For nearly two years, Rong Yuan searched for an explanation for illnesses that disrupted her life. A hidden camera revealed her coworker tampering with her water bottle. Now, years after his poisoning conviction, a judge has granted his request to dismiss it.
THE WORD
- The case involved employees of Berkeley Engineering and Research, not Amazon.
- David Xu pleaded no contest to a felony poisoning charge in 2023.
- He received two years of probation and credit for one day in jail.
- A judge dismissed the conviction October 12 after he completed probation.
- The dismissal does not mean Xu was acquitted or that the poisoning never happened.
Yuan’s symptoms began in 2017 and included vomiting, hair loss and repeated hospital visits. She told The San Francisco Standard she feared an illness and sought treatment from doctors without getting answers.
The breakthrough came after her mother noticed something unusual about water in Yuan’s bottle. Yuan bought a camera from Amazon and positioned it near her desk. Footage from March 2019 captured Xu pouring a substance into the bottle, then returning to reposition it.
Police testing identified cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. According to laboratory results reviewed by The Standard, samples contained concentrations up to 3.5 million times the federal drinking-water limit.
“My blood was frozen,” Yuan told the outlet about watching the footage.
The consequences extended beyond the workplace. Yuan and her parents tested positive for cadmium poisoning after water from the bottle was brought home. Yuan told ABC7 that she believes her parents were exposed through water used for cooking.
Xu was arrested in March 2019 and originally charged with premeditated attempted murder and poisoning. Under a 2023 plea agreement, he pleaded no contest to one poisoning count; the remaining charges were dismissed.
At sentencing in March 2024, Judge Kimberly Colwell increased the negotiated probation term from one year to two. Xu received credit for one day of jail confinement, according to court records reviewed by SFGATE. He completed probation in March 2026.
On October 12, a judge granted his petition to dismiss the conviction. The district attorney’s office said it joined the victims in opposing the request, but the court granted it over their objections.
California Courts explains that qualifying defendants who satisfy their probation conditions are entitled to dismissal. The courts also caution that California does not offer true expungement. This relief reduces the impact of a criminal record; it is not a declaration of innocence.
For Yuan, the legal milestone has not ended the aftermath. She told ABC7 she continues to experience health problems and can work only part time. She also questioned whether Xu deserved another chance.
Her case raises an issue beyond workplace trust: how should the justice system weigh probation against the consequences for a victim?
Second chances are part of rehabilitation. But a completed sentence and a survivor’s recovery are different milestones. Yuan’s account makes that difference difficult to ignore.
Conversation question: Should completing probation be enough to dismiss a conviction in a poisoning case like this?
Sources
