One case is a case of negligent injury. Some punks went to blackmail my client's brother. He was soft-hearted and unwilling to give in. If the gangster fails to extort money, he will draw a sword and threaten. When the client's brother resisted, he stabbed one of the gangsters. When the police station was looking for the client's younger brother to take notes, it was estimated that the client's younger brother was nervous and said something against him. When the client came to me, he said, "We need a lawyer. How can we change our confession? "
As soon as I heard it, I knew that the customer was in a hurry. Understandably, if this happens, as a relative, he will certainly not be as calm as a lawyer. I told him that lawyers cannot encourage clients to change their confessions, and they have no right to go to the police station to change their confessions. However, you can objectively state the situation to the public security organs in future transcripts. If there are several people on the other side, how did they talk to your brother when they came, how did they threaten your brother, and did they bring a murder weapon? If you brought the murder weapon, did you take it in your hand or hide it in your pocket? How did your brother refuse them? Under what circumstances did they draw their swords? How did your brother resist? How many of them beat your brother? Did your brother rob the other person's knife and stab him, or stabbed him with another knife?
The seemingly simple questions actually contain the following meanings: the other party brought the murder weapon with the help of the crowd, and the purpose was very clear. Under the threat of many of them, our customers stood up to defend their legitimate rights and interests. Stabbed each other unconsciously when resisting.
The client is very clever and can understand at once. I left happily. Soon after, he asked me to represent the case. When I read the newspaper, I found that both the parties and the on-site personnel said what I meant when they took notes. After the public security organ handed over the file to the procuratorate, the procuratorate refused to prosecute on the grounds that the case did not constitute a crime.
The second case is suspected of fund-raising fraud. During the investigation stage, I met several times dutifully. The suspect's sister (that is, the client who entrusted me) was very moved. In the stage of examination and prosecution, continue to entrust me as an agent. She hopes to finish reading the paper (including her sister's confession) and meet at the stage of examination and prosecution.
In the stage of examination and prosecution, you can see the confession transcripts of criminal suspects, but the Guangzhou Procuratorate just won't let lawyers read them. I have raised objections to several lawyers. The Guangzhou Procuratorate only gave us the information about Volume A (including prosecution opinions, detention and arrest notices, etc. ), also refused to let us about B volume (that is, the suspect's confession record). The client looks lost.
What is even more depressing is the meeting. It turned out that the suspect was detained in the detention center and the lawyer could meet at any time. However, due to the suspect's poor health, he was sent to the Armed Police Hospital for treatment. The Armed Police Hospital stipulates that the meeting must be accompanied by people from the case-handling unit, which obviously does not conform to the provisions of the Lawyers Law. I argued with several lawyers, and the Armed Police Hospital just said: That's what we stipulated. Several of our lawyers went to the procuratorate, and the procuratorate said: The regulations of the Armed Police Hospital are illegal. Go directly. You can also find the administrator. When looking for a detention center, the detention center said: we are not a case-handling unit, we are only responsible for detaining criminal suspects. If we are asked to send someone, the procedure is illegal.
In this way, the meeting turned into kicking a ball. I explained it to the client, but the client was still very dissatisfied and thought that the lawyer's work was not in place.
After the review and prosecution, I frankly told the parties: I met four times during the review and prosecution stage. Although I couldn't meet because of the regulations of the Armed Police Hospital, I did my duty. I can't meet because of the temporary regulations of the judiciary. If you are not satisfied, you can entrust a lawyer at the trial stage.
The client was noncommittal and later asked me to be a defense lawyer at the trial stage. She said to me later: You are right. It's not that lawyers don't try their best, but the system. This is beyond the ability of lawyers. I found a lot of lawyers, and I promised very well at first, but I didn't succeed later.
The enlightenment of these two cases is: when communicating with the parties, don't talk empty words and talk big, and don't be led by the thinking of the parties. It is necessary to guide the parties to say and do appropriate things within the scope of the law.