Retrial for 29-Year-Old Attempted Murder; Su Yaohui Acquitted Due to Insufficient Evidence
Su Yaohui, who was sentenced to 8 years for an attempted murder from 29 years ago, was acquitted in a retrial today. The High Court found flaws in the original lie detection and identification procedures, ruling insufficient evidence for conviction.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 29, 2026 at 15:10
- 🔍 Collected: April 29, 2026 at 15:31 (21 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 29, 2026 at 15:35 (3 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Liu Shih-yi, Taipei, 29th) Su Yaohui, a man involved in an attempted murder case in Tucheng in 1997, was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Su's application for retrial was granted, and the High Court today found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence, citing flaws in the original lie detection assessment, spectrum interpretation, and victim identification procedures. The verdict can be appealed.
In response, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office stated that it would study whether to file an appeal after receiving the Taiwan High Court's verdict.
The case originated when Su Yaohui was accused of being involved in an attempted murder on the morning of November 27, 1997, around 7 AM. He allegedly wore a full-face helmet and, along with an unidentified adult male, each carried a small machete to attack a Mr. Zhan and his wife, Ms. Pan, at their residence on Qingyun Road, Tucheng District, New Taipei City.
The Zhan couple told the police that they had previously sued a resident for illegal demolition and described the characteristics and build of the assailants. The police immediately provided several photos, including one of Su Yaohui, and the Zhan couple clearly identified Su Yaohui as one of the attackers.
Su Yaohui was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment by the Supreme Court on September 8, 2005, for attempted murder. Su disagreed and went into hiding. Su Yaohui applied for a retrial, which the Taiwan High Court granted last year. After an appeal by the prosecutor, the Supreme Court rejected it earlier this year, making the retrial final.
During the retrial, Su Yaohui stated in court that nearly 30 years have passed since the case. “How many 30 years does a person have in their life... The most heartbreaking thing for me was when my son passed away; I could only hide and handle the funeral arrangements because I was on the run and couldn't appear openly.” The arguments in the case concluded recently, and the verdict was announced today.
According to news materials provided by the Taiwan High Court, in this case, without any physical evidence or biological traces such as helmets, murder weapons, bloodied clothes, fingerprints, or footprints, the prosecutor's main basis for prosecuting Su Yaohui for attempted murder was based on testimonial evidence (identification and lie detection), as well as indirect evidence such as testimonies from the investigating officer and neighbors, diagnostic certificates, and medical records.
However, the High Court collegial panel believed that this indirect evidence could only prove that the victimized couple was attacked with knives and sustained injuries, but it could not prove that the couple's identification was credible, nor could it supplement Su Yaohui's involvement in the case.
The High Court believed that regarding the couple's identification, the collegial panel considered that the identification procedure conducted by the investigating officer on the couple after the incident had a strong suggestive effect and was flawed. Furthermore, the inspection procedure conducted by the original trial judge at the crime scene and in court, based on the couple's identification, was considered an investigation based on the subjective memory of witnesses and was therefore illegal, none of which could serve as supplementary evidence for Su Yaohui's guilt.
In addition, regarding the lie detection assessment results, the High Court collegial panel believed that the lie detection assessment and spectrum interpretation performed by the Investigation Bureau's investigator on Su Yaohui had significant major flaws. Therefore, these lie detection results were not credible and could not serve as supplementary evidence for Su Yaohui's guilt.
The High Court's news material pointed out that the case theory constructed and prosecuted by the prosecutor lacked objective evidence to corroborate it. The original court did not carefully cross-reference, verify, and organize the context of the events, and its judgment of Su Yaohui's guilt was clearly erroneous. Su Yaohui's denial of the crime was deemed reasonable, thus the original verdict was revoked, and Su Yaohui was declared not guilty; the prosecutor may appeal, but Su Yaohui may not appeal.
On the other hand, the collegial panel judges revealed that the core thinking behind this case was that, in the absence of any objective physical evidence, the prosecutor and the original court relied entirely on "testimonial evidence - identification and lie detection" for conviction. Identification and lie detection seem like scientific and eyewitness "ironclad evidence," but in reality, they hide huge blind spots of human cognition and pseudo-science. (Editor: Lin Shu-hui) 1150429
(Central News Agency reporter Liu Shih-yi, Taipei, 29th) Su Yaohui, a man involved in an attempted murder case in Tucheng in 1997, was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Su's application for retrial was granted, and the High Court today found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence, citing flaws in the original lie detection assessment, spectrum interpretation, and victim identification procedures. The verdict can be appealed.
In response, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office stated that it would study whether to file an appeal after receiving the Taiwan High Court's verdict.
The case originated when Su Yaohui was accused of being involved in an attempted murder on the morning of November 27, 1997, around 7 AM. He allegedly wore a full-face helmet and, along with an unidentified adult male, each carried a small machete to attack a Mr. Zhan and his wife, Ms. Pan, at their residence on Qingyun Road, Tucheng District, New Taipei City.
The Zhan couple told the police that they had previously sued a resident for illegal demolition and described the characteristics and build of the assailants. The police immediately provided several photos, including one of Su Yaohui, and the Zhan couple clearly identified Su Yaohui as one of the attackers.
Su Yaohui was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment by the Supreme Court on September 8, 2005, for attempted murder. Su disagreed and went into hiding. Su Yaohui applied for a retrial, which the Taiwan High Court granted last year. After an appeal by the prosecutor, the Supreme Court rejected it earlier this year, making the retrial final.
During the retrial, Su Yaohui stated in court that nearly 30 years have passed since the case. “How many 30 years does a person have in their life... The most heartbreaking thing for me was when my son passed away; I could only hide and handle the funeral arrangements because I was on the run and couldn't appear openly.” The arguments in the case concluded recently, and the verdict was announced today.
According to news materials provided by the Taiwan High Court, in this case, without any physical evidence or biological traces such as helmets, murder weapons, bloodied clothes, fingerprints, or footprints, the prosecutor's main basis for prosecuting Su Yaohui for attempted murder was based on testimonial evidence (identification and lie detection), as well as indirect evidence such as testimonies from the investigating officer and neighbors, diagnostic certificates, and medical records.
However, the High Court collegial panel believed that this indirect evidence could only prove that the victimized couple was attacked with knives and sustained injuries, but it could not prove that the couple's identification was credible, nor could it supplement Su Yaohui's involvement in the case.
The High Court believed that regarding the couple's identification, the collegial panel considered that the identification procedure conducted by the investigating officer on the couple after the incident had a strong suggestive effect and was flawed. Furthermore, the inspection procedure conducted by the original trial judge at the crime scene and in court, based on the couple's identification, was considered an investigation based on the subjective memory of witnesses and was therefore illegal, none of which could serve as supplementary evidence for Su Yaohui's guilt.
In addition, regarding the lie detection assessment results, the High Court collegial panel believed that the lie detection assessment and spectrum interpretation performed by the Investigation Bureau's investigator on Su Yaohui had significant major flaws. Therefore, these lie detection results were not credible and could not serve as supplementary evidence for Su Yaohui's guilt.
The High Court's news material pointed out that the case theory constructed and prosecuted by the prosecutor lacked objective evidence to corroborate it. The original court did not carefully cross-reference, verify, and organize the context of the events, and its judgment of Su Yaohui's guilt was clearly erroneous. Su Yaohui's denial of the crime was deemed reasonable, thus the original verdict was revoked, and Su Yaohui was declared not guilty; the prosecutor may appeal, but Su Yaohui may not appeal.
On the other hand, the collegial panel judges revealed that the core thinking behind this case was that, in the absence of any objective physical evidence, the prosecutor and the original court relied entirely on "testimonial evidence - identification and lie detection" for conviction. Identification and lie detection seem like scientific and eyewitness "ironclad evidence," but in reality, they hide huge blind spots of human cognition and pseudo-science. (Editor: Lin Shu-hui) 1150429