Article 69(7) of the International Criminal Court Statute develops a specific rule to exclude evidence and thus ensure evidentiary reliability and procedural integrity before its proceedings. China has introduced the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence that places an overriding priority on pursuing factual accuracy, because the rule has been devised and applied primarily for the sake of preventing miscarriages of justice and bolstering governmental integrity. A political imperative for truth makes the rule incompatible with the existing institutional environment. The ICC’s rule and practice illuminates the importance of neither assuming the excellence of the rule nor borrowing the rule without modification, but of exploring the rule that is based upon one’s own practical experience, institutional structure, and political powers. This article embraces the room for flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation that can contribute to a healthy scheme for legal transplant and law reform.

Many Chinese scholars advocate transplanting the American Gideon to improve the quality of criminal defense and legal aid in China. Nowadays, less than thirty percent of criminal defendants in China have counsels to represent them, and this has worsened since the year of 2012, because laws and policies have expanded the legal aid to more candidates, while the appropriations cannot keep pace with the explosive caseload. Institutional impediments also frustrate lawyers’ efforts in providing effective representation, and there is no remedy for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. This paper calls for a fuller understanding of the Gideon’s broken promise in the US, and argues that the forces most essential to the support of the Chinese Gideon can only come from China’s practice and experience.