The reason why we talk about this topic is because of a case that was widely discussed in society a while ago, which made me smell familiar. For so many years, there has never been a shortage of lawyers who show off and deceive people. Now that I am also a lawyer, I should not have criticized my peers, but when I think of the clients who were deceived and the heavy punishment they bought with their own money, I have something to say in my heart.

I have been a prosecutor for many years and have seen various lawyers. Today, I will talk about those lawyers who encourage their clients to retract their confessions. In cases with defense lawyers, the non admission rate is significantly higher than in cases without lawyers. Some cases involve suspects not admitting guilt from the beginning, while others involve lawyers recanting their statements after intervention. I have handled many cases where the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, and the suspects voluntarily made detailed confessions of guilt, but they were retracted after the lawyer worked. At the trial, the defendant answered the questioning according to the lawyer's so-called "strategy", which was contradictory and full of loopholes, and the defense reasons were simply untenable. The lawyer was even more generous in his speech and performed hard, which satisfied the family members who were listening, but in the eyes of insiders, there was no useful viewpoint. I glanced at the judge and shook my head helplessly. Originally, it was a small case with a good attitude towards confession, so the judge gave a lenient sentence. However, you had to retract your confession, so the judge had to change the originally planned sentence of six months in prison to eight months. Otherwise, he would have been "sorry" for the lawyer's "wonderful" performance. But all of this happened, the defendant and their family had no chance to know.

So, my point of view is very clear: if the suspect confesses, they should confess, and this is taking responsibility for themselves! Lawyers should suggest pleading guilty, as this is responsible to your client! Especially after the addition of the system of confession and punishment in the Criminal Procedure Law, we should make full use of this system and strive for the most favorable results.

Which cases should I plead guilty to?

A case where the facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient, and there is no possibility of success in a plea of not guilty. It should be acknowledged that many cases cannot meet the standards of clear facts and sufficient evidence due to subjective and objective reasons. However, in most cases, there is no problem with the conviction and sentencing based on evidence. This judgment is based on my more than ten years of experience working in the procuratorate and the stable innocence rate in China over the years. So both parties and lawyers should not have too many illusions.

How to determine whether a case has reached the level of clear facts and sufficient evidence?

This depends on the professional ability of lawyers. Especially after the case enters the stage of examination and prosecution, the evidence held by the lawyer is the same as that of the prosecution. After detailed grading and meeting with the parties involved, it is necessary to review whether each piece of evidence meets the "three natures" of the evidence, whether there are unexplained contradictions between the evidence, whether the evidence system is complete, and whether there are reasonable doubts that have not been excluded? Lawyers must rely on their professional abilities to provide an objective conclusion, among other things. Only in this way can a definite answer be given to the parties when they anxiously ask whether they should plead guilty!

Especially without considering the suspect's confession, check if the evidence is sufficient. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that "in all cases, evidence and investigation must be emphasized in sentencing, and confessions should not be easily believed. If there is only a confession from the defendant and no other evidence, the defendant cannot be found guilty and punished; if there is no confession from the defendant and the evidence is reliable and sufficient, the defendant can be found guilty and punished." If there is no confession, the evidence can clearly prove the facts. If you do not confess at this time, it only shows that you long for life in prison.

But the problem is that some lawyers treat flawed evidence as invalid evidence and use it as a defense of innocence, which is obviously impossible. Defective evidence will naturally be accepted by the court through correction or reasonable explanation. Only illegal evidence can be excluded according to law and cannot be used as evidence for determining the case. But the types of illegal evidence have been clearly listed in judicial interpretations, and other types of flawed evidence will not be excluded. Moreover, how difficult it is to exclude illegal evidence! Not to mention lawyers, it is extremely difficult for prosecutors to exclude illegal evidence during the process of reviewing arrests or prosecution. At the end of each year, many procuratorates have zero data on the exclusion of illegal evidence. It's not that the prosecutor doesn't want to rule it out, it's that they can't find it, or they can investigate suspicious clues but still can't obtain useful evidence.

Some lawyers are fixated on details that have no impact on the verdict, but overlook the main evidential content of the evidence. For example, in a case of intentional injury, there are several witness testimonies. Several witnesses were able to prove that the suspect hit someone with a stick, but in terms of details, each person had slight differences in their accounts due to different observation angles and memory. For example, some witnesses said they hit their buttocks, some said they hit their backs, some said they hit them three or four times, and some said they hit them five or six times. The differences in these details cannot change the basic fact that the suspect hit someone with a stick, and these differences in details precisely indicate that several witnesses truthfully stated and recorded in the transcript. If the testimony of a witness is not inferior at all, it is worthy of suspicion. However, lawyers who focus on these unimportant details, no matter how seriously they try to plead not guilty, will ultimately be in vain.

At this point, some people may question, because I have been a prosecutor before, so my thinking habits determine that I will make the parties confess. But last year, it was precisely because of my defense of innocence that two cases ultimately achieved good results. One is a case of job embezzlement, where the suspect is a company salesperson. The company gave him a sum of money to give to the salesperson of a cooperative unit, but he secretly withheld a small portion. Later, he was reported by the company for embezzlement of his position, and the salesperson of the cooperating unit did not admit to taking the money. The suspect gave cash at that time, but there was no evidence to prove that the other party received it, so the public security determined that he had withheld all the money. The suspect feels that there is no evidence to prove himself and wants to plead guilty and receive a lighter punishment. I insist that he speak the truth and confess his guilt without being wronged. The reason is that the fact that the suspect gave money to the other party is a reasonable suspicion for the prosecution's evidence system. If it cannot be ruled out, the suspect cannot be convicted. Later, the prosecutor's office made a decision not to prosecute the case due to doubts. Another case is rape, where the suspect and victim have a relationship with the boss and former secretary. Based on the suspect's confession, the time and location of the crime, the behavior of the two individuals before and after the incident, and the surveillance footage near the scene, I concluded that this was not rape. At that time, other lawyers also said that as long as the victim bites to death in the crime of rape, there is nothing they can do. They suggested reconciling with the victim and seeking forgiveness. And my attitude is not to confess, not to apologize, and not to reconcile. During the arrest review stage, the prosecutor's office carefully examined and deemed that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, and therefore did not approve the arrest. So it's not that I have been a prosecutor before and hope that the parties will plead guilty, but rather that I have a better understanding of which cases should be pleaded guilty and which ones can be denied. Whether confessing or not, it is for the best interests of the parties involved.

What if the party insists on not admitting guilt?

Defense lawyers have a duty of loyalty to their clients, but also have the right to independent defense. Lawyers have full discretion when facing clients who insist on not admitting guilt. After fully explaining the consequences and interests to the parties involved, if the parties still insist on a not guilty defense, the lawyer can cooperate and try at the risk of a heavy sentence. Especially for some suspects who know that not pleading guilty will face heavy punishment, but still choose not to plead guilty for some consideration, if the lawyer agrees with their wishes or difficulties, they can also cooperate to make a plea of not guilty. If there is a significant difference of opinion between the two parties, they may refuse to defend themselves. In terms of terminating the commission, lawyers are still free compared to prosecutors. The prosecutor bears the responsibility of charging a crime, and even if they personally believe that the defendant is innocent, they should not hesitate to charge in court.

So what I want to say in the end is that a truly serious and responsible lawyer, with the mission of maximizing the interests of their clients, provides objective professional advice to them, rather than blindly cooperating with their wishes or performing on their own.