Got shot! Ke Wenzhe’s lawyer requested to preserve evidence from Peng Zhensheng’s interrogation, and the reasons for rejection by the High Court were revealed

Former Taipei Mayor Ke Wenzhe was involved in the Beijing City and political donation case. During the second instance of the High Court hearing, regarding the interrogation process of former Taipei City Vice Mayor Peng Zhensheng, Ke Wenzhe’s lawyer Zheng Shenyuan argued that after the first instance inspection of the audio and video of Peng Zhensheng’s interrogation, it was determined that some of the The interrogation involved unfair interrogation, so he requested to preserve all the audio files of Peng Zhensheng's interrogation, including the period during which the interrogation was suspended. However, the High Court held that the case had already been pronounced in the first instance, and the provisions on evidence preservation did not apply to the second instance procedure, and ruled to reject the application.

Zheng Shenyuan argued that on August 28, 2025, the court of first instance inspected Peng Zhensheng’s interrogation transcripts and audio and video recordings on September 3 and 4, 2024. Under the prosecutor’s interrogation, Peng Zhensheng confessed to profiteering during the two days of interrogation, although the first instance did not use Peng’s unfavorable testimony against Ke in these two days as a basis for determining the crime. , and determined that the relevant interrogation was an unfair interrogation and lacked evidence capacity. However, whether the prosecutor's interrogation process involved inducements or other unfair methods required further investigation. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a request was made to preserve all the audio files of Peng Zhensheng's interrogation on September 3 and 4, including the period during which the interrogation was suspended.

The Collegiate Bench of the High Court held that the Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates the time for filing a request for evidence preservation, and that the request should be made to the prosecutor during the investigation stage; after the case is prosecuted, it is limited to the date of the first trial of the first instance court, and the defendant or defender can file the request with the first instance court or the appointed judge. If the first trial date of the first instance has passed, or the case has even entered the second instance procedure, no relevant provisions will apply.

The collegial panel pointed out that when Zheng Shenyuan requested the preservation of the investigation recording files, he also stated that he was not sure whether the relevant recording files existed or what the contents of the recordings were. Therefore, the court could not determine whether the request was to preserve evidence to prove which facts in this case, or whether it was actually a request to investigate evidence to prove specific facts.

The collegial panel determined that Ke Wenzhe's corruption case has been sentenced in the first instance and has entered the second instance procedure of the High Court. At this time, it is illegal to apply to the High Court to preserve evidence, and the procedural problems cannot be corrected. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 219-4 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it ruled to reject Zheng Shenyuan's claim.