Here’s what I think we would need in the way of knowledge (either by possessing it ourselves or by having access to a person who possessed it) to be able to have truly informed opinions about this case (and we might need more than this):
(1) thorough fluency in both English and Chinese (and especially Chinese, and thorough fluency would imply a high level of literacy)
(2) familiarity with ROC criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence law, both prescriptive (that is, as the law says it should be practiced) and descriptive (as it actually is practiced)
(3) knowledge of jurisprudence and of the role, if any, of jurisprudence (I’m aware that the ROC has a continental legal system, with, in principle at least, heavy reliance on codal articles, but I’m also aware of a doctrine called jurisprudence constante, not that I know whether that doctrine is followed here) in the interpretation of law, including:
(a) knowledge of jurisprudence about jurisprudence, which would include
(i) knowledge that would enable us to assess the weight of what higher courts say–if they say anything–about a given law; that is, whether what they say is binding on lower courts, or merely guiding, or of little effect, or a mix or stew of the three
(4) the existence of, access to, and familiarity with transcripts of all hearings concerning this case, which would imply the ability to read and understand them, and especially the ability to read them in light of all the pertinent laws and to recognize any issues that the transcripts might present
(5) the existence of, access to, and familiarity with all other documents (including motions, memoranda, appellate briefs, etc.) pertinent to the case, whether an official part of the record or not
(6) the existence of and access to evidence, or even evidence of evidence, and the ability to analyze it, which would imply not only knowledge of evidence law and of the effect of various kinds of evidence in the courts here but also
(a) knowledge of issues of forensic science and forensic technology and their possible bearing on the case, and knowledge of methods of getting evidence, including methods, if any, of compelling parties or persons to produce evidence
(7) knowledge of the mechanics of the appellate process here
(8) a pretty fair amount of knowledge of the history of the law here (using the term history loosely so as to include the personal experiences of attorneys) as it exists and is practiced here, especially criminal law and other laws that can apply to criminal cases
(9) knowledge of the extent, if any, to which notions of due process apply in criminal cases here, how they apply, when they apply, and when they don’t apply
(10) some knowledge of police procedures here, both prescriptive and descriptive, including
(a) at least some practical knowledge of the specific police division in question
(11) some practical knowledge of the prosecutorial team involved in the case
(12) some practical knowledge of the judges involved in the case
The above list is not necessarily an exclusive one.
In other words, at least one of the posters on this board would probably have to be–or somehow be the equivalent of–a very good, very sharp, very intelligent ROC criminal defense attorney, seasoned in the courtroom, in the criminal practice in general, in the practical legal landscape, and in the books, and with about, say, twenty years’ experience in the practice of criminal law here, preferably all of it in Taipei. And this attorney, or his or her equivalent, would have to be willing to go to the trouble to study the case.
I really wish we had someone like that to explain things to us, but since I don’t think we do, I don’t think we can get a very good idea of what’s going on here.
I will give this much of an opinion, though: whatever may be required here for proving the driving element of a deewee, grafting it onto a homicide doesn’t sound like a good idea.