There are many differences in the work of criminal lawyers and other professional lawyers, but I think the biggest difference lies in the complexity of criminal proceedings. On the one hand, complex procedures are reflected in the fact that a case needs to go through several different litigation links and steps, and on the other hand, there are more judicial organs involved in the process. Therefore, criminal lawyers spend a lot of time and energy communicating with judicial personnel, through which they can carry out their work and achieve effective results.

 

Lawyers communicate with each other through investigation, prosecution, and trial. Due to different positions and goals, communication is not so easy and smooth, and friction becomes a common phenomenon. Especially in the investigation stage, investigators are particularly reluctant to have lawyers intervene due to the fact that the investigation work is confidential and they are concerned about leaking secrets and interfering with normal investigation and evidence collection. Based on my personal experience, the author focuses on how to communicate smoothly with prosecutors and judges, and discusses his own experiences with everyone.

 

1、 Principles for Successful Communication

 

（1） The principle of equality

 

The primary principle of communication is equality, placing oneself on an equal footing with the other party for communication. "With a sense of equality, one can behave humbly and courteously.". Except for a few judicial personnel, most judicial personnel do not consider themselves to be officials or superior. They are willing to communicate with professional, dedicated, courteous and measured lawyers, and they also appreciate and respect excellent opponents. Some lawyers treat judicial personnel with a sense of dwarfism, showing submissiveness and inferiority; Some lawyers have a natural resistance and hostility towards judicial personnel, showing arrogance and confrontation. In fact, poor little sheep or aggressive lions are not recommended.

 

Criminal lawyers need to recognize that prosecutors and judges need us. For judicial personnel, they are willing to hear rational, objective, and well-founded objections to comprehensively review cases and prevent the occurrence of unfair, false, and erroneous cases. In the process of reviewing a case, the prosecutor will comprehensively review evidence of guilt, innocence, and severity of the crime in accordance with the principle of objectivity and impartiality, acting as a "quasi judge". Only those who are confirmed guilty and need to be held accountable will initiate a public prosecution. When I was working in the arrest department, I once handled a crime of using non-public information for trading. After reading the volume, my heart has formed a preconceived view of guilt. When I went to the interrogation, I found various excuses from the suspect. At first, I was impatient and thought he was arguing unreasonably, but later, I found that some of his statements seemed reasonable, and I couldn't refute them. After returning from the interrogation, with these questions and defences, I looked at the volume again and came up with completely opposite opinions. As a result, the suspect was not arrested. Listening to different voices can change many prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions. Similarly, judges judge in the middle, listening to the opinions of both the prosecution and the defense, ensuring impartiality and fairness. Whether prosecutors or judges, they will carefully review and analyze the lawyer's defense opinions, and whether they are adopted or not will have opinions and reasons. Therefore, the lawyer's defense opinions are very important to the advancement of the litigation process and to ensure the fair handling of the case.

 

（2） Professional competence and attitude

 

The professionalism of lawyers is a major factor in ensuring equal legal status with prosecutors and judges. Only professional legal advice can be adopted, and only professional lawyers can be respected. Judicial personnel are willing to communicate and exchange views with lawyers, but are unwilling to listen to worthless opinions. They may feel that this is a waste of time. Only a sufficiently professional lawyer who is familiar with substantive and procedural law, and who also studies the case deeply and puts forward valuable opinions, can have an equal and effective dialogue with judicial personnel at the same level.

 

The substantive and procedural laws in the criminal field are numerous and complex, making it difficult for non professional criminal lawyers to fully master them. When I was a public prosecutor, I contacted some lawyers during the process of handling cases and found that they had a poor grasp of the judicial interpretation of criminal law, and had not heard of some important judicial interpretations, resulting in a lack of understanding of issues that could easily be resolved using judicial interpretations. Lawyers who are unfamiliar with the procedures are more likely to be confused by the complex and lengthy litigation process, which delays the development of defense work.

 

There are also some lawyers who are unprofessional, who are perfunctory in their responsibilities, do not work hard on reviewing papers and studying the case, and are also lazy in communicating with judicial personnel. There are at least two or three criminal case files, dozens of which are common, hundreds of which are also ubiquitous, and thousands of which are also available. All arguments exist in the file, and it is impossible to do a good defense work without carefully reviewing the file. However, some lawyers skimmed through the papers while others did not. During a court session, I met the defender of the co defendant and during a chat, he said that there were too many 11 volumes to read yet. You know, it took almost a year from the examination and prosecution to the court session, and even 11 volumes were not read. How could such defense work be effective? For lawyers who are not professional enough, judicial personnel are indeed reluctant to communicate, even when communicating, they do not hide their impatience or disdain.

 

In addition, lawyers' poor written skills make it difficult to effectively communicate with judicial personnel. Sometimes judicial personnel do not have time to meet or communicate with lawyers by phone, so they ask lawyers to submit written opinions. A good legal document should meet at least three requirements. First, the theme is prominent; Second, the structure is reasonable and hierarchical; Third, the argument is sufficient and the evidence is detailed. A good document attracts the reader to keep reading, and after reading it, it is thoroughly enjoyable, and the opinions subtly enter the reader's brain; The poor writing stutters and makes no sense. I have seen many papers written by lawyers, some of them are a piece of paper, written in a few words; Some are a few pages or dozens of pages, a single document; Some are a book (including evidentiary materials), neatly bound, like a graduation thesis, with a cover, layers, and catalog, which are very complete. The content of a legal document mainly depends on the complexity of the case. There is no need to deliberately pursue the length or length of legal opinions, as needed. We can also take some measures to make our legal opinions both detailed and comprehensive, and well meet the simplified needs of judicial personnel. For example, first provide a comprehensive legal opinion, accompanied by a reduced version; Or present several levels of titles in the form of a table of contents, with key titles and key content highlighted in black.

 

When submitting a legal opinion, it would be more convincing if relevant evidence materials could be attached. For example, in a contract fraud case I handled a while ago, after reviewing the paper, I found that it was a civil dispute between a listed company and an investment subject. To prove that this was a civil act rather than a crime, I collected a large amount of materials about the listed company, and submitted a total of 18 attachments, fully demonstrating that the relationship between the listed company and the alleged victim was a normal investment behavior, but there was a late result of insolvency.

 

（3） Perseverance and perseverance

 

"If you want to communicate with judicial personnel, you need to be patient and not afraid of trouble, because you may have made ten phone calls and have not found anyone.". In particular, the personnel of the grassroots judicial organs are particularly busy, either holding court sessions or being interrogated, and there are many meetings that cannot be taken off. Learn more about their work and rest patterns and make frequent phone calls on time. For example, in a case I was working in Qingdao, the prosecutor was particularly busy. During the day, he held court sessions or raised inquiries, and at night, he worked overtime in the office to handle the case. So I called after work to be sure I could find him.

 

It is best to strive to meet and communicate with judicial personnel, as face-to-face communication can provide interaction, exchange views, better understand their thoughts, and find important key points for resolving a case. However, judicial personnel are usually more willing to communicate over the phone or submit written opinions, and strive to meet someone who is refused without giving up easily. Striving for several more times will have hope.

 

Sometimes it is not easy for judicial personnel to accept our views. If we fail once, we will fail twice. "If a legal opinion does not work, write more copies, fully demonstrate it from different perspectives, and clarify the issue thoroughly.". I have written four legal opinions on a case. After the first submission, it was discovered during the exchange that the prosecutor had other thoughts and concerns, and I wrote additional comments. Later, the prosecutor raised new questions, and I wrote additional comments on the issue until I wrote Supplementary Comments (III). In the process of continuously submitting legal opinions, gradually persuade the prosecutor to accept our views.

 

2、 Precautions for effective communication

 

（1） Good at empathy

 

There are indeed many frictions between the prosecution, defense, and trial, which I believe are mainly due to mutual lack of understanding and lack of understanding. The siege effect makes everyone feel more comfortable with the other party. People within the system envy lawyers' income and freedom, and lawyers envy the comfort and security within the system. However, each legal community has its own difficulties, and more empathy will not lead to resistance, but more empathy. Lawyers, in particular, should believe that most judicial personnel are impartial and conscientious law enforcers. By thinking through multiple perspectives, they can communicate more smoothly and achieve better results.

 

When communicating, it is necessary to first understand the other party's thoughts and concerns, as well as the issues they are most concerned about, in order to smoothly enter the crucial point of the case. Assuming that you are a public prosecutor, how will you review the case and what questions you need to solve? Having a clear understanding of these issues, you can highly refine the communication content and achieve the best communication effect in the shortest time. "I spend no more than half an hour each time communicating with prosecutors or judges, sometimes finishing in more than ten minutes. After finishing, I take the initiative to end the topic and never waste everyone's valuable time.". Once, I communicated with a prosecutor about a relatively complex cross criminal and civil case, and I only talked about three points. After hearing this, the prosecutor only asked me a question. We immediately communicated well, totaling 20 minutes. Concise but direct to the point, without verbosity or procrastination. This type of communication is not boring and won't be rejected the next time you want to communicate.

 

（2） Honest and realistic

 

Since we need to communicate with judicial personnel, we need to be frank and exchange true ideas and opinions. The prosecution and defense trial is not a relationship between the enemy and ourselves, and fair handling of cases is a common goal. Deliberately concealing certain facts can only make the case more and more complex, and even have the opposite effect. Some lawyers collect evidence that is beneficial to the suspect, but do not hand it over to the investigation or prosecution authorities. Instead, they need to leave it for the court to present it. They want to surprise the prosecutor and achieve unexpected results. Unexpectedly, this is at the expense of the personal freedom of the suspect. If it is really evidence that proves the innocence of the suspect, the earlier it is submitted, the sooner the lawsuit is terminated, and the suspect's freedom is returned. It is more valuable to have the case withdrawn at the investigation stage or not prosecuted at the review and prosecution stage than to make a splash in court.

 

In addition, when choosing defense strategies, it is important to seek truth from facts, maximize the interests of the parties, and not try to be arrogant. When I was a public prosecutor, I encountered many cases where the facts were clear and the evidence was sufficient. Before the lawyer intervened, the suspect pleaded guilty and could be dealt with leniently in court. However, the lawyer racked his brains to find a reason for innocence and instigated the confession to be retracted. As long as the evidence is sufficient, a zero confession can also lead to a conviction, and the lawyer's behavior will instead increase the penalty of the defendant. For those clients who are swaying between innocence and leniency, lawyers should rely more on their professional abilities to provide pertinent advice. They should not take the time to blindly cater to the emotional needs of the client and their families, and must strive for the actual interests of the client.

 

3、 Several taboos in communication

 

（1） Verbose

 

Verbatiousness is a common problem for many people, especially when they are eager to make others accept their opinions, and they unconsciously have to repeat them many times. In fact, once you say it, the other person understands it, and if you say it more, it makes people feel disgusted. "I have seen some lawyers communicate with judicial personnel and have already elaborated their views very comprehensively, but they are still not fully satisfied. The other party has tactfully ordered the expulsion, but they still chatter and finally force the other party to directly order the expulsion.". This way of communication will make judicial personnel no longer dare to meet in person next time, and can only communicate by phone or submit written opinions.

 

（2） Nitpicking

 

I have always disapproved of finding fault in legal proceedings. Lawsuits that violate the law by judicial organs can be brought forward in accordance with the law and resolved in accordance with procedures. However, there is no need to dwell on defects that do not affect the substantive nature of the case or the progress of the proceedings. The result of the deadlock is that the prosecution, the defense, and the trial are antagonistic, and effective communication is not possible. Finally, it is the parties who bear the consequences. During the investigation and evidence collection work that has lasted for several months, it is inevitable that there are imperfections. As long as corrections or reasonable explanations can be made, the trial of the case will not be affected. Lawyers should think clearly before committing suicide. What is the purpose of doing so? What effect can be achieved? Facts have proven that stumbling does not contribute to the smooth resolution of the case, but rather severs the relationship between the prosecution and the defense. I once worked with a lawyer on a case. During the process, he put forward many ideas, some of which were directly denied by me, and some of them insisted on doing so. As a result, he offended the judge and never answered his phone again.

 

（3） Victimization delusion

 

During the process of handling the case, I found that many suspects and their families had delusions of being murdered. He always speculates without foundation that he has been unjustly persecuted and believes that the public security organs and laws have been bribed against him. When working in the procuratorate, I have repeatedly encountered parties who accuse us of being bribed by the other party and unfairly enforcing the law. In fact, we have no contact with the other party. Judicial personnel have no grievances or enmities with everyone, and handling cases is their responsibility. There is no reason to favor or attack anyone. A lawyer colleague also spoke about an incident he encountered: in an ordinary intentional injury case, the suspect first came to talk about entrustment, and during the conversation, it was mentioned that the victim had found someone at the police station, and he would be severely punished. Before long, the victim also found him and wanted to entrust him. He mentioned that the suspect had found someone at the police station, which made the case very unfavorable. In fact, neither of them found anyone.

 

If a suspect or family member has a delusion of being murdered, it can still be understood, after all, it is closely related to their rights and interests. However, it is difficult to understand that some lawyers also have the delusion of being murdered. Always suspect judicial corruption without any basis and reinforce the wrong understanding of the parties. Some lawyers often go to the discipline inspection and supervision department of the procuratorate, or go to the higher procuratorate or the discipline inspection commission to write complaint letters everywhere. Before the case is over, the investigators have already been branded as favoritism, bending the law, and accepting bribes. This approach has no significance except to intensify social contradictions and strengthen the opposition between prosecution, defense, and trial.

 

(This article is translated by software translator for reference only.)