In the final stages of court trials in the United States, judges typically ask defendants if they choose to “represent themselves in court.” Although this is a legal right enjoyed by the defendant, if perjury is exposed during the self-representation process, the consequences are often more severe than choosing to remain silent. Perjury is seen as “destructive to the justice system,” directly affecting the jury’s judgment of the facts.
In the case of the “Wuhan Chemical Involved in Fentanyl Precursor Export to the United States,” being tried in the Southern District of New York Federal Court, the defendant, Chen Yiyi, marketing manager of Hubei Jing’ao Biotechnology Company, is facing increased sentencing demands from the prosecution for suspected perjury during her self-representation in court. During the sentencing hearing on August 22, the prosecution bluntly stated: “The defendant has the right to defend herself, but she cannot lie.”
Assistant prosecutor Kevin Sullivan accused Chen Yiyi of “openly committing perjury” on at least four key issues, not only misleading the jury but also obstructing the justice process. Firstly, denying knowledge of the company’s website promotional content: Chen claimed in court that she was unaware of the “Fentanyl Precursor Advertisement” published on the company’s website. However, the prosecution presented her laptop files and company advertisement records, proving she was well aware of the related content.
Secondly, distorting undercover dialogue: At a conference in Bangkok, undercover DEA agent “Gil” explicitly expressed intentions to establish a fentanyl laboratory in New York, but Chen stated she understood it as “he wants to establish a large laboratory in New York and find a professional team to assist him in developing better and safer products, so he can save lives.” However, recordings show that Chen’s statement does not align with the facts, and her supervisor Wang Qingzhou responded on the spot, “The idea of setting up a lab in the United States is very correct because the logistics are the fastest,” indicating she should be aware the products would be used for drug manufacturing.
Thirdly, denying knowledge of illegality: Even when the undercover agent clearly mentioned the product being detected at the US-Mexico border, Chen still insisted in court that “Gil did not intend to violate US law.” The prosecution emphasized this as a deliberate evasion of responsibility.
Fourthly, misleading news comprehension: Chen claimed she was “at a loss” after reading Voice of America’s reports on fentanyl. However, the prosecution pointed out her excellent English proficiency, not only correcting translation errors during the trial but also submitting a handwritten letter to the judge before sentencing that was 14 pages long, written in fluent and elegant English. Her defense was clearly untrue.
Summing up, the prosecution argued that these perjuries were not mere memory lapses but intentional deception, constituting “active sabotage of the judicial process.” Allowing the defendant to “fabricate versions” to deceive the jury would severely damage the integrity of the justice system. Therefore, they urged the court to consider a heavier sentence, recommending a term of 18 years (216 months).
Defense attorney Marlon Kirton, on the other hand, insisted that the prosecution “took quotes out of context” and misinterpreted Chen Yiyi’s words. Firstly, regarding the discussion of “building a life-saving laboratory,” her understanding of “formulation” discussed was about reducing purity to prevent fatal overdoses, not aiding illegal drug manufacturing.
Furthermore, while she had good reading abilities, her spoken English was not sufficient to capture the “veiled implications” in the undercover conversations. As a Mandarin-speaking native, she could not fully understand the “subtext.”
Regarding the Voice of America report, her “confusion” stemmed mainly from differing official US and Chinese stances on fentanyl rather than denying its illegality.
The lawyer added, “Ms. Chen’s testimony aligns with her background and experiences; she did not intentionally commit perjury.”
However, Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not agree with this in the sentencing opinion. He used the term “well aware” three times to describe Chen Yiyi’s level of awareness: she was “well aware” that these chemicals would be used in synthesizing fentanyl; she was “well aware” the website used “disguised packaging” to evade detection; she was “well aware” that the fentanyl synthesized from these chemicals would cause American deaths.
The judge stated that Chen Yiyi is highly intelligent and well-educated, and when she took on this job, when she chose to do so, she was not unaware of the consequences of the US sanctions. While she has been a model prisoner in jail, choosing to participate in the large-scale transportation of fentanyl precursors to the United States and refusing to admit it in court.
When undercover agent Gil mentioned that the fentanyl synthesized from these chemicals caused American deaths, “she did not express surprise or confusion; instead, she discussed formulations with the customer.” The judge emphasized that the seriousness of the case lies in her not only participating but also continuously denying, to this day showing no concern for the number of American deaths from fentanyl.