the original trial, but not known to the fact-finders or the defendant, and (2) sufficient to
challenge the original verdict.) The court held a hearing and put the DNA analysts on the stand.
They testified that there are electrophoretic graphs in the lab. However, they suggested that since
they got a new machine this year that can do a more precise 23 Y-STR test using the original sample;
a retesting using the original sample would be more convincing. The court hence ordered a retest,
which showed that Chen “can be excluded” from the DNA sample collected (see figure 2).
Based on this new piece of
evidence, the court granted his
motion in December 2013, and
Chen was exonerated on March
26, 2014. He is now a volunteer
for TAI.
Chen D1 D2 semen stain
found on
victim Bs’
underwear
DYS 576 17 19 21 19,21
DYS 481 23 23 23 23
DYS 549 13 14 12 12,14
DYS 533 12 11 12 11,12
DYS 570 17 17 17 17
DYS 643 12 11 12 11,12
17 Y–DNA STR Chen D1 D2
semen stain
found on victim
Bs’ underwear
1 DYS456 15 15 15 15
2 DYS389Ⅰ 12 12 12 12
3 DYS390 23 25 23 23,25
4 DYS389Ⅱ 28 28 29 28,29
5 DYS458 20 20 18 18,20
6 DYS19 14 14 14 14
7 DYS385a/b 15,18 13,18 15,18 INC
8 DYS393 12 12 12 12
9 DYS391 10 10 10 10
10 DYS439 12 13 12 12,13
11 DYS635 20 20 20 20
12 DYS392 14 14 14 INC
13 Y_GATA_H4 12 12 13 12,13
14 DYS437 15 15 15 15
15 DYS438 11 11 11 11
16 DYS448 20 20 20 20
Figure 1
What went wrong?
(1) Ineffective assistance of counsel
→Chen and D3 share the same lawyer , who paid little attention
to Chen’s defense.
→ Ko’s timesheet corroborated Chen’s words, but this piece of
evidence was never brought to the district court.
→The DNA analyst was not put on the stand.
(2)Confusing wording used in the DNA
Report
can’t be excluded ≠ consistent with
≠ match
The DNA analyst conducting the original 17Y-STR test failed to
provide the information about the actual number of the
accomplices.
Timeline
March 25, 2009
Two escorts A&B were raped
between 4 to 6 AM in a warehouse
that Chen and his friend rented for
agricultural products distribution.
The victims failed to identify the
assailants due to alcohol intoxica-
tion.
D1 and D2 admitted having sexual
intercourse with B, but claimed it
was consensual.
January 8, 2010
A 17 Y-STR DNA report concluded
that D1,D2 and Chen “cannot be
excluded “ from the semen stain
found on victim B’s underwear .
Feb 27, 2010
DA prosecuted D1 and D2.
March 17,2010
DA prosecuted Chen for gang sexual
assault.
January 20, 2012
Chen was found guilty by Taichung
District Court.
November 6, 2012
Chen was again found guilty by
High Court.
March 7, 2013
Chen’s appeal was denied by the
Highest court.
* Direct appeal exhausted.
April 2, 2013
TAI took the case.
December 12, 2013
Taiwan High Court granted Chen a
retrial and authorized a 23 Y- STR
test on the original mixture DNA
sample.
March 26, 2014
Chen was exonerated.
April 10, 2014
The deadline for the prosecutor to
file an appeal. The prosecutor
dropped the case.
Figure 2