2. How to better play the role of duty lawyers. The duty lawyer system is an important support for the leniency system and expedited adjudication procedures for guilty pleas and punishments. It should provide convenience for duty lawyers to perform their duties and ensure the voluntariness and authenticity of criminal suspects and defendants' pleas and punishments. Regarding the positioning of duty lawyers, that is, whether the duties performed by duty lawyers are defense duties and whether they have the status of defenders, there have been discussions during the pilot process and the revision process of the Criminal Procedure Law. In the revised draft originally submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for review, the duties of duty lawyers were focused on defense, but the final text will be revised to legal aid.
About the duty lawyer’s right to visit and examine the case. I personally believe that this issue has been partially addressed in the revised decision. After the Criminal Procedure Law is revised, the three organs of public security, prosecution and law should inform criminal suspects and defendants of their right to meet with duty lawyers and provide convenience for the assignment of duty lawyers. This can be considered as a reverse provision of the right to meet; in addition, relevant regulations stipulate that, When the People's Procuratorate examines and prosecutes guilty plea and punishment cases, it should listen to the opinions of the duty lawyer and provide necessary convenience for the duty lawyer to understand the case. Can this be understood to mean that the People's Procuratorate should protect the duty lawyer's review requirements? The author does not think it is appropriate whether the duty lawyer can be converted into a client lawyer, otherwise there will be a risk of conflict of interest.
Third, reform of the leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment, speedy adjudication procedures and trial-centered litigation system. The reform of the litigation system centered on trial can be said to be the most significant reform in the field of criminal litigation in recent years. In a sense, the quick trial of simple cases serves the intensive trial of complex cases. We look forward to further paying attention to and promoting the reform of the trial-centered litigation system, and promptly passing legislation to fix the reform results, especially to provide legal support for deepening the reform and implementing the reform requirements. What needs to be emphasized is that in cases of leniency and speedy sentencing, although the procedures are simplified, the standard of proof has not changed. This is a major difference from foreign leniency cases; although the sentencing recommendations of the prosecutor's office should generally be adopted , but the final decision on sentencing still lies with the court, and the responsibility for ensuring fairness in sentencing still lies with the court. Therefore, in cases of leniency for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment and cases of expedited adjudication, great attention must still be paid to the court hearing, especially the final review of the trial. Especially the role of the referee in the final trial.