At present, in the practice of criminal trial, the common debate practice in the debate stage is: after the court investigation stage is over, the prosecutor first puts forward debate opinions on the facts, evidence and legal application in the court investigation, and then the defender puts forward corresponding defense opinions on the public prosecutor's debate opinions. then what The prosecutor will make another argument. It goes without saying that this argument is an important response to the lawyer's first defense opinion. Generally speaking, for a criminal case with clear criminal facts, sufficient evidence and little controversy, if the defense lawyer does not actively exercise the right of reciprocal debate after the public prosecutor's second debate, the presiding judge will not ask the defender to make a positive response to the public prosecutor's second debate. Then, after the defendant made his final statement, the trial ended.
However, in criminal proceedings, major, complex and difficult criminal cases emerge one after another and abound. As a professional criminal defense lawyer, such cases will often be encountered. In such a criminal case, after accepting the entrustment of the close relatives of the parties, criminal defense lawyers should go all out to provide all-round legal services to the parties with professional skills and professionalism, regardless of the stage of the case, in order to safeguard the litigation rights and other legitimate rights and interests of the parties. As we all know, according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, lawyers' defense can be divided into pre-trial defense (investigation and prosecution) and trial defense, and trial defense can be divided into questioning, cross-examination and debate. Limited by space, the author only wants to start the second round of the trial debate, and does not mention anything else. Then, as a criminal defense lawyer, especially a professional criminal defense lawyer, how can we shine in the second round of court debate and finally achieve the effect of surprise? The author believes that the following points need to be grasped:
First, we must attach great importance to the second round of debate. This is because, after the first round of debate, the public prosecutor will immediately start the second round of defense speech. In this case, because the prosecution and the defense have basically understood each other's offensive and defensive ideas and debate points after the first round of confrontation, even so, they still seem to have a little pressure in the face of the upcoming second round of debate. Because, after the first round of debate, if you are not prepared in advance, have a weak legal foundation and are inexperienced, you have almost finished what you should say and your meaning has been put in place. The most terrible thing is that you don't know what "cards" the prosecution will play in the second round. Will it catch you off guard? Moreover, this _ "card" needs to be answered immediately after it is played. As a defender, his image will be greatly reduced. As the saying goes; "Everything is established in advance, and if it is not planned, it will be abolished." The author believes that as a defense lawyer, we must be prepared and prepared before the trial, so that we can change with the same. Specifically, we should first thoroughly understand the case, be familiar with some important theories and judicial precedents related to the case, and not be tongue-tied at important moments. We know that the final test of the second debate in the trial is whether the defense lawyer has a solid theoretical foundation (entity, procedure and evidence) and practical ability to improvise. Without these two abilities, the defense lawyer is likely to be defeated, and his defense opinion may not be adopted by the judge.
Second, the speech should be concise and to the point. The author believes that in the second round of debate, defense lawyers should have a good ability to summarize, summarize and enhance. In other words, the words and meanings expressed in the first debate will not be repeated in the second debate, but should be brand-new and refined, and these things mainly include supplementing facts and clarifying legal disputes. Otherwise, it seems that lawyers are passionate and drooling, but they may not attract the attention of judges. The judge may not listen at all. Since he didn't even listen, how could the lawyer's defense opinion be adopted by the court?
Third, avoid its sharpness and take what it needs. We know that the word "debate" in court debate means "no" to a certain extent; The word "on" in the debate is the meaning of argument. That is to say, in the face of the public prosecutor's accusation, the defender should totally or partially deny or disapprove the accusation facts of the public prosecution agency, and support his argument according to certain facts, evidence and laws. However, the author believes that in the process of court debate, especially in the second round of debate, criminal defense lawyers should adopt the defense strategy of "avoiding their sharp edges and getting what they need". In short, there is no need for defense lawyers to respond to the arguments and gist of the public prosecutor one by one, so as not to fall into a passive situation, not only to refute, but also to "stand in line." In other words, you should be brave in arguing, and then prove yourself with facts, evidence and laws, so as to overturn the main points of the prosecution's allegations.
Fourth, the language should be filled, the quotation should be objective and the viewpoint should be accurate. In the court trial, the defender's purpose is to show his defense opinions to the court, so that the judge can fully listen to his defense opinions and finally adopt them. At the same time, in order to save trial time and improve trial efficiency, criminal defense lawyers should avoid sophistry and sophistry in court debates, especially in the second round of debates, and should use eloquent eloquence, well-founded defense materials, supplemented by certain expression skills to infect and convince judges.
Generally speaking, the general method of court debate is to affirm correctness and point out mistakes. In order to do a good job in court debate, in addition to full preparation, careful listening and timely recording are also indispensable.