Court debate skill is an indispensable comprehensive art in court debate, and it is an organic unity of science, artistry and legitimacy. Mast
Court debate skill is an indispensable comprehensive art in court debate, and it is an organic unity of science, artistry and legitimacy. Mastering the necessary methods and skills is a basic skill of prosecutors, which plays a very important role in accurately identifying and handling cases and successfully prosecuting. Here I will sort out the skills and strategies of court debate for you, hoping to help you.
Court debating skills refer to the overall planning and implementation methods, means and strategies made by the parties and their agents in court proceedings, based on facts and laws, in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests and achieve the expected goals or effects. For the lawyer industry, it is also called "the art of court debate".
First, basic skills and operational skills
People's thinking can only influence others through expression. The quality of expression depends on the content of expression, but the skill of expression is also the key to success. A competent lawyer should not only have good writing organization ability, but also have accurate, concise, clear and vivid language expression ability.
1, writing skills
It is a basic work that every lawyer must do before the trial to synthesize the case, straighten out the debate ideas and write the agency and defense well. The organization of materials must be: first, choose words carefully and use words accurately; Second, the distribution of statements, rational layout; Third, the chapters are connected and interlocked; Fourth, the structure is rigorous and clear; Fifth, the key points are prominent and the details are appropriate.
2. Language expression skills
From beginning to end, every successful lawyer has the ability to control and dominate the debate situation when arguing and representing in court. The reform of the trial system provides a broad space for every lawyer to play this ability. In the trial debate, lawyers should do:
First, take off the manuscript and be good at saying the preface. In this respect, when designing tone and choosing words, we must achieve the following effects: ① immediately seize the attention of the audience; (2) convey the seriousness of the case or show sincerity to the case; (3) Show confidence in the case.
Second, control the speed of speech and enunciate clearly. With good debate content, you need good expression. Lawyers should speak clearly, pronounce accurately, have a harmonious tone and speak at a moderate speed when arguing in court. Strive to achieve intonation cadence in order to improve the infectious effect of the debate.
Third, be good at reasoning. Words can hurt or touch people. It's immoral for lawyers to hurt people with debating language. However, it is advisable for lawyers to use emotional language in debates. When using this kind of language emotion, we must pay attention to the following problems: ① The debate language of specific cases should be rich and colorful, with a tone suitable for the case. (2) Never with the emotional color of the parties. The emotion operated by lawyers is the debate emotion and legal language processed by rational language. Emotional words should be neutral language, expressive but not revealing, releasing but not vertical, euphemistic, tortuous and implicit.
3, image skills
Besides writing and language skills, lawyers should also have good body language skills. The integration of sound and silence, language and posture can better reflect the lawyer's exquisite expression ability.
First, there is rigidity in softness and generosity in manners. Lawyers should be elegant and brave, and be neither supercilious nor supercilious in court debates. When the debate is in full swing, don't get carried away and despise each other; When you lose, don't panic, don't worry. You must weigh what you say, and you must not rashly say anything that is unprepared and unqualified. In any case, you should be generous, calm and orderly, and there should be evidence in your words. Lawyers should have this image of combining rigidity with softness, using static braking and winning steadily.
Second, be good at controlling emotions. This often happens in court debates. Lawyers may encounter unexpected or expected abnormal obstacles, interference, difficulties, etc. In the trial. This requires lawyers to control their emotions, not to fly into a rage, not to show their emotions in shock, and to take effective measures immediately to calm down, stabilize and eliminate accidents, so as to be flexible and win in stability.
Third, pay attention to distinguish between the first round of debate and the subsequent second and third rounds of debate. The first round of debate can be prepared in advance, and the subsequent rounds of debate can be improvised according to the court debate, and the last round of views of the other party can be refuted in a targeted manner, but the views that they have fully expounded cannot be blindly repeated.
Second, the strategy and specific application
1, avoid reality and be empty.
In the trial debate, the weakness of the other party is often the place that the other party tries to avoid, and even the other party will try to divert his attention and disturb his audio-visual purpose by changing the topic, changing the concept and answering irrelevant questions. Therefore, to apply this method, we must first be good at grasping each other's "emptiness" and choose its weak links to attack repeatedly until the issue is clearly debated.
2. Negative questioning methods
Lawyers should hide the purpose of the debate when asking questions, and never let the other side know the real intention of asking questions. Especially the first question, you must let the other person answer it before you know the intention of asking questions. As long as you answer the first question, you can't help but answer the next one. When the other person finds it difficult to justify himself, it is too late to regret it. This tactic of letting the other side be passive everywhere and hitting their own mouths is an extremely effective means of debate. The result can only be that the other party unconsciously accepts the views of lawyers or questioners and wins by surprise.
3. Preemptive method
Under this legal system, one side of the court debate avoids talking about the questions that the other side may raise, while the questions that are extremely beneficial to itself are fully displayed in the debate speech first, so as to achieve preconceptions and strive for positive court defense tactics. In practice, the application of this method must be fully prepared before the trial, and the facts and evidence that are beneficial to one's own side should be identified one by one in the investigation stage of the trial. Then, according to the facts and evidence, take the initiative to refute the other party's incorrect views, so as to take the initiative in the debate, occupy the commanding heights and push the other party into a passive position.
4. Indirect negation method
It means that you don't directly point the finger at the other party in the debate, but casually put aside your opponent's wrong views in the debate, seriously put forward your own unique views from the front and fully demonstrate them. There are two points to note when applying this method: 1. One side's view should be inconsistent with the other's. 2. Self-views should be well-founded and must not be far-fetched and grandstanding.
Step 5 retreat for progress
It is the application of reduction to absurdity of formal logic in court debate. The ego first assumes that the proposition or viewpoint put forward by the other party is true, and then deduces one or a series of absurd conclusions from the proposition with this assumption as true, thus obtaining the argument method that the original topic is false. This method is a highly arguable and refutable court debate method, so the inevitable conclusion derived from it is easy to be accepted, thus achieving better debate effect.
6. Back-space method
Pre-emptive strike can produce advantages; Post-production can turn passive into active. Because of its backwardness, we can know each other's basic views, find contradictions and weaknesses, and then refute them with our own materials, which sometimes leads to the other side being caught off guard and full of danger. When using it, you should master: first, avoid the spirit temporarily, and don't rush to fight; Second, listen carefully and wait for the opportunity; Third, seize the flaw and fight back with all your strength.
Third, make the best use of the final debate.
Time for trial debate is very precious. When the mutual debate is coming to an end, lawyers, as one side of the debate, must have the ability to control the outcome. The usual practice is:
1, request. When the other party has been influenced by the debate in the whole process, it is easy for the other party to accept it and get the court's approval, thus promoting the case reconciliation between the two parties.
Step 2 ask questions. At the end of the question, we will further deepen the theme of our debate and let the judges identify and think.
3. Summarize the theme. It is easy for the judges to deepen their impression of their arguments by summarizing all the contents of their debates into a few sentences in a concise and clear tone.
Of course, in the final stage of the court debate, if the other party is found to be entangled and refuses to accept the debt, lawyers, as defenders, should also master the skills of rejecting tasteless arguments. The so-called rejection of tasteless debate, one is not to repeat; Second, when the other party insists on some minor issues that do not hinder the handling of the case, it should adopt the way of "no debate on this issue" or "the speech is over here". This silence is not only a great shock at a certain time and in court, but also comes to an abrupt end in debating skills. It sounds like a step back, but in essence it is two steps forward. The skill of trial debate is not only the art of door-to-door debate, but also one of the basic skills for lawyers to participate in litigation activities. People expect to hire a smart lawyer as their agent in litigation activities, and lawyers' debating skills should be an important manifestation of their intelligence.
Detailed introduction of court debate
The trial process is a litigation process in which the collegial panel listens to opinions from all sides, verifies evidence, finds out the case and makes a correct judgment. In this process, investigation and debate cannot be completely separated. For example, in the court investigation stage, after the public prosecutor reads out the indictment, the defendant and the victim can make statements about the crimes alleged in the indictment, and at the same time, the public prosecutor, the victim, the plaintiff in the incidental civil action, the defender and the litigation agent can ask the defendant questions; After the witness provides testimony and the appraiser provides the appraisal conclusion, the public prosecutor, the parties, the defender and the agent ad litem may ask questions to the witness and the appraiser, and the public prosecutor, the parties, the defender and the agent ad litem may express their opinions on the documents such as the testimony record, the appraisal conclusion and the inspection record as evidence; As for the physical evidence presented in court, it is only possible to start a debate if the parties identify and express their opinions.
In a sense, debate is a way of investigation, which can not be completely separated, otherwise it will easily make the court debate a mere formality. Therefore, the court debate is that during the court trial, the public prosecutor, the victim or his agent ad litem, the defendant and the defender express their opinions on the evidence and the case, and debate with each other. On the basis of the court investigation and the parties' full expression of opinions, the whole criminal facts, circumstances and the probative force of each evidence are debated. When a public prosecutor, a party, a defender or an agent ad litem requests to express their opinions on the debate, they shall apply and speak only with the consent of the presiding judge. In the trial, both sides have equal opportunities for debate. Before the end of the court debate, the presiding judge shall ask the parties whether they have new opinions. After the parties indicate that they have no new opinions, the presiding judge shall declare the debate closed. After the presiding judge announces the end of the debate, the defendant has the right to make a final statement. If the evidence is found in doubt during the debate, the collegial panel may announce an adjournment and decide to postpone the trial to investigate and verify the evidence.