the following answers are for reference!
although the criminal procedure law stipulates that lawyers can intervene in the proceedings from the date when the case is transferred for examination and prosecution, few lawyers have intervened in the examination and prosecution cases since that date, except for cases in which lawyers provide legal assistance to criminal suspects at the investigation stage, because it takes a certain time to entrust lawyers and lawyers to submit entrustment procedures.
In most cases, the attorney submits the entrustment procedures to the prosecutor only after the prosecutor has reviewed a lot of investigation materials. After the lawyer intervened in the examination and prosecution procedure, after consulting the litigation documents and technical appraisal materials and meeting the criminal suspects, he intermittently presented some opinions and evidence materials on the case to the prosecutor. Prior to this, the prosecutor may have established the conviction that the suspect is guilty and guilty on the basis of a large number of investigation materials. In this case, it is very difficult for the lawyer's opinions and evidence materials to be recognized and adopted by the prosecutor. This natural difference between investigators and lawyers puts lawyers at an extremely unfavorable position in the stage of examination and prosecution. If lawyers do not pay attention to timely intervention and delay the opportunity after accepting the entrustment, their role in the review and prosecution stage will be more limited. Therefore, after accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer should intervene as quickly as possible and carry out all available work as soon as possible, submit his own opinions and evidence materials to the prosecutor in the shortest time, and eliminate the prejudice brought by the prosecutor's possible preconceptions as much as possible.
in which cases have the prosecutors found out the facts and evidence? What are the questions? What facts do you expect more evidence to prove? These are very important for lawyers to put forward and how to put forward their own opinions and materials. Strengthening communication with prosecutors is an effective way to understand prosecutors' views on these issues.
lawyers should communicate with prosecutors in time after submitting their opinions and evidence materials to them. In communication, lawyers can speculate and judge whether their opinions and evidence materials have attracted the attention of prosecutors, whether they have been recognized by prosecutors, and whether prosecutors have doubts about the facts and evidence transferred by investigators.
In communication with prosecutors, lawyers should pay attention to the way. Prosecutors are generally willing to communicate with lawyers in cases involving the application of the law and the determination of major facts, such as whether the suspect's alleged crime, whether the suspect's behavior constitutes a crime, and whether the suspect has a lighter or mitigated punishment. On these issues, lawyers may wish to form a systematic idea and design the key points that need to be communicated according to the specific circumstances of the case. And how much evidence did the investigators provide? Prosecutors generally avoid the content and probative effect of each piece of evidence and are unwilling to communicate with lawyers. Lawyers should adopt a flexible way to speculate and judge whether the evidence provided by investigators is true and sufficient where prosecutors are unwilling to communicate their opinions on evidence. For example, a lawyer can know what the prosecutor will focus on when interrogating a criminal suspect by meeting with him. Lawyers can also judge whether investigators have investigated the evidence by applying to prosecutors for investigation and evidence collection. Through flexible ways, it is possible for lawyers to gain in-depth communication with prosecutors on evidence.