Hello, I’m Zhan Qingyun.

Inspired by Professor Xu, I want to share some thoughts on what the Yingying Zhang case reveals about the American justice system.

I am not arguing for argument’s sake. The subject is unbearably grave. When the case was reported, we too were international students studying law in America and followed every day’s search for stronger evidence.

We often discussed the defects it exposed. Emotionally I share Professor Xu’s sorrow; I simply differ on several legal and institutional points.

First, the chain of evidence.

American criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt: could a rational person, considering all the evidence, reasonably believe another possibility remains? If not, guilt is established.

There have been murder convictions without a recovered body when circumstantial evidence, physical exhibits, and testimony excluded reasonable doubt.

If a killer disposes of a body at sea and prosecutors have credible witnesses proving that act, conviction is possible without the body.

Second, the jury.

I agree that twelve jurors introduce contingency because they come from different backgrounds and classes and hold different values and faiths.

But the result is not so random that defense counsel need only sway one or two people with something strange for the accused to walk free forever.

If one or two jurors prevent unanimity, the proceeding is declared a mistrial.

Chicago prosecutors may convene a new jury and try again. Retrial is barred only after all twelve find the defendant not guilty; a hung jury does not end the case.

The initial pool is random, but the process that produces the final twelve is not.

Imagine someone whose faith absolutely forbids killing, whatever the evil of the person before them.

Such a person would never impose death and therefore would not sit on a capital jury.

When prosecutors seek death, prospective jurors undergo death qualification. Both unwavering opponents and fervent proponents of capital punishment are excluded.

Third, both legal teams fight carefully over the final membership. In a capital case, each side may have twenty peremptory challenges, allowing rejection without stating a reason—perhaps intuition says someone cannot be fair.