Speaker 1: You are listening to History on Trial, a production of
Speaker 1: iHeart Podcasts. Listener discretion advised before we begin today's episode.
Speaker 1: A note on names. Today's episode focuses on a group
Speaker 1: of Chinese men, all of whom came to the United
Speaker 1: States from Shanghai. I will be using the shanghaiese order
Speaker 1: for most names, with the surnames coming first, but the
Speaker 1: trial's case name uses English naming conventions, with the surname
Speaker 1: of the defendant following the first name. I've worked with
Speaker 1: the Shanghaiani speaker to get the pronunciations of names correct,
Speaker 1: but I apologize in advance for any errors in pronunciation,
Speaker 1: which are mine alone. With that, let's get started. Doctor
Speaker 1: Lee Gang was getting very worried about the occupants of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three Calorama Road, a ten room row house
Speaker 1: in Washington, d c. Twenty twenty three was home to
Speaker 1: the Chinese at dad occasional mission. Three men, doctor Theodore Wang, Shia,
Speaker 1: Cheng Shi, and U Bin Shin staffed the mission. Doctor
Speaker 1: Lee was used to seeing the three of them coming
Speaker 1: in and out of the mission, but he hadn't seen
Speaker 1: any of them in three days, and neither had anyone else.
Speaker 1: It was now Friday, January thirty first, nineteen nineteen, and
Speaker 1: Lee was growing increasingly worried. He lived across the street
Speaker 1: from the mission, and over the past three days he
Speaker 1: had seen mail pile up on the stone steps of
Speaker 1: the house. Not just mail, but milk bottles and newspapers
Speaker 1: and laundry too. Why was no one picking up the
Speaker 1: mission's deliveries. Lee knew Wang and Shiah well, and he
Speaker 1: was sure they would have told him if they were
Speaker 1: leaving town by Friday evening. Lee couldn't contain his anxiety.
Speaker 1: He walked across the street and rang the bell. No
Speaker 1: one answered. He looked into the windows of the first
Speaker 1: floor living room, but could not see inside. Then he
Speaker 1: noticed that one of the windows was open, just a crack.
Speaker 1: Lee considered his options. Breaking in seemed extreme, but something
Speaker 1: was not right here. He pushed up the bottom pane
Speaker 1: and wriggled inside. It was pitch black in the mission.
Speaker 1: Groping in the darkness, Lee made his way into the
Speaker 1: front hall, heart pounding, Lee flipped the wall switch and
Speaker 1: the hall flooded with light. Suddenly Lee could see everything,
Speaker 1: the dark wood paneling, the patterned rug, and lying atop
Speaker 1: the rug, a man's body, Lee ran to get help.
Speaker 1: Soon the mission was swarming with officers, and what they
Speaker 1: found inside was horrifying. The body in the front hall
Speaker 1: belonged to forty three year old doctor Theodor Wang Wang,
Speaker 1: had been beaten about the head and shot twice. Furniture
Speaker 1: strewn about the first floor pointed towards a struggle. A
Speaker 1: blood trail led the officers from the front hall into
Speaker 1: the basement. In the small basement kitchen, police found a
Speaker 1: bloody handkerchief and a revolver, which doctor Lee identified as
Speaker 1: belonging to Wu bin Chin, the mission's twenty two year
Speaker 1: old secretary. In the nearby furnace room, police found Wu dead.
Speaker 1: He had been shot once in the head and once
Speaker 1: in the heart. Wu lay with his head touching the
Speaker 1: head of thirty two year old Sia Changxi, the mission's treasurer.
Speaker 1: Tia too had been shot in the head. It was
Speaker 1: a horrific and baffling crime. Who would have wanted to
Speaker 1: kill these men? Their work was not controversial. They helped
Speaker 1: supervise and support Chinese students studying in the United States.
Speaker 1: They were well regarded members of their community. The police
Speaker 1: wanted to solve this case quickly. Fortunately, doctor Lee was
Speaker 1: able to provide them with a lead. Two days earlier,
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, January twenty ninth, Lee had visited the mission.
Speaker 1: When he knocked, no one answered. He tried again. Finally
Speaker 1: a man opened the door, but only a crack. He
Speaker 1: did not invite Lie in. This man was twenty three
Speaker 1: year old Who Jiangsung. Jiangsung, who knew both Wang and
Speaker 1: Who had been staying at the mission earlier in the week.
Speaker 1: But Lee thought Jiang Sung had returned to New York
Speaker 1: where he lived on Monday. What was he still doing
Speaker 1: at the mission on Wednesday? Jiangsung told Lie that no
Speaker 1: one else was in. Lee shrugged and decided to come
Speaker 1: back later. Once Lie told the police about this encounter,
Speaker 1: the police became curious about Jiangsung. Detectives were dispatched to
Speaker 1: New York to question him, and when police learned that
Speaker 1: a Chinese man had tried to pass a forged check
Speaker 1: purported to be from the mission the morning after the murder,
Speaker 1: they thought they knew what had happened. Jiangsung was struggling financially,
Speaker 1: he must have tried to steal money from the mission.
Speaker 1: When his actions were discovered, he had killed the mission
Speaker 1: staff to cover up the crime. The police brought Jiangsung
Speaker 1: back to Washington, d C. And questioned him. Eventually, he confessed.
Speaker 1: It seemed like an open and shutcase, but at Jiangsung's trial,
Speaker 1: his defense would claim that the police had coerced his confession.
Speaker 1: They alleged that the police had employed questionable tactics, denying
Speaker 1: Jiangsung food and sleep, among other things, to get him
Speaker 1: to break This wasn't the first high profile case with
Speaker 1: a coerced confession. For years, the public had been concerned
Speaker 1: about the lengths the police would go to secure a conviction.
Speaker 1: At Jiangsung's trial, the question of what made an acceptable
Speaker 1: confession would come under scrutiny and change the nature of
Speaker 1: police work and the rights of suspects forever. Welcome to
Speaker 1: History on Trial. I'm your host, Mira Hayward. This week
Speaker 1: Jiangsung who VI United States. In nineteen oh nine, the
Speaker 1: Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program funded its first group of students.
Speaker 1: The program, created via a complicated financial negotiation between the
Speaker 1: Chinese and US governments in the wake of the Boxer Rebellion,
Speaker 1: sponsored Chinese students to study in America. More than twelve
Speaker 1: hundred Chinese students would take part in the program over
Speaker 1: its twenty six year existence. In nineteen eleven, the Chinese
Speaker 1: Educational Mission was founded to help administer the scholarship and
Speaker 1: to support and supervise the program students. Doctor Theodor Wang
Speaker 1: was selected as the mission's first director. He was a
Speaker 1: natural choice. A member of a prominent Shanghai family, Wang
Speaker 1: had himself studied in America, graduating from the University of
Speaker 1: Virginia in eighteen ninety six. Xia Chang Shi soon came
Speaker 1: on as the organization's treasurer. Thirteen years younger than Wang,
Speaker 1: Shiah had experience with both the Chinese Foreign Ministry and
Speaker 1: with Universe City administration. Shia and Wang moved to Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. In nineteen eleven to set up the mission operations.
Speaker 1: Four years later, Wang returned to China to reunite with
Speaker 1: his family. He had had to leave his wife, Julia
Speaker 1: and their seven children in Shanghai when he moved to
Speaker 1: the United States, and couldn't wait to see them again.
Speaker 1: He spent a year in China, but soon duty called
Speaker 1: and he returned to America in nineteen sixteen. Wang didn't
Speaker 1: travel alone. Accompanying Wang on the voyage was U Bin Shing,
Speaker 1: a seventeen year old scholarship student, Wu, who spoke little English,
Speaker 1: came from a powerful family with government connections. While studying
Speaker 1: at George Washington University, Wu would also be serving as
Speaker 1: the mission's secretary. On the journey across the Pacific, Wu
Speaker 1: shared a state room with twenty year old Hu Jiangsung.
Speaker 1: Wang had known Jiangsung since he was a child. Both
Speaker 1: families were part of the same episcopal church. Jiangsung, like Wu,
Speaker 1: would be studying in the United States. He was not
Speaker 1: a scholarship recipient. His wealthy mother was funding his education
Speaker 1: as part of a final attempt to get Jiang Sung
Speaker 1: to straighten his life out. Jiangsung's father had died young,
Speaker 1: leaving his mother with a large fortune and four children
Speaker 1: who she struggled to discipline. Jiangsung had grown up privileged, spoiled,
Speaker 1: and aimless. Hoping that a change of scenery would inspire
Speaker 1: Jiangsung to get his act together, his mother suggested that
Speaker 1: he go study in America. She asked her friend Theodor
Speaker 1: Wang to keep an eye on her son. Upon arrival
Speaker 1: in the US in the spring of nineteen sixteen, Wang
Speaker 1: and U headed to Washington, d c. Jiangsung did not
Speaker 1: join them. He was going to Ohio to attend Ohio
Speaker 1: Northern University. His younger brother, Sang Ying, was also studying
Speaker 1: in Ohio. Within a year, Jiangsung had completed his Bachelor
Speaker 1: of Arts degree, thanks in part to transfer credits from
Speaker 1: his school in Shanghai. In search of more excitement, he
Speaker 1: went east, landing in New York City. Sang In soon
Speaker 1: joined him. The brothers rented a furnished room in Morningside
Speaker 1: Heights and set about enjoying city life. Jungsung does not
Speaker 1: seem to have picked up more responsible habits during his
Speaker 1: year in college. He soon ran through the money his
Speaker 1: mother sent him. He tried to run a movie theater,
Speaker 1: it quickly failed, and then took a job as a valet,
Speaker 1: but that job didn't last long either. At some point
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighteen, Jung Sung contracted the Spanish flu. Between
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen and nineteen nineteen, the flu killed millions of
Speaker 1: people around the world. Jung Sung did not die, but
Speaker 1: he was profoundly ill, and the after effects of the
Speaker 1: flu with linger for months, leaving him weak and sickly.
Speaker 1: By January nineteen nineteen, Jang Sung was in a very
Speaker 1: dark place. He had only forty one dollars in his
Speaker 1: checking account and no job to replenish the coffers with.
Speaker 1: He was sick and frequently confined to bed. Stressed, he
Speaker 1: drank heavily and argued with his brother. Jiangsung needed a change.
Speaker 1: Inspiration arrived in the form of a telegram Hubinchin, his
Speaker 1: shipmate on the voyage over, and the Chinese Education Mission
Speaker 1: secretary invited him to visit d C, who also sent
Speaker 1: him fifty dollars in late January. Jiangsung decided to take
Speaker 1: U up on his offer. On January twenty second, he
Speaker 1: took a train to Washington. By that evening he was
Speaker 1: the Chinese Educational Mission's house in Caalorama, where the mission
Speaker 1: staff both lived and worked. Jiangsung was given the guest
Speaker 1: room on the first floor. But the Washington trip was
Speaker 1: not the peaceful respite that Jiangsung had hoped for. The
Speaker 1: mission staff were busy with work and did not have
Speaker 1: the energy to tend to a sick house. Guest Wu
Speaker 1: helped care for Jiangsung at nights, but Jiangsung came to
Speaker 1: feel like a burden, and doctor Wang's paternalistic presence probably chafed.
Speaker 1: Two After five days, Jiangsung decided to leave. He did
Speaker 1: not head back to New York immediately, though Instead, he
Speaker 1: took a room at the Harris Hotel near the train station.
Speaker 1: He telegraphed his brother, asking Sung Ing to come take
Speaker 1: care of him. Song Ing hurried south, arriving in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night on January twenty eighth, he found
Speaker 1: his older brother in rough shape. In addition to the
Speaker 1: fatigue from the flu, he was now suffering severe bowel pain.
Speaker 1: But Jiangsung also had some errands to run. On the
Speaker 1: evening of January twenty ninth, he went back to the mission.
Speaker 1: It was during this visit that doctor Li Gung knocked
Speaker 1: on the door and Jongsung told him that everyone else
Speaker 1: was out. This turned out to be true. The mission
Speaker 1: staff were all attending dinners celebrating the Chinese New Year
Speaker 1: that evening. The next morning, Thursday, January thirtieth, Jung Sung
Speaker 1: and Sung En visited Riggs National Bank. Jiangsung stayed in
Speaker 1: the taxi while Sung In went in and attempted to
Speaker 1: deposit a five thousand dollars check. The check, made out
Speaker 1: from the account of the Chinese Educational Mission, was only
Speaker 1: addressed to quote bearer, not to any specific recipient. The
Speaker 1: teller thought this was suspicious. He pulled up a previous
Speaker 1: check from the mission and compared Wang's signatures on each document.
Speaker 1: They didn't match. The teller alerted an assistant cashier, who
Speaker 1: attempted to reach the mission by phone. No one answered. Eventually,
Speaker 1: Sung Inn was told to return with Wang. Sang In
Speaker 1: did not do so. Instead, he and Joangsung went to
Speaker 1: Union Station and boarded a train for New York. The
Speaker 1: next evening, Lie Gung discovered the bodies in the mission.
Speaker 1: There was no sign of forced entry or robbery, so
Speaker 1: the police suspected a more personal motive. After Lee told
Speaker 1: police about his strange interaction with Jiangsung on the twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: the police decided to investigate further. Washington Chief of Police
Speaker 1: Major Raymond Pullman sent to detective Sergeants Guy Burlingame and
Speaker 1: Edward Kelly to New York. The detectives arrived at Jiangsung
Speaker 1: and Song In's apartment at seven thirty a m. On
Speaker 1: February first. The Who brothers and the detectives would give
Speaker 1: very different accounts of the interaction that followed. The detectives
Speaker 1: claimed that Jiangsung expressed no surprise at the news of
Speaker 1: the deaths. He asked many questions but seemed calm. Jiangsung
Speaker 1: told them he had left d C on January twenty seventh.
Speaker 1: In the brothers telling, things were much less amicable. They
Speaker 1: said that the detectives had entered their rooms with guns
Speaker 1: drawn and begun tearing the room apart searching for a gun.
Speaker 1: Jiangsung denied, ever, saying that he returned on the twenty seventh.
Speaker 1: Both versions of this encounter end in similar ways, though
Speaker 1: with Jiangsung agreeing to accompany the detectives to d C
Speaker 1: to help answer questions. Jiangsun pulled together the toiletries and
Speaker 1: clothes necessary for a short trip. But this trip would
Speaker 1: not be short. Soon, Jiangsung would discover the police did
Speaker 1: not intend to let him go home. When the train
Speaker 1: carrying Jiangsung and the detectives arrived in Washington, dozens of
Speaker 1: reporters and photographers lined up to meet them. Anticipating this,
Speaker 1: Chief Pullman had the group exit off the rear of
Speaker 1: the train, and then, instead of taking Jong Sung to
Speaker 1: the police station where more reporters were waiting, Pullman had
Speaker 1: him taken to the Board of Police Surgeon's health clinic.
Speaker 1: At the clinic, Pullman himself began the questioning, assisted by
Speaker 1: Chief of Detectives Clifford Grant. Jongsung did not admit to anything.
Speaker 1: Juan Sung was next asked to appear in front of
Speaker 1: a group of employees from Riggs National Bank. Police hoped
Speaker 1: that the employees would i d Juangsung as the man
Speaker 1: who had tried to deposit the forged check, but the
Speaker 1: employees said that he was not the man they had seen.
Speaker 1: Tired and feeling ill, Jangsung asked to leave, but but
Speaker 1: the police, who had not formally arrested Jiangsung at this point,
Speaker 1: would not let him go. Instead, they took him to
Speaker 1: the Dewey hotel. Why not to the police station. As
Speaker 1: historian Scott Seligman says in his book The Third Degree,
Speaker 1: the police quote intended to keep him in communicado for
Speaker 1: as long as they interrogated him. This way, no one,
Speaker 1: not reporters nor voyeurs, but also not any of his
Speaker 1: friends nor any attorneys could find out where he was.
Speaker 1: While Jang Sung sat cloistered in the hotel, the Washington
Speaker 1: police were returning to New York. One of the bank
Speaker 1: employees had mentioned that the man who brought the check
Speaker 1: looked younger than Jiangsung, so the police were working on
Speaker 1: the theory that it had been twenty year old Song
Speaker 1: In who visited the bank. Early on Monday morning, Detective
Speaker 1: Kelly showed up at Sung Inn's door to get song
Speaker 1: In to accompany him back to Washington because the police
Speaker 1: had no grounds to formally arrest him at this point,
Speaker 1: Kelly lied, telling song In that Jiangsung was ill and
Speaker 1: asking for his brother. Sang In quickly agreed to return
Speaker 1: with Kelly, but when the pair arrived in Washington, song
Speaker 1: In was not taken to Jiangsung. Instead, he was taken
Speaker 1: to the police clinic, where officers interrogated him and accused
Speaker 1: him of murder. They questioned him all night without giving
Speaker 1: him any food. Early the next morning, the police checked
Speaker 1: song In into the Dewey hotel. He did not know
Speaker 1: that his brother was staying there as well. While sang
Speaker 1: In finally got some sleep, the police took his photo
Speaker 1: around to the bank. All the employees confirmed that this
Speaker 1: was indeed the man who had tried to cash the
Speaker 1: forged check. Police were now certain that they had their men.
Speaker 1: They believed that Jiangsung had forged the check and then
Speaker 1: killed the mission staff when they discovered his crime, but
Speaker 1: their case was circumstantial. To make it air tight, they
Speaker 1: needed a confession. Over the night. Next five days, the
Speaker 1: police questioned Juangsung and song In incessantly, even interrupting their
Speaker 1: sleep to get more questions. In Per the brother's later accounts,
Speaker 1: the police did more than just question them. They also
Speaker 1: insulted them, using racist slurs and abusive language. They pinched
Speaker 1: and pushed the men. They refused to let them see
Speaker 1: each other. They did not allow Jiangsung, who was now
Speaker 1: very ill, to get adequate rest. After five days of this,
Speaker 1: song In cracked he admitted that he had tried to
Speaker 1: cash the check. When detectives told Jiangsung what his brother
Speaker 1: had said, he was shocked and angry. The police thought
Speaker 1: that he might just be close to breaking two. His
Speaker 1: little brother was his weak spot. Jang Sung wanted to
Speaker 1: protect him. Maybe if detectives allowed them to see each other,
Speaker 1: Jung Sung would open up. The Next day, the police
Speaker 1: took the brothers to the murder scene. When he saw
Speaker 1: his younger brother, Jung Sung excitedly shook some in his
Speaker 1: hand and asked after his well being. But this was
Speaker 1: not to be a long reunion. Soon the questioning started again.
Speaker 1: Pullman implied to jog Sung that song In was about
Speaker 1: to be arrested for the crime unless Jeong Sung did
Speaker 1: something to stop it. You know what you did, song
Speaker 1: In remembered Chief Pullman telling his brother, why don't you
Speaker 1: say something and let your brother go? Your little brother
Speaker 1: has a good future. We just want you to say
Speaker 1: something and let him go out. When this emotional pressure
Speaker 1: did not work, the detectives increased the prisoner's discomfort. They
Speaker 1: denied them trips to the bathroom. They gave them no food.
Speaker 1: When Jangsung, increasingly ill, slumped in his chair, song In
Speaker 1: handed him a cushion, Detective Kelly took it away, saying,
Speaker 1: don't think you are home. You are in our power.
Speaker 1: You have got to do what we say. The questioning
Speaker 1: continued all night. By five am, the detectives were exhausted
Speaker 1: and Jiangsung was on the verge of collapse. The detectives
Speaker 1: had to carry him out. Both brothers were taken to
Speaker 1: the tenth Precinct station house. There, Jiangsung was finally allowed
Speaker 1: to sleep. When he woke up that evening, the questioning
Speaker 1: began again. Inspector Grant told Jiangsung, quote, if you are
Speaker 1: guilty and your brother is innocent, now is the time
Speaker 1: to tell it. After nearly a week of mental and
Speaker 1: physical suffering, Jiangsung could take it no more. He told
Speaker 1: detectives that he had been there when the killings happened,
Speaker 1: but it had not been him who shot the mission's staff.
Speaker 1: Oh Bin Shin had killed Theodore Wang and Shia Tchiangxi,
Speaker 1: he said, and then a businessman named c h Chen
Speaker 1: killed Whu. Xiang Sung, too tired to speak more, stopped there.
Speaker 1: He told officers he would tell them more the next
Speaker 1: day if they let him sleep. The next morning, Jiang
Speaker 1: Sung laid out what happened. He and U Bin Chin
Speaker 1: had plotted to forge a check from the mission, but
Speaker 1: doctor Wang had discovered their plan and was going to
Speaker 1: alert the police. Whu told Jiangsung to come over to
Speaker 1: the mission on the evening of the twenty ninth to
Speaker 1: figure out what to do. But at the mission, who
Speaker 1: had lost his head, he had shot Wang and Siya.
Speaker 1: Jiangsung had been horrified and furious, so he not a
Speaker 1: businessman named Chen, as he had claimed the night before,
Speaker 1: had shot Wu. Jiangsung said his brother had no idea
Speaker 1: about any of it. My brother is absolutely innocent, he
Speaker 1: told detectives. He had no part in the killing. He
Speaker 1: knew nothing of it. He was only my tool in
Speaker 1: attempting to pass the forged check. When the bank had
Speaker 1: not accepted the check. Jiangsung had abandoned the plan and
Speaker 1: headed for New York, throwing away the forged check in
Speaker 1: the train bathroom. Jiangsung was arrested murder. The police did
Speaker 1: not arrest Sung In immediately, but kept him in jail.
Speaker 1: The two brothers were allowed to share a cell, and
Speaker 1: Thong In tended to his ailing older brother. Jiangsung signed
Speaker 1: a type statement of his confession. He told Inspector Grant,
Speaker 1: I'm glad this is off my mind. Doctor Wang was
Speaker 1: my friend and my mother in Shanghai had entrusted him
Speaker 1: to care for me in this country. I never wanted
Speaker 1: him killed, so I killed U for what he had done.
Speaker 1: I'm glad it is all over. You now have the
Speaker 1: whole truth. I am not going to fight the case
Speaker 1: you built against me. I want no lawyer. I know
Speaker 1: what I have done, and I will take my medicine
Speaker 1: as you Americans say. But just one day later, Jiang
Speaker 1: Sung changed his mind. Now he wanted to fight. What
Speaker 1: had happened to cause this change the coroner's inquest, which
Speaker 1: took place on February tenth and eleventh. The jury there
Speaker 1: concluded that both Jiangsung and Sung In were responsible for
Speaker 1: the murders. Jogsung was horrified. I must have a lawyer now,
Speaker 1: he said, because they do not believe what I tell them.
Speaker 1: I have told them the truth that my brother might
Speaker 1: not suffer. Now they are going to punish him too.
Speaker 1: I must make them understand that I am the only
Speaker 1: man living who is to blame. Before, Jiangsung would have
Speaker 1: said anything to protect his brother or to get some sleep,
Speaker 1: But now it seemed that his eyes were open to
Speaker 1: the dangers in front of him, and these dangers were
Speaker 1: very real. If Jangsung was found guilty of first degree murder,
Speaker 1: he would be sentenced to death. Shortly after the coroner's inquest,
Speaker 1: the brothers were transferred to the district jail, an outdated,
Speaker 1: dilapidated facility. The jail did not look much different than
Speaker 1: it had when Charles Guitteau had stayed there forty years earlier,
Speaker 1: and the gallows from which Guittau had been hanged spoiler
Speaker 1: alert for episode four of History on Trial still stood
Speaker 1: in the courtyard, an ominous reminder of what Jog Sung
Speaker 1: was up against. He would have many days to watch
Speaker 1: the gallows. It took more than seven months for the
Speaker 1: grand jury to return indictments in the case. Though John Laski,
Speaker 1: the United States attorney for d C, had publicly expressed
Speaker 1: confidence in the case, he was actually very concerned. Laski
Speaker 1: thought that Jangsun's confession, which the prisoner had now taken back,
Speaker 1: might very well be thrown out at trial. Laski also
Speaker 1: wondered whether the police had been too hasty to narrow
Speaker 1: in on one suspect, ignoring other possible leads, leads that
Speaker 1: could introduce reasonable doubt at trial. Still, Laski managed to
Speaker 1: convince a grand jury. In late September. The grand jury
Speaker 1: handed down indictments, three for first degree murder for Jiangsung
Speaker 1: and one for passing a forged check sung In. Jiangsung
Speaker 1: must have been relieved that his brother was no longer
Speaker 1: implicated in the murder, but he had other concerns. His
Speaker 1: medical condition was worsening, and he had to spend time
Speaker 1: in the jail's red cross room. On October seventh, nineteen nineteen,
Speaker 1: in the Washington d C. Supreme Court, Jangsung and Sung
Speaker 1: In pled not guilty. Judge Ashley M. Goule granted Song
Speaker 1: In bail, and he headed back to New York. Jiangsung
Speaker 1: returned to the district jail to await trial outside of
Speaker 1: the jail, His lawyers, James O'shay, John Sachs, and Charles
Speaker 1: Fahey were working feverishly. How exactly these lawyers came to
Speaker 1: be hired or who was paying them is unknown, but
Speaker 1: they would fight tirelessly for their client. The central issue
Speaker 1: of Jiangsung's trial was his confession. Was it admissible or not.
Speaker 1: Jiangsung's lawyers would argue that it was not, that it
Speaker 1: had been obtained through coercion and pressure. O'Shea introduced this
Speaker 1: idea as early as jury selection, asking jurors, in Scott
Speaker 1: Seligman's words quote, if they would afford a confession obtained
Speaker 1: after eight days grilling of a sick prisoner denied communication
Speaker 1: with his friends as much consideration as one given voluntarily
Speaker 1: under different circumstances. The prosecution also thought carefully about how
Speaker 1: to approach the matter of the confession. US Attorney Lasky
Speaker 1: had decided to prosecute Jongsung only for the murder of
Speaker 1: Hu Bin Shin, since this was the only murder he
Speaker 1: had directly confessed to, But in opening statements on December fifteenth,
Speaker 1: Assistant US Attorney BELITHA. J. Laws Yes, Laws, great name
Speaker 1: for a lawyer tried to avoid the confession entirely aware
Speaker 1: that it might be thrown out. Instead, Laws focused on
Speaker 1: Jongsen's precarious finances, his motive to forge a check from
Speaker 1: the mission. The prosecution's witnesses health solidify this motive. On
Speaker 1: the first day, Laws introduced a number of acquaintances of
Speaker 1: Jiangsung's from New York, all of whom testified to his
Speaker 1: financial struggles and his long term ill health, which made
Speaker 1: it impossible for him to work motive check. Next, doctor
Speaker 1: Lee Gung testified to having seen Jiang Sung at the
Speaker 1: mission on the night of the murders. Opportunity check. With
Speaker 1: motive and opportunity established, Laws turned to the police evidence.
Speaker 1: Though he had shied away from addressing the confession earlier
Speaker 1: in the trial, the prosecutor now confronted it head on.
Speaker 1: He introduced receipts from the Dewey Hotel that showed that
Speaker 1: Jiangsung had been fed. He called Inspector Grant and Detective
Speaker 1: Burlingame to the stand, both of whom denied any abuse
Speaker 1: or pressure. When asked if Jiangsung's illness might have contributed
Speaker 1: to his confession, Burlingame said that Jang Sung was quote
Speaker 1: sick in the head more than in the body. But
Speaker 1: on cross examination, James O'sheay revealed some cracks in the
Speaker 1: detective stories. O'Shea got Burlingame to admit that Jangsung had
Speaker 1: indeed been questioned late at night, and that when he
Speaker 1: had finally confessed, he had been lying in bed sick.
Speaker 1: Inpector Grant acknowledged that Jang Sung had not been allowed
Speaker 1: to see his brother, or any non police or hotel
Speaker 1: staff for that matter, for five days. On December twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: Judge Gould ruled on the confession. The limits to which
Speaker 1: the police may go, Gould said, depends on the circumstances
Speaker 1: of each case. They have a right to use all
Speaker 1: reasonable methods in getting facts. In a case, he told
Speaker 1: the jury it was up to them to decide whether
Speaker 1: the police methods were reasonable. In this case, the confession
Speaker 1: would be admitted. It was a big win for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: On December thirty first, Joangsun's confession was read aloud. On
Speaker 1: that climactic note, the prosecution rested. Defense lawyer James O'shay
Speaker 1: began his case with an opening statement. Despite Gould's ruling,
Speaker 1: O'Shea still believed that getting the jurors to question the
Speaker 1: confession was the best path forward. He told jurors that
Speaker 1: Jiangsung had been quote cursed, pushed and struck by the police,
Speaker 1: and that quote the defendant was in ill health and
Speaker 1: his condition became so acute that he would have confessed
Speaker 1: to anything should it result in his being left alone
Speaker 1: by the detectives. To reinforce this point, O'Shea called song
Speaker 1: In to the stand. Song In painted a harrowing portrait
Speaker 1: of the interrogation. He described the police using racial slurs,
Speaker 1: threatening them with violence, and telling Jiangsung to confess in
Speaker 1: order to free his brother. Song In emotionally admitted that
Speaker 1: he too, in desperation, had asked his brother to confess,
Speaker 1: imploring Jiangsung, quote just say yes. They send us back
Speaker 1: to the hotel and give us food, and they don't
Speaker 1: send us to dungeon. In other ways, though Sung In
Speaker 1: was a less than convincing witness, he now denied that
Speaker 1: it was Jang Sung who had given him the forged check,
Speaker 1: instead saying that a stranger asked him to deposit it.
Speaker 1: It was a hard story to swallow and raised questions
Speaker 1: about song In's credibility, But song Inn's testimony about the
Speaker 1: interrogation was corroborated by his brother. Jong Sung described the
Speaker 1: stress and exhaustion of his week long ordeal. He explained
Speaker 1: that he would have done anything to make the questioning stop.
Speaker 1: By the time he had signed the tight out confession,
Speaker 1: Joansung said he had been so ill he could not
Speaker 1: get out of bed. Judge Gould seemed skeptical of these claims,
Speaker 1: asking Jongsung, nobody held a gun over you, and nobody
Speaker 1: threatened to kill you. Jog Sung replied, this is worse
Speaker 1: than killing. If they kill me, I don't mind. Still unconvinced,
Speaker 1: Gould asked if he really thought signing up confession, which
Speaker 1: might lead to him receiving the death penalty, was worse
Speaker 1: than answering questions. They wanted me to confess and to sign,
Speaker 1: Jiangsung explained, And my idea is this, I want them
Speaker 1: to leave me alone and let my brother nurse me
Speaker 1: and let me get well. I don't want to argue
Speaker 1: with them. At the same time, Jeong Sung's claims were
Speaker 1: backed up by the prosecution's strongest witness, doctor James Gannon,
Speaker 1: the chief medical officer at the district jail. Gannon had
Speaker 1: seen Jiang Sung shortly after his arrival at the jail
Speaker 1: and had been shocked at his condition. He diagnosed Jiuong
Speaker 1: Sung with spastic colitis, which he testified would result in
Speaker 1: almost constant pain. He observed that Jiangsun was emaciated and exhausted.
Speaker 1: Gannon had been so concerned about the prisoner's health that
Speaker 1: he had confined Jiangsung to a bed in the jail's
Speaker 1: Red Cross room for more than a month. Once again,
Speaker 1: Judge Gould had questions for this witness. Are you prepared
Speaker 1: to say that his condition had any effect on his mind?
Speaker 1: Gould asked, oh, yes, I am. Gannon replied, what do
Speaker 1: you say he was of sound or unsound mind? In
Speaker 1: so far as he was unable to make an important decision?
Speaker 1: Gannon said he was of unsound mind. Judge Gould was
Speaker 1: highly skeptical with spastic colitis. He asked, if he was
Speaker 1: accused of a crime, he would simply sign a paper
Speaker 1: and say you hang me. That is your opinion as
Speaker 1: a medical man. Gannon did not back down. I say,
Speaker 1: if he was as sick as that and in as
Speaker 1: great pain as that, he would do anything to have
Speaker 1: the torture stopped. Would Gannon's testimony convince the jury that
Speaker 1: Jang Sung's confession had not been made voluntarily. The defense
Speaker 1: certainly hoped so. James O'Shea stressed the terrible pressure Jean
Speaker 1: Sun And had been under. During his closing arguments, he
Speaker 1: told jurors that the police's conduct was not in line
Speaker 1: with American values. Quote. If they treated this boy as
Speaker 1: the testimony indicates, it is high time an American jury
Speaker 1: put its stamp of disapproval on the methods of the police.
Speaker 1: United States Attorney John Lasky vehemently disagreed. In his closing
Speaker 1: argument for the prosecution. Lasky shot back, quote, the police
Speaker 1: would have been derelict in their duty if they had
Speaker 1: not interrogated him at great length. The jury should affirm
Speaker 1: the police's work, or the criminal justice system would feel
Speaker 1: the consequences. Lasky continued, quote, if the police are not
Speaker 1: to be allowed to question persons suspected of crime, particularly
Speaker 1: those who have been trapped in conflicting statements and lies,
Speaker 1: you might as well close up the courthouse. Who would
Speaker 1: the jurors agree with? On January ninth, Judge Gould instructed
Speaker 1: the jury and dismissed them to deliberate. They were not
Speaker 1: gone long, only half an hour after stepping out, the
Speaker 1: jury returned with a verdict. Jiangsung had been so sure
Speaker 1: that he would be acquitted that he had packed his
Speaker 1: suit case before departing the jail that morning. He now
Speaker 1: sat waiting for the jury's announcement. The court clerk rose
Speaker 1: and spoke on account of first degree murder for the
Speaker 1: killing of Hu Bin Chin. The jury had found the
Speaker 1: defendant Khu Jiangsung guilty. Jiang Sung crumpled in his chair.
Speaker 1: He began to sob. His attorneys and the bailiff led
Speaker 1: him out of the courtroom. James o'sha told him that
Speaker 1: they would petition for a new trial in May. Judge
Speaker 1: Gould dismissed this petition, saying that the conviction would have
Speaker 1: come even without the confession. Gould even praised the police
Speaker 1: for their quote unusual detective skill. He set Joanngsung's sentencing
Speaker 1: date for a week time there was no doubt what
Speaker 1: the sentence would be. First degree murderers were automatically sentenced
Speaker 1: to death in Washington at this time. On May fourteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty, Judge Gould pronounced that Hu Jiangsung would be
Speaker 1: hanged on December first. The prisoner collapsed once again. James
Speaker 1: O'she reassured Jiangsung, telling him that they would appeal, and indeed,
Speaker 1: they did appeal, though a number of scheduling difficulties, illnesses,
Speaker 1: and deaths, including that of Judge Gould, who died on
Speaker 1: May twentieth, nineteen twenty one, of a heart attack. It
Speaker 1: would take more than three years for Jung Sung's appeal
Speaker 1: to be heard by the DC Court of Appeals. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, his execution had been stayed multiple times, almost
Speaker 1: always at the last moment. The news out of the
Speaker 1: appeals court was not good. On May seventh, nineteen twenty three,
Speaker 1: Judge Josiah A. Van Orsdell ruled the confession was admissible,
Speaker 1: that the verdict and sentence were correct. James O'Shea told
Speaker 1: Jiangsung that they had one last legal resort, appealing to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. It was a long shot, the court
Speaker 1: only heard a small number of cases every year, but
Speaker 1: O'she thought that the court might be interested in Jiangsung's story.
Speaker 1: The debate over just how far police could go to
Speaker 1: get confessions had intensified since the last time the court
Speaker 1: had ruled on the admissibility of confessions in eighteen ninety seven.
Speaker 1: The so called third degree the use by police of force,
Speaker 1: coercion and threat was increasingly unpopular, but there was no
Speaker 1: clear legal guidance on how to consider confessions obtained using
Speaker 1: the third degree. O'she thought the court might want to
Speaker 1: weigh in, but he didn't know if he was the
Speaker 1: right lawyer for the job, though he was admitted to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court bar, and he didn't have much experience
Speaker 1: arguing in the highest court. Fortunately for O'Shea and for Jiangsung,
Speaker 1: Juangsun's case had attracted some high profile, well connected figures
Speaker 1: who helped bring his story to the attention of several
Speaker 1: prominent lawyers, including John W. Davis, a former congressman, ambassador,
Speaker 1: and Solicitor General who had argued more than seventy cases
Speaker 1: in front of the Supreme Court. Davis and O'shay were
Speaker 1: joined on Jong Sung's appeal by William Cullen Dennis, a
Speaker 1: former State Department lawyer, as well as O'sha's associates Charles
Speaker 1: Fahey and Frederick McKenney. In July nineteen twenty three, the
Speaker 1: team submitted their appeal to the court. Three months later,
Speaker 1: to their delight, the Supreme Court agreed to hear their
Speaker 1: case due to even more scheduling difficulties and misdeadlines. Oral
Speaker 1: arguments did not commence for another six months. In April
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty four, Frederick McKenney and William Dennis presented oral
Speaker 1: arguments on Jong Sung's behalf, John Lasky's replacement. United States
Speaker 1: attorney Peyton Gordon argued on behalf of the United States.
Speaker 1: In his cell on the District Jail's gallows Lane, Jiangsung
Speaker 1: could only wait and hope. The medical care he had
Speaker 1: received while in jail had resolved his colliitis, and he
Speaker 1: had grown healthier and plumper. He was known as a
Speaker 1: model prisoner, but the stress of imminent death weighed on him.
Speaker 1: On October thirteenth, nineteen twenty four, almost a year after
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court first agreed to hear the case, the
Speaker 1: Court published its opinion in Jiangsung Whu the United States.
Speaker 1: The unanimous decision was authored by Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
Speaker 1: Brandis walked through the facts of Jiangsung's case, explaining the
Speaker 1: tactics the police had employed against him and Sung in
Speaker 1: then he weighed in on the admissibility of the confession
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals, Brandeis wrote appears to have held
Speaker 1: the prisoner's statements admissible on the ground that confession made
Speaker 1: by one competent to act is to be deemed voluntary
Speaker 1: as a matter of law if it was not in
Speaker 1: due by a promise or a threat, and that here
Speaker 1: these statements were not so induced. But Brandeis continued, the
Speaker 1: requisite of voluntariness is not satisfied by establishing merely that
Speaker 1: the confession was not induced by a promise or a threat.
Speaker 1: Any type of compulsion Brandis concluded rendered a confession involuntary,
Speaker 1: and in this case quote the undisputed facts showed that
Speaker 1: compulsion was applied. Ultimately, Brandeis wrote, a confession is voluntary
Speaker 1: in law if and only if it was in fact
Speaker 1: voluntarily made. Brandeis's opinion was met with popular acclaim. The
Speaker 1: court has plainly and bluntly decided that torture has no
Speaker 1: place in American legal procedure, and that confession thus compelled
Speaker 1: and extorted may not be admitted, wrote the Pittsburgh Press.
Speaker 1: It is time the police realized that a man is
Speaker 1: presumed innocent until proven guilty upon the New York world,
Speaker 1: and that it is up to them, not the accused himself,
Speaker 1: to do the proving said police, of course, were not
Speaker 1: so pleased. The Washington Police denied that their officers had
Speaker 1: done anything improper in their interrogation of Jangsung. Commissioner James
Speaker 1: Oyster did agree to an investigation, but it wrapped in
Speaker 1: only five days, and surprise surprise, found no evidence of
Speaker 1: wrongdoing on the police's part. In the District jail, prisoners rejoiced,
Speaker 1: and not just Jiangsung. Another inmate on Gallows Lane, Eddie Perrygo,
Speaker 1: who had confessed after being kept awake for long stretches
Speaker 1: of time, was granted a new trial. As a result
Speaker 1: of the ruling, Jiangsung would also be granted a new
Speaker 1: trial and another stay of execution his thirteenth Many people
Speaker 1: wondered whether the government would even pursue a new trial,
Speaker 1: but in November, the Department of Justice decided to move
Speaker 1: forward with re prosecuting Jangsung, and if they secured a
Speaker 1: conviction in his case, with the prosecution of his brother
Speaker 1: Sung In, who had been out on bail for the
Speaker 1: past five years. However, as with everything in Jiangsung's case,
Speaker 1: the new trial moved slowly. In the intervening years, many
Speaker 1: of the original witnesses had died or moved. Some of them,
Speaker 1: like key prosecution witness doctor Lee Gong, had returned to China.
Speaker 1: Locating these witnesses and bringing them back to d C
Speaker 1: would take time. Finally, after more than a year of preparations,
Speaker 1: Jiangsung's second trial was scheduled for January nineteen twenty six.
Speaker 1: Jog Sung was entering this case with a new legal team.
Speaker 1: For unknown reasons, he had soured on James O'Shea, who
Speaker 1: had fought so ferociously for his cause, and fired O'Shea
Speaker 1: in late nineteen twenty four. O'Shea had been replaced by
Speaker 1: Wilton Lambert, a prominent Washington lawyer who had been convinced
Speaker 1: to take the case by an anti death penalty advocate.
Speaker 1: Lambert in return recruited a Owsley Stanley, a former US
Speaker 1: Senator from Kentucky and a brilliant public speaker. They would
Speaker 1: be joined by Lambert's law partner Rudolph Yateman and his
Speaker 1: son Arthur Lambert, as well as one member of Jongsung's
Speaker 1: original legal team, Charles Fahey. On January eleventh, nineteen twenty six,
Speaker 1: six years and two days after the initial verdict in
Speaker 1: Jongsung's case, court was called to order in the courtroom
Speaker 1: of Washington Supreme Court Judge Wendell P. Stafford. In addition
Speaker 1: to new defense lawyers and a new judge, there were
Speaker 1: new prosecutors United States Attorney Peyton Gordon and Assistant United
Speaker 1: States Attorney George D. Horning Junior. There were also noticeable absences.
Speaker 1: Both police Chief Pullman and Inspector Grant, who had been
Speaker 1: so involved in the interrogation of Jangsung, had died. But
Speaker 1: for all these changes, much remained the same between Jongsung's
Speaker 1: first and second trials. For that reason, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to give you a play by play. You can just
Speaker 1: go back and listen to the trial section again if
Speaker 1: you're really bored. The only substantive change, of course, was
Speaker 1: the fact that his confession was no longer admissible. Would
Speaker 1: this difference be enough to save Jangsung? Or, as Judge
Speaker 1: Gould had appined years before, was his conviction inevitable even
Speaker 1: without the confession. On February eighth, the jury began its deliberations.
Speaker 1: Unlike Jangsung's first jury, which had returned in less than
Speaker 1: thirty minutes, these deliberations dragged on more than twenty four hours. Later,
Speaker 1: the jury told Judge Stafford that they were hopelessly deadlocked.
Speaker 1: Stafford discharged them. It was later revealed that this jury
Speaker 1: had voted ten to two for acquittal once again. Jiangsung
Speaker 1: had believed that freedom was imminent and had packed his
Speaker 1: suitcase in anticipation of release, but he took the bad
Speaker 1: news calmly, telling reporters that he just hoped for a
Speaker 1: speedy retrial. The retrial took place two months later, beginning
Speaker 1: on April twelfth, nineteen twenty sive. All the players stayed
Speaker 1: the same, except for Judge Stafford, who was replaced by
Speaker 1: Judge adolph A. Holing Junior. Once more. Feel free to
Speaker 1: listen to the trial section again if you'd like to
Speaker 1: experience this third trial in all its glory and or
Speaker 1: don't value your own time. On May twelfth, Jangsung's third
Speaker 1: jury was dismissed to deliberate again. They took their time,
Speaker 1: but by ten pm on May thirteenth, the four men
Speaker 1: reported to Judge Holing somewhat melodramatically that they were quote
Speaker 1: utterly and everlastingly in disagreement. Holing dismissed them. They had
Speaker 1: voted nine to three in favor of acquittal. Immediately after,
Speaker 1: Judge Holding dismissed the jury. Wilton Lambert asked for bail
Speaker 1: for Jangsung. It would be in human to incarcerate this
Speaker 1: man any longer, he argued. He has been in jail
Speaker 1: for seven and a half years. Twenty four men have
Speaker 1: considered his case. Holding did not make a ruling on
Speaker 1: this or on Lambert's formal motion for bail submitted the
Speaker 1: next week, Jiangsung stayed in jail. On May twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: Lambert submitted a motion to dismiss the charges. He included
Speaker 1: affidavits from the nineteen jurors across Jongsoon's three trials who
Speaker 1: had voted for acquittal. US Attorney Peyton Gordon told Lambert
Speaker 1: that he would decide in the next few weeks whether
Speaker 1: they would be moving forward with a fourth trial, which
Speaker 1: could not take place until the court's October term. In
Speaker 1: any case, Attorney General John G. Sargent decided to weigh
Speaker 1: in in his opinion, Jiangsung would never be convicted without
Speaker 1: the confession. Another trial would be a waste of taxpayer money.
Speaker 1: The three trials had already cost the government and estimated
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars or two point six
Speaker 1: million dollars today. US Attorney Gordon reluctantly agreed. At ten
Speaker 1: oh five a m. On June sixteenth, nineteen twenty, Seve
Speaker 1: Gordon formally requested that Judge Holing dismiss all charges against
Speaker 1: Jiangsung and his brother song In. Standing in the same
Speaker 1: spot at the same table, in the same courtroom in
Speaker 1: which he had been sentenced to death six years earlier,
Speaker 1: Jiangsung took it all in. He was free. Song In
Speaker 1: two was free. To avoid the notoriety associated with the trial,
Speaker 1: he began going by the first name Thomas. He appears
Speaker 1: to have stayed in the United States for the rest
Speaker 1: of his life, and in nineteen fifty helped found the
Speaker 1: Chinese League of America, a nonprofit that helped quote foster
Speaker 1: the fundamentals and ideals of American citizenship and the Constitution
Speaker 1: of the United States amongst Chinese immigrants in New York.
Speaker 1: Jiangsung was understandably more skeptical about the ideals of American
Speaker 1: citizenship given his ordeal. He stayed in the UK for
Speaker 1: several more years before returning permanently to Shanghai. He married
Speaker 1: and had three daughters and lived a comfortable life, but
Speaker 1: seven years after his return in nineteen thirty seven, the
Speaker 1: Japanese occupied Shanghai and took his home and land. During
Speaker 1: World War II, his nearly penniless family often went hungry.
Speaker 1: After the war, Jiangsung managed to get a short lived
Speaker 1: job with the Foreign Relations Office, But then in nineteen
Speaker 1: forty nine, the Chinese Communist Party defeated the Nationalist government
Speaker 1: in the Chinese Civil War and declared the birth of
Speaker 1: the People's Republic of China. As a member of an
Speaker 1: elite family, a former government employee, and a one time
Speaker 1: American resident, Jiangsung was viewed with suspicion by the new government.
Speaker 1: He was declared an enemy of the state and sent
Speaker 1: to a labor camp. He would remain there for nearly
Speaker 1: fifteen years. In nineteen sixty four, he was transferred to
Speaker 1: a prison in Shanghai, where he lived until his death
Speaker 1: in June nineteen sixty eight, age seventy two. For this
Speaker 1: final prison sentence, in a dark twist of fate, the
Speaker 1: man who had undergone three trials in the United States
Speaker 1: received no trial at all. That's the story of Jiangsung,
Speaker 1: who the United States after the break. A brief exploration
Speaker 1: of the mystery at the heart of the case, and
Speaker 1: a discussion of the case's meaningful legal legacy. Who murdered
Speaker 1: doctor Theodore Wang, Sia Chen Si and Hu Beinjing. We
Speaker 1: will likely never know the truth, but historian Scott Seligman,
Speaker 1: in his excellent book on the case, titled The Third Degree,
Speaker 1: presents a compelling case for a surprising suspect, none other
Speaker 1: than Jiang Sung. Seligman argues that despite the extremely suspect
Speaker 1: circumstances of Jiangsung's confession, the details within that confession closely
Speaker 1: aligned with the facts of the case. The available evidence,
Speaker 1: Seligman writes, points convincingly to a scenario in which Jiangsun
Speaker 1: and Hu bin Shin conspired to steal money from the
Speaker 1: Chinese Educational Mission, in which their plans were foiled, in
Speaker 1: which Hu used his own revolver to shoot both of
Speaker 1: his colleagues to death, and in which Changshun subsequently murdered
Speaker 1: who the same gun. Neither of the men could have
Speaker 1: committed the crime alone. Wu did not speak good enough
Speaker 1: English to forge the check or try to pass it
Speaker 1: in the bank. Jiangsung did not know where the mission
Speaker 1: kept its checkbook or where they bank. Wu had the gun.
Speaker 1: Perhaps he really did shoot Huang and Shi'a and then
Speaker 1: was killed by a horrified Jiangsung, or of course it
Speaker 1: could be someone else entirely. Again, we likely can't know
Speaker 1: the truth at this late date. But if it was Jiangsung,
Speaker 1: if he was indeed guilty, should this change our feelings
Speaker 1: about this case? Scott Seligman argues that it shouldn't, and
Speaker 1: I agree. The importance of this case, Seligman writes, does
Speaker 1: not hinge on the defendant's guilt or innocence. A system
Speaker 1: that presumes innocence until guilt is proven must, of necessity
Speaker 1: provide protections against false conviction, even at the price of
Speaker 1: the occasional failure to convict the guilty. This concept is
Speaker 1: one that has been baked into our legal system from
Speaker 1: its earliest days. In the very first episode of History
Speaker 1: on Trial, the eighteen hundred trial of Levi Weeks, defense
Speaker 1: lawyer Aaron Burr quoted jurist Matthew Hale saying, quote, it
Speaker 1: is better that five guilty persons should escape unpunished than
Speaker 1: one innocent man should die. The importance of Jong Sung's
Speaker 1: case is the groundwork it laid to help protect against
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions. Brandeis's Supreme Court opinion put in place further
Speaker 1: safeguards for suspect undergoing interrogations and reduce the likelihood of
Speaker 1: false confessions dooming defendants. And these safeguards would be strengthened
Speaker 1: by further Supreme Court rulings. The most famous of these
Speaker 1: rulings came more than forty years after Jongsen's final trial
Speaker 1: and two years before his death, the nineteen sixty six
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant in that case,
Speaker 1: Ernesto Miranda, had been convicted for a kidnapping and rape,
Speaker 1: based in part on a confession he had given without
Speaker 1: having been advised of his legal rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren,
Speaker 1: in his Miranda opinion, cited Brandeis's conclusions from the Jangsun
Speaker 1: case on how any confession obtained by compulsion must be
Speaker 1: excluded and continued quote in less adequate protective devices are
Speaker 1: employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no
Speaker 1: statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product
Speaker 1: of free choice or enlisted those protective devices a series
Speaker 1: of rights which would soon be administered by law enforcement
Speaker 1: officers all across America in the form of the now
Speaker 1: familiar miranda warning you have the right to remain silent.
Speaker 1: Anything you say can and will be used against you
Speaker 1: in a court of law. You have the right to
Speaker 1: an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will
Speaker 1: be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I
Speaker 1: have just read to you? With these rights in mind,
Speaker 1: do you wish to speak to me? The Miranda warning
Speaker 1: and other safeguards put in place over the past one
Speaker 1: hundred years have not provided complete protection against coerce confessions.
Speaker 1: The Innocence Project reports that in quote, approximately twenty five
Speaker 1: percent of wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made
Speaker 1: false confessions, admissions, or statements to law enforcement officials only
Speaker 1: earlier this year. In May twenty twenty four, the city
Speaker 1: of Fontana, California, had to pay a man, Thomas Perez Junior,
Speaker 1: nine hundred thousand dollars after they coerced a confession from Perez.
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, after Perez reported his father missing, Fontana
Speaker 1: detectives used extreme tactics to try to get Perez to
Speaker 1: confess to murdering his father. They denied Perez his anxiety
Speaker 1: and blood pressure medications, interrogated him for seventeen hours, and
Speaker 1: told Perez that his dog would be euthanized. Eventually, Perez confessed,
Speaker 1: and then it turned out that Perez's father was not
Speaker 1: even dead. So yes, the problem of forced confessions is
Speaker 1: a pervasive one, but thanks to dedicated lawyers more than
Speaker 1: a century ago, suspects today have more protection than Hu
Speaker 1: Jiang Sung did. Thank you for listening to History on Trial.
Speaker 1: If you've enjoyed the show, please consider leaving a rating
Speaker 1: or review. They can help new listeners find the podcast.
Speaker 1: My main source for this episode was Scott D. Seligman's
Speaker 1: book The Third Degree, The Triple Murder that Shook Washington
Speaker 1: and changed American criminal justice. Special thanks to Christina Chen
Speaker 1: for her guidance on Shanghaiani's pronunciation. For complete bibliography, as
Speaker 1: well as a transcript of this episode with citations, please
Speaker 1: visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com. History
Speaker 1: on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
Speaker 1: The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
Speaker 1: supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
Speaker 1: at History on Trial podcast dot com. And follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
Speaker 1: visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.