The key to exercising the right of marking lies in the scope of marking. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law 1996, the scope of marking in the stage of examination and prosecution is the litigation documents and technical appraisal materials of this case, while the scope of marking in the stage of trial is the criminal facts of this case. Among them, according to the relevant provisions of the the Supreme People's Procuratorate Rules, litigation documents include procedural documents made for filing a case, taking compulsory measures and investigation measures, and submitting for examination and prosecution, such as decision of filing a case, detention warrant, decision of approving arrest, decision of arrest, arrest warrant, search warrant and prosecution opinion. Technical appraisal materials, including forensic appraisal, forensic psychiatric appraisal, material evidence technical appraisal and other documents that record the appraisal situation and appraisal conclusion, are formed by the appraisal of people, articles and other relevant evidence materials by qualified personnel. In addition, the Supreme People's Court's explanation excluded the discussion records of the judicial committee and the collegial panel and clues about other cases from the scope of marking.
In 2007, the Lawyers Law stipulated that the scope of defense lawyers' marking in the stage of examination and prosecution was "litigation documents and files related to this case", and the scope of marking in court was "all materials related to this case". 20 12 "criminal procedure law" expands the scope of marking by defenders in the stage of examination and prosecution to "case file materials", while the scope of marking in the trial stage remains unchanged. After the formal implementation of the 20 12 Criminal Procedure Law, since the rank of the criminal procedure law is higher than that of the lawyer law, the provisions of the 20 12 Criminal Procedure Law should apply to the conflict of the scope of marking in the trial stage, that is, the scope of marking in the trial stage is limited to the criminal facts accused in this case. The restrictions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate regulations on litigation documents and technical appraisal materials conflict with the Criminal Procedure Law 20 12 and should be invalid. The restrictions on case files in the Supreme People's Court's interpretation can continue to apply.