New York, September 19, 2024 – The case involving the alleged murder of New York prominent lawyer and human rights leader Li Jinjin by Zhang Xiaoning entered the closing arguments on September 19th. The jury, after hearing the closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense, did not immediately reach a verdict on guilt but requested a review of the testimony and evidence related to the harassment of Li Jinjin in his office on March 11, 2022.
The prosecution emphasized that the killing was premeditated and carefully planned, arguing that Zhang was calculating and rejected the defense’s assertion of “extreme emotional disturbance” (EED) at the time of the crime.
During the trial, Zhang’s defense lawyer first spoke, highlighting the extreme emotional disturbance of the defendant at the time of the crime, citing Zhang’s history of mental illness, including schizophrenia and delusional disorder, for which she was untreated, and requesting leniency in sentencing.
The prosecution rebutted the defense’s argument, contending that Zhang’s actions were premeditated, portraying her as manipulative and vengeful. They argued that Zhang’s behavior during the attack was systematic and clear, demonstrating a full awareness of her actions and not a momentary lapse of control or on the brink of madness. The prosecution stated that Zhang’s actions were planned and targeted, specifically targeting Li Jinjin’s vital body parts such as the neck, chest, and abdomen, indicating a deliberate and purposeful act that was not impulsive.
Although a prosecution doctor diagnosed Zhang with a delusional disorder, including beliefs that Li Jinjin had the capability to remove her photos causing distress and that he would send her to a mental hospital where she would be sexually assaulted, the prosecution doctor believed that these delusions did not directly lead to violent behavior.
The prosecution argued that Zhang’s delusional disorder was not a sufficient justification for killing Li Jinjin and questioned whether she genuinely believed Li Jinjin would harm her at the time. The prosecution asserted that her act of murder lacked reasonable justification and requested a ruling of murder against her.
At the beginning, the prosecution stated, “Carefully planned, manipulative, retaliatory, that is the behavior of the accused.”
The prosecution stressed the events that unfolded three days prior to the incident on March 11, 2022, where the defendant made a death threat of “an eye for an eye,” and returned with two knives after 72 hours, demonstrating meticulous planning and preparation.
The prosecution noted, “The accused acted methodically, with a clear thought process.” When police interacted with her, she displayed the mental capacity to understand her actions and avoid answering questions that could implicate her later. Despite her delusions, the prosecution’s hired doctor testified that she had an “undifferentiated schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” which only 1% of New Yorkers have, and these individuals lead normal lives without a higher propensity for violence, asserting that “delusions do not lead to violence, they are not the same.”
The prosecution stated, “With all these delusions, is it reasonable to kill Li Jinjin?” The prosecution emphasized that despite her delusions and what she conveyed to the doctor, her delusions did not involve violence.
The prosecution highlighted Zhang’s evasiveness when answering questions, indicating her efforts to avoid accountability. She demonstrated intelligence, correcting the interpreter when responding to her attorney’s questions during testimony.
Regarding her entry into the United States, she admitted to holding a student visa but did not intend to study there. When questioned about the presence of blood on her, she claimed, “I don’t know, I don’t remember,” reflecting her calculated approach.
When asked about the knives, she withheld information to evade detection, acknowledging only having her passport, bank cards, and documents in her bag initially. She eventually disclosed the presence of a small knife with further probing. As for a large, hard scissor found in her backpack, she claimed ignorance until the police discovered it. In response to the large knife, she responded, “Possibly.”
She could recall having a Chinese passport, driver’s license, bank cards, and a New York Times business card in her backpack but never mentioned the knives since she was calculating and did not want anyone to know.
She displayed a placard at the United Nations alleging rape by Beijing police, but when questioned by the prosecution, she denied the incident as a fabrication, once again prioritizing her interests over the truth.
Returning to Li Jinjin’s law office on March 14, 2022, with pastries as a false gesture of apology aimed to create an impression of harmlessness.
In Li Jinjin’s office, she was aware of the confined, narrow space where he sat at his desk, with no escape route. Upon hearing screams, the receptionist Joyce rushed in to find Zhang wielding a 9-inch bloodied knife. Can one argue that she was unaware of her actions? Was she experiencing hallucinations? Despite the presence of the gruesome act, she did not scream, cry, or lose control of her emotions, signifying her awareness and successful completion of her “mission.”
The prosecution asserted that the defendant’s methods were brutal, stabbing Li Jinjin in the neck, piercing his carotid artery and jugular vein, resulting in uncontrollable bleeding. The knife then penetrated his upper chest, punctured his ribs, and lung. The repeated attacks were intentional and precise, targeting all major blood vessels and organs of Li Jinjin.
The prosecution emphasized her composure and strategic placement of wounds, illustrating her awareness of her actions and calculating nature.
Furthermore, the prosecution questioned Zhang’s behavior of bringing a communist flag to a human rights activist’s office, raising concerns about her intentions.
According to the indictment, Zhang Xiaoning faces charges of second-degree murder, two counts of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, third-degree menacing, second-degree breathing or circulation obstruction, harassment, among six charges in total. The judge instructed the jury that if the second-degree murder charge was not substantiated, they should consider an alternative charge of manslaughter in the first degree. This alternative charge was based on the defense’s argument of “extreme emotional disturbance (EED).” If the jury believes that Zhang acted under extreme emotional disturbance with a rational explanation or excuse, and second-degree murder is not proven, they must consider a verdict of first-degree manslaughter.
After hearing the closing arguments from both sides in the afternoon, the jury refrained from an immediate verdict on guilt but requested a review of the testimony and evidence related to the harassment incident at Li Jinjin’s office on March 11, 2022. The jury resumes the trial today (September 20th) and may render a decision on whether the six charges against the defendant are proven.